Who Holds the Keys? (Pope
or Prophet)
Closing Statement
By Barry Bickmore - Representing the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'
position on the "Restored Gospel".
Introduction
As I look back on the course
this debate has taken, I am happy with the results. I feel that both of
us have made reasonably good cases for our respective points of view, and
we have managed to disagree without being disagreeable. It seems to me
that Steve and I have offered only what we saw as legitimate arguments,
without resorting to the type of cheap potshots that sometimes show up
in such religious debates. I leave this arena counting Steve as one of
my friends, and if nothing else, I hope those who read this debate will
come off understanding their neighbors a little better.
Of course, I believe the LDS viewpoint
has the stronger support, and if I were following a typical debate strategy,
at this point I would tie up a few loose ends, unilaterally declare victory,
and give an impassioned plea for our readers to follow the dictates of
reason and logic. I fully intend to summarize my major points and rebut
a few of Steve's last arguments, but after that I intend to go off the
beaten path. I say this because I don't believe anyone should make an important
decision such as one's choice of religions based solely on a debate such
as this. I don't intend to declare victory, but rather I will point readers
to a source from which they can derive certainty. God Himself is that source,
and my hope is that everyone will take this invitation to gain wisdom and
knowledge directly from the Source of all Truth.
Rebuttals
The Gates of Hades . . . Again
Steve revisits the issue of Jesus'
reference to the "gates of Hades" in an attempt to salvage his argument
that Matthew 16:18 was a promise that the earthly Church would never fall
into apostasy. However, his explanation of the New Testament usage of the
word "Hades" is extremely confused. To clarify the matter, I'll quote the
entry on "Hell" in the Oxford Companion to the Bible:
"Both Sheol and Hades refer to
a general dwelling place of souls after death (Gen. 37:35; Acts 2:27) .
. . . Postexilic Judaism reserved a particular section of hell for the
punishment of sinners (emphasized in 1 Enoch 22:10-11). In the New Testament,
the synoptic Gospels and James in twelve places name this place of pain
Gehenna (Matt. 5:22; James 3:6). Among the New Testament examples of Hades,
there are three in which punishment is the point, so that Hades corresponds
to Gehenna (Matt. 11:23; Luke 10:15; 16:23). In the other passages where
Hades occurs, however, it is used in the neutral sense of a space where
all dead are kept (Matt. 16:18; Acts 2:27, 31; Rev. 1:18; 6:8; 20:13, 14;
also the variant reading in 1 Cor. 15:55 [cf. Hos. 13:14])." 1
There you have it. "Hades" is the
dwelling place of all souls after death, although in a very few instances
the generic term "Hades" is used to designate the particular portion of
Hades reserved for the wicked. Although his exegesis is extremely confusing,
Steve seems to understand this point, but still tries to maintain that
Jesus was referring to the survival of His earthly Church! Certainly it
is preferable (as I twice quoted Catholic apologist and scholar Michael
M. Winter admitting) to interpret Jesus' statement as a promise to save
His assembly of believers - His ekklesia - from the powers of evil and
death.
However, most Catholic apologists
just can't let go of this, their best piece of ammunition. For instance,
consider the lengths to which the authors of Jesus, Peter & the Keys
are willing to go to put such a promise of survival in Jesus' mouth. First,
they admit the correct interpretation of "Hades":
"In this context hell, transliterated
as 'hades' from the Greek, or 'sheol' from the Hebrew, means the place
of the dead. Gates of Hades would mean that which prevents escape from
death but the gates of death are helpless against those with eternal life.
Hell as a place of punishment... is a poor translation of Matthew 16:18,
according to some scholars."
But then they go on to say that "another
interpretation of the gates of hell is contained in the following vivid
description of the battle between Church and the Anti-Church . . . ." The
authors then quote one William Hendricksen promulgating the standard interpretation
- "Satan and his legions as it were storming out of hell's gates in order
to attack and destroy the church." And then the grand finale:
"Viewed another way, combining
the two concepts above, one may portray the Church as a fortress keep in
which those seeking eternal life from the believers holding onto the fortress.
Were the walls of the Church to be breached, Satan would wreak havoc and
death among the erstwhile believers. It is safe in the Church, the Body
of Christ. Jesus promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against
the Church." 2
"Combining the two concepts above"?!
Hades is either the realm of "Satan and his legions" or it isn't - and
it isn't, as we have already seen. Similarly, Steve quotes Matthew 16:18
and asks, "Did He mean, as Barry would have us believe, that the church
as an earthly organization can disappear and reappear periodically without
violating Our Lord's promise to protect it from the powers of death?" On
the contrary, my point was simply that Jesus could not have been addressing
the issue of the survival of the earthly Church in this passage at all.
Whether they believe other passages of scriptures support their belief
or not, Catholics ought to give this one up.
In addition, one final attempt by
Steve to squeeze a promise for the earthly survival of the Church out of
the New Testament ought to be addressed. Steve refers to Jude 1:3, where
some translations say that the gospel was given "once for all" to the saints.
I addressed this issue in the last round, but since it was in a footnote,
I'll quote my earlier comments here.
"Similarly, some translations
of Jude 3 speak of 'the faith once for all delivered to the saints', but
the word translated as 'once for all' is the Greek hapax, which can also
mean 'once.' Indeed, two verses later Jude writes, 'I will therefore put
you in remembrance, though ye once (hapax) knew this....' (Jude 1:5) Clearly
it is preferable to translate hapax as 'once' in this case, and thus it
is also clear that Jude was warning the saints to cling desperately to
the faith that had once been delivered to them, but which was already being
forgotten."
Apostles and Bishops . . . Again
Steve is still missing the point
on the issue of Apostles and bishops. I have no quarrel with his contention
that the Apostles passed on priesthood authority to the bishops. The question
at hand is whether that authority was to continue indefinitely, and whether
Apostles are always meant to be at the head of the earthly Church. Steve
asserts again that the writings of the early Fathers "do not give any indication
that the Apostles were going about the business of shutting down the Church
. . .," but then Steve has never dealt with the evidence I presented from
Hermas (early second century) and Ignatius (ca. 110 A.D.). Similarly, he
has never dealt with the evidence I presented from the scriptures, such
as Paul's assertion that after the apostasy the son of perdition would
be "revealed" and would sit "in the temple of God, shewing himself that
he is God." (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3) Finally, Steve has never dealt with
Paul's assertion that Apostles and prophets are meant to be a part of the
earthly Church indefinitely. (Ephesians 4:11-14) If Steve has alternate
interpretations of these passages, he ought to advance them instead of
claiming they don't exist.
Steve at least presents evidence
from Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, and Tertullian for his contention that
the bishops were the successors of the Apostles. However, as I have already
pointed out, Clement (ca. 96 A.D.) never said anything about the relationship
between bishops and Apostles, except that the bishops had been appointed
by the Apostles, and he never claimed that the succession of episcopal
authority would never come to an end. Whereas Clement wrote before Latter-day
Saints believe the apostasy was complete, Irenaeus (ca. 180 A.D.) and Tertullian
(ca. 200 A.D.) wrote well after the deed had been done. Therefore, if their
particular branch of apostate Christianity had bishops, but no Apostles
and prophets, what were they supposed to say except to claim that their
bishops had inherited the Apostolic authority? Similarly, Protestants claim
they have a "priesthood of all believers," but that doesn't negate the
fact that ordination was always considered a necessity before the Reformation.
Peter And the Bishops of Rome . . .
Again
While attempting to show that
Peter was the first bishop of Rome, Steve really shoots himself in the
foot. His star witness is Eusebius (ca. 303 A.D.), who wrote that Peter
spent twenty-five years in Rome and was the first bishop of that city.
However, Steve also quotes Lactantius (ca. 316 A.D.), who wrote that Peter
came to Rome when Nero was already reigning and was executed along with
Paul at Nero's command. The problem is that Nero reigned from 54 to 68
A.D., so if Lactantius was correct, then Peter could not have spent twenty-five
years in Rome! It is clear that the traditions about Peter's stay in Rome
had been muddled by the fourth century, but which tradition was older?
Well, Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) noted that the Church of Rome in his time
claimed Clement had been personally ordained by Peter. "For this is the
manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the
church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John;
as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in
like manner by Peter."3 Therefore, if Peter was still
alive to ordain Clement, who was either the second or third bishop of Rome
(after Linus and perhaps Anencletus,) then Peter could not have been the
first "bishop" of Rome. Indeed, Tertullian's testimony is consistent with
the Apostolic Constitutions, which claim that Paul ordained the first bishop
of Rome - Linus. "Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the
first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second, ordained
by... Peter."4 This also seems consistent with Paul's
letter to the Romans, where Paul wrote, "Yea, so have I strived to preach
the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another
man's foundation . . . ." (Romans 15:20) If Peter had been in Rome when
Paul wrote his letter, would Paul have written this? Similarly, Paul saluted
a number of prominent Roman saints at the end of his letter (Romans 16:1-15),
but did not mention Peter. The conclusions we must inevitably draw from
this evidence are:
1) Peter was not the first "bishop"
of Rome, and indeed was not even the first Apostle to preach there.
2) Since the Apostles ordained at
least two bishops of Rome while they were still alive and residing in Rome,
Apostles must have been much more than glorified bishops.
3) Since the tradition of the Roman
Church recorded by Tertullian around the turn of the third century differs
markedly from that recorded by Eusebius in the fourth century, the Roman
Church must have doctored history in the interim to establish its authority.
The Seven Sacraments
To bolster his claim that the
Catholic Church has preserved the "deposit of faith," Steve provides evidence
from the scriptures and various early Church Fathers to show that the Roman
Church has preserved intact the proper forms of the sacraments of the Church.
He offers this challenge: "I invite members of the LDS church to make a
similar examination of their own sacraments to see how well they fit into
the Christian 'deposit of faith.'" Indeed, the Latter-day Saints have their
own versions of the same "seven sacraments," so in response to Steve's
challenge, I'll examine the question of whose version is closer to the
original.
Baptism
The central differences between
Catholic and LDS baptism are:
1) Catholics believe that baptism
removes the stain of "original sin" or "original guilt," necessitating
the baptism of infants, while Latter-day Saints believe that Christ has
already atoned for the "original guilt," and thus infants need not be baptized.
(Catholics do not use the term "original guilt," but I use it here to differentiate
between the act performed by Adam and the stain thought to be inherited
by the souls of Adam's posterity.)
2) Catholics baptize by immersion,
pouring, or sprinkling, while Latter-day Saints baptize only by immersion.
It is a common misconception that
Latter-day Saints "don't believe in 'original sin.'" Rather, we have a
different concept of the effects of "original sin." Our scriptures state
that "the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of
the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they
are whole from the foundation of the world." (Moses 6:54) Consistent with
our belief in the premortal existence of the soul, "Every spirit of man
was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall,
men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God." (D&C
93:38) However, because of Adam's transgression, we do inherit a "fallen
nature," which, for Latter-day Saints, is closely connected with the body,
and implies no stain upon the infant soul. Thus the prophet Nephi lamented,
"And why should I yield to sin, because of my flesh?" (2 Nephi 4:27) The
immortal soul is basically good and mortal life is a constant struggle
between the desires of the flesh and spirit. However, the spirit can be
marred and transformed as the desires of the flesh prevail, and indeed,
all human souls except that of Jesus have sustained the damage of personal
sin. In addition, the very environment of the fallen world and the temptations
of the Devil and his angels combine with the flesh in its war against the
soul. Bible-believing Christians have always believed in the fallen nature
of the world and the reality of the devil, but they do not agree with the
Latter-day Saints about the initial purity of the souls that come from
God.
Steve cites only Romans 5:12-21,
as well as Cyprian and Origen (both mid-third century,) to show that baptism
must remove the stain of original sin. However, it must be admitted that
Paul never said all men are guilty of "original sin." He only said that
"sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so
death spread to all men because all men sinned . . . ." (Romans 5:12 RSV,
emphasis mine) Our task, then, is to discover whether infants were thought
to be guilty of Adam's sin and thus require baptism, before the third century.
First, it is clear that the earliest
Christians did not believe the soul came tainted from God, and the "fallen
nature" was thought to create tension between the flesh and soul. For instance,
Paul wrote, "Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body
of death?" (Romans 7:24) Peter spoke of "fleshly lusts, which war against
the soul." (1 Peter 2:11)5 And little children were certainly
considered innocent by Jesus, who told his disciples to let the children
come to him, for "of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14) Many
of the early Fathers were even more explicit in their beliefs.
For example, the Epistle to Diognetus
(early second century) asserted that "The flesh hates the soul, and wars
against it . . . ."6 Clement of Alexandria (ca. 200 A.D.)
elaborated that "the contest, embracing all the varied exercises, is 'not
against flesh and blood,' but against the spiritual powers of inordinate
passions that work through the flesh."7 And the Clementine
Recognitions (third or fourth century, but based on a second-century source)
preached that the Christian must go about the business of "subjecting to
himself the desires of the flesh, and becoming lord of them . . . ."8
Barnabas (early second century) taught that the new birth heals the spirit
so that it can become as it was in childhood: "He hath made us after another
pattern, [it is His purpose] that we should possess the soul of children,
inasmuch as He has created us anew by His Spirit."9 Papias
(ca. 100 A.D.) wrote that the early Christians "called those who practised
a godly guilelessness, children . . . ."10 Finally, the
undeniably orthodox Pastor of Hermas (early second century) taught that
it is impossible for evil to originate in the heart of an infant: "And
they who believed . . . are as infant children, in whose hearts no evil
originates; . . . for all infants are honourable before God, and are the
first persons with Him."11 The Apologists of the second
century concurred in the belief that infant souls are held innocent before
God.12
Indeed, in St. Clement of Alexandria's
time the proponents of "original guilt" were not "orthodox" Christians,
but Gnostic heretics. Clement argued against the Gnostics:
"It is for them to tell us how
the newly born child could commit fornication or in what way the child
who has never done anything at all has fallen under Adam's curse. The only
thing left for them to say and still be consistent, I suppose, is that
birth is evil not just for the body but for the soul for which the body
exists." 13
Around the turn of the third century,
however, Tertullian began teaching that the souls of men are produced from
the souls of their parents, and therefore they inherit the stain of original
sin.14 Even so, Tertullian did not preach "original guilt,"
even though he approved of the practice of infant baptism. "The father
should not bear the iniquity of the son, nor the son the iniquity of the
father, but that every man should be chargeable with his own sin . . .
."15 Again, even Origen did not believe in "original
guilt," although he did believe the soul was tainted at birth, and he was
a proponent of infant baptism. "By these words it seems to be indicated
that every sinner kindles for himself the flame of his own fire, and is
not plunged into some fire which has been already kindled by another, or
was in existence before himself."16 With Cyprian, on
the other hand, both the tainted nature of the infant soul and "original
guilt" began to be taught in Catholicism.17 This doctrine
didn't become general for some time, however, and in the fourth century
St. Cyril of Jerusalem was still preaching the original dogma. "And learn
this also, that the soul, before it came into this world, had committed
no sin, but having come in sinless, we now sin of our free-will . . . ."18
Where did infant baptism come in?
The earliest reference to the practice of infant baptism was by Tertullian
(ca. A.D. 200).19 But although Tertullian gave witness
to this practice among Christians, he still insisted that it was preferable
to wait for baptism. "And so, according to the circumstances and disposition,
and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally,
however, in the case of little children."20 For centuries,
believer baptism appears to have been the norm, even though infant baptism
was practiced. For example, in the late fourth century St. Gregory of Nazianzus
argued that baptism should be delayed until a child is accountable for
his actions:
"For this is how the matter stands;
at that time they begin to be responsible for their lives, when reason
is matured, and they learn the mystery of life (for of sins of ignorance
owing to their tender years they have no account to give), and it is far
more profitable on all accounts to be fortified by the Font, because of
the sudden assaults of danger that befall us, stronger than our helpers."21
The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity
notes that the inscriptions from this early time period which mention infant
baptism place the date of baptism very close to the death of the children
in question, therefore, "The principal impetus for the rise and spread
of infant baptism may have been the desire that the child not depart life
without the safeguard of baptism."22 But this did not
necessarily imply that unbaptized infants would be damned. For instance,
in the fourth century an unimpeachably "orthodox" theologian such as St.
John Chrysostom could say that "We do baptize infants, although they are
not guilty of any sins."23
By the fifth century, however, Augustine
saw the very existence of infant baptism as proof of his doctrine of original
guilt. But although he claimed all the unbaptized would be damned, he generously
allowed that the damnation of unbaptized infants would be "the mildest
punishment of all . . . ."24 Consider the explanation
given in the online Catholic Encyclopedia, in the article on "Baptism."
"The fate of infants who die without
baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising
on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of
water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of
God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition,
and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original
sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the
happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of
the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to
him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of
Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is
found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull "Lætentur
Caeli" of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the
Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by
Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that
infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but
as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed."25
However, the preceeding was written
in 1913, and the transcriber has inserted the following note about the
current Catholic belief.
"On this subject, the 1992 Catechism
of the Catholic Church states: 'As regards children who have died without
Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does
in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires
that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which
caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allows
us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died
without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent
little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.'"
The fact is that there is no mention
of infant baptism in the Bible, and the evidence indicates the practice
grew from small beginnings, being rejected by the "orthodox" Christian
writers from the beginning. Catholics often point to Acts 16:15,
32-33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16, which speak of entire households being baptized.
The problem I see with this interpretation is that I have any number of
friends who have been LDS missionaries, and when we swap mission stories
we often speak of "entire families" being baptized. Does this mean
any infants in the family were baptized? Of course not, and no one
need mention that fact, since it is implicitly understood by all.
This being the case, these passages have no value whatsoever as evidence
for infant baptism as a New Testament practice.
As for the issue of sprinkling/pouring
vs. immersion, Steve quotes the Didache in support of the Catholic practice
of pouring. However, in this document pouring is only prescribed in cases
where it is impossible to find sufficient water for immersion. Certainly
the Didache might contain apostate elements in the LDS view, but I prefer
to think that in the desert communities such as that where the Didache
was written, this eventuality was sometimes faced, and had to be dealt
with somehow. Can Catholics claim that they pour only when they cannot
obtain enough water for immersion?
Confirmation
The only substantial difference
I see between Catholic and LDS confirmation rites is that Catholics anoint
the forehead of the baptized with oil, while Latter-day Saints do not.
In a recent essay on "Anointing in the New Testament," J. John has shown
that there is no solid evidence for baptismal anointing in New Testament
or in "orthodox" Christianity until Tertullian (ca. 200 A.D.) Indeed, the
first unambiguous evidence for baptismal anointing comes from the Gnostics.26
Communion and Matrimony
I discussed some significant
differences between the Catholic and LDS practice of Communion and Matrimony
in the last round, and provided evidence for the LDS viewpoint.
Confession and Ordination
I see no differences so significant
between Catholic and LDS Confession and Ordination that they need to be
treated here. However, I will note that Paul's instruction that bishops
and deacons should be the "husbands of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2, 12) seems
to preclude enforced celibacy among the clergy. (It might be objected that
these verses also seem to preclude polygamy as it was practiced in 19th
century Mormonism, but just as with the Latter-day Saints, the early Christians
believed that sometimes God allows polygamy, while sometimes He allows
only monogamy, according to His own purposes. See Jacob 2:30 and the footnoted
references for the cases of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Augustine.)
27
Anointing of the Sick
Both Latter-day Saints and Catholics
anoint the sick with oil. Therefore, I will simply note a couple aspects
of the historic Catholic rite which I feel are corruptions. For example,
John Chrysostom advocated using oil taken from church lamps and from martyrs'
shrines, while some others suggested the use of oil filtered through martyrs'
relics.28 Also, J. Halliburton notes that after the patristic
period, anointing of the sick became restricted to those who were deemed
incurably ill and needed a ritual preparation for purgatory.29
I believe this has changed since Vatican II.
Yes, Genuine Early Christian Doctrines
and Practices
Steve asserts that there is "absolutely
no credible evidence that unique LDS doctrines such as pre-mortal existence,
baptism for the dead, plural marriages, the plurality of gods, and the
notion that man may become a god of his own world, were ever taught by
the Church at any point after the time of Christ and prior to 1830 A.D."
One might get this impression from reading the carefully selected excerpts
from the early Fathers in Father Jurgens' The Faith of the Early Fathers,
but it most certainly is not the case. Let me cite a few examples.
Pre-Mortal Existence
Variations on the doctrine of
the pre-existence of the soul were quite common in the early centuries
of Christianity. This was very natural since Christianity was in many respects
a continuation of apocalyptic Judaism, in which various forms of the pre-existence
doctrine were fundamental. The Catholic Bible is most explicit on this
point. "As a child I was by nature well endowed, and a good soul fell to
my lot; or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body." (Wisdom of
Solomon 8:19-20 RSV) Indeed, even St. Augustine believed in a premortal
existence early in his career30, and the doctrine was
never condemned by a council until 543 A.D. 31
J.N.D. Kelly notes that Origen taught
"that the world of spiritual beings. . . , including human souls, pre-existed
from all eternity. . . ."32 Likewise, Peter, in the Jewish
Christian Clementine Recognitions, taught that man's "internal species
is older. . . ."33 Regarding the "internal species" of
man mentioned here, the Presbyterian translators of this passage declare
in the footnote: "That is, his soul, according to the doctrine of the pre-existence
of souls." R.G. Hammerton-Kelly, of the McCormick Theological Seminary
in Chicago, traces this doctrine back through the New Testament and into
Judaism. While the doctrine is not unambiguously taught in the New Testament,
Hammerton-Kelly shows that various New Testament writers simply assumed
it as background knowledge with their readers. For instance, in the case
of Paul:
"One is impressed by the ease
with which the idea of pre-existence is assumed as the background for certain
aspects of Paul's theology, especially for his doctrines of Christ and
the Church . . . . Although Paul would never have used the term 'pre-existence',
the concept which it describes is constitutive of his whole soteriological
scheme." 34
According to Paul's doctrine, individual
men and women had a concrete existence in the eternity before the creation.
Commenting on Paul's doctrine of foreordination as expounded in Romans
8:28-30, Hammerton-Kelly explains that the Greek verb for "foreknow" used
in the passage means "'to take note of', 'to fix regard upon' something,
preliminary to selecting it for some special purpose." But when did this
selection occur? "Most commentators believe that it took place in the eternal
counsels of God, before the creation of the world."35
Indeed, Paul wrote to Titus, "In hope of eternal life, which God, that
cannot lie, promised before the world began." (Titus 1:2) To whom did God
make His promises?
I could have cited many other examples,
but these should be sufficient to show that not only was the doctrine of
pre-mortal existence taught in the early Church, but it may well have been
the original Christian doctrine.
Baptism for the Dead
"Else what shall they do which
are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then
baptized for the dead?" (1 Corinthians 15:29) We may argue about whether
Paul approved of baptism in behalf of those who had not had the chance
to receive the Gospel or not (and it would seem odd if Paul here mentioned
some heretical practice in his argument for the resurrection without specifically
denouncing it,) but it is certain that it was practiced by some early Christians.
Commenting on this passage, the Oxford Companion to the Bible notes, "This
brief allusion indicates that within the early churches it was possible
to receive baptism in order to include in the body of Christ a friend or
relative who was already dead. Paul does not specifically condemn the practice
here, but it did not become an accepted part of Christian ritual."36
Was baptism for the dead a heretical practice that Paul neglected to condemn
or was it a genuine Christian practice lost through apostasy?
It is certain that some "heretical"
Christian groups, like the Marcionites and Cerinthians, continued the practice
for centuries.37 However, some early "orthodox" writers
seem to imply the practice, as well. For instance, the Pastor of Hermas
related that the Apostles baptized the righteous dead after preaching to
them in Hades:
"'They were obliged,' he answered,
'to ascend through water in order that they might be made alive; for, unless
they laid aside the deadness of their life, they could not in any other
way enter into the kingdom of God. Accordingly, those also who fell asleep
received the seal of the Son of God . . . . The seal, then, is the water:
they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive.'" 38
In a footnote to his translation
of this passage, Kirsopp Lake writes, "The idea that hearing the gospel
and baptism is necessary for the salvation of the righteous dead of pre-Christian
times is common . . . ."39 In a Jewish-Christian context
this would have had great significance with respect to baptism for the
dead in light of what J.R. Porter calls "the well-known [Jewish] idea of
the correspondence and the simultaneity of the earthly and heavenly ritual
. . . ."40 That is, if a Jewish text mentions a ritual
in the heavenly sphere, it is certain that an earthly counterpart was performed
on earth.
Be that as it may, the earliest texts
all insist that 1) the unbaptized dead could be saved, and 2) this had
to be done via some sort of water baptism. There was no mention of any
escape clauses to Jesus' mandate, like baptism of desire or blood, until
later. "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5, emphasis mine) Jesus' statement in
itself is the best argument for baptism for the dead.
Plurality of Gods
I find it ironic that Steve asserts
there is no evidence for the early Christian belief in a plurality of Gods,
when before he wrote it I had already posted quotes from St. Justin Martyr
stating that Jesus is a "second god" and that men can become gods. If,
as St. Irenaeus and many others taught, that "we have not been made gods
from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods,"41
it is clear that there is a plurality of Gods. Certainly there were differences
among early Christians about what those concepts meant, consistent with
their various concepts of the relationship between God and man. As I explained
before, in a Jewish Christian context, where God had a glorious human form
and men were intimately related to their creator, the concept of deification
would have been very like that of the Latter-day Saints. "Beloved, now
are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but
we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall
see him as he is." (1 John 3:2.)
As for the idea that the Trinity
consists of three separate Gods, who are nevertheless "one God" in harmony
of will, consider the following statements by Origen. Speaking of the Father
and Son he wrote, "We are not afraid to speak, in one sense of two Gods,
in another sense of one God."42 In what sense are they
"one"? "And these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences,
are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will."43
Indeed, J.N.D. Kelly writes that even as late as the Council of Nicea,
the majority of Christians still believed that "there are three divine
hypostases [persons], separate in rank and glory but united in harmony
of will." These used the creedal phrase, "of one substance," in a "generic"
sense meaning "the same kind of being."44 Therefore,
it would seem that Joseph Smith's solution to the problem of Biblical "monotheism"
is closer to that of the original Christians than the mainstream Trinity
doctrine (which nobody can really understand, anyway.)
Plural Marriage
Actually, I think there is some
(very tenuous) evidence that plural marriage was practiced among some early
Christians. However, rather than get into that, I'll simply explain that
the LDS doctrine has always been that sometimes God commands monogamy,
and sometimes plural marriage, according to His own purposes. For instance,
one Book of Mormon prophet condemned polygamy among the people of his own
time, since the Lord had forbidden it, but offered this caveat: "For if
I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command
my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." (Jacob 2:30)
Therefore, it is quite consistent with LDS doctrine that polygamy was allowed
among the prophets and patriarchs of the Old Testament, disallowed in the
New Testament, allowed in 19th century Mormonism, and disallowed in 20th
century Mormonism. Catholic readers should consider the reasoning of their
very own St. Augustine:
"Again, Jacob the son of Isaac
is charged with having committed a great crime because he had four wives.
But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality
of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because
it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against
custom, and sins against the laws. In which, then, of these senses did
Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the
women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children.
For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries.
And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being
a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it."45
The Book of Mormon and Mormon Doctrine
After pointing out all these
LDS doctrines which supposedly never showed up in Christianity until after
1830, Steve notes that many LDS doctrines aren't even found in the Book
of Mormon. I've never seen anyone show that the Book of Mormon teaches
anything contradictory to modern LDS doctrine (except by putting forward
dubious interpretations of the Book of Mormon, LDS doctrine, or both,)
but why wouldn't it have such important doctrines as baptism for the dead,
etc.? Why not ask the Book of Mormon why it doesn't contain every last
LDS doctrine? "And when they shall have received this, which is expedient
that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be
that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made
manifest unto them." (3 Nephi 26:10) One might as well ask why the Old
Testament doesn't contain everything that is in the New, or why James covers
different subject matter than Peter.
Total Apostasy Survivors?
Next Steve puts forward a rather
strange argument. He refers to the LDS belief that three of the Twelve
Nephite "Disciples" (they are never called "Apostles" in the Book of Mormon)
and John the Beloved never died, and argues that if four bona fide priesthood-holders
like these were still hanging around, the apostasy could not have been
"total." However, Latter-day Saints believe that these men were "translated,"
i.e. their bodies were changed to a higher state, preliminary to the resurrection,
and now "they are as the angels of God." (3 Nephi 28:30) If, as Joseph
Smith said, translated beings are "held in reserve to be ministering angels,"46
how could the fact that God left priesthood-holding angels on the earth
(who did not transmit their priesthood to others) have any bearing on the
question of whether the apostasy was "total"? Rather, this illustrates
the LDS belief in God's loving concern for His children even during periods
of apostasy.
As an aside, Steve appeals to the
Navarre Bible Commentary to confirm his view that Jesus' enigmatic statement
in John 21:21-23 was not a promise that John would not taste of death until
Jesus' Second Advent. The passage itself is ambiguous, although suggestive,
but a certain tradition reported by Hippolytus (ca. 200 A.D.) seems consistent
with the LDS view. "John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the
king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the
apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan's time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where
his remains were sought for, but could not be found."47
Indeed, the doctrine that some would be thus "translated" was reported
by both Papias (ca. 100 A.D.) and the Jewish Christian Clementine Recognitions.48
Where Do We Go From Here?
The Wisdom of the World
Through the course of this debate
both Steve and I have tried to make the best possible cases for our respective
points of view. A fair amount of information has been presented, which
I hope has been beneficial to the reader. However, there are always things
left out due to space considerations, non-omniscient debaters, and the
incalculable amount of information still waiting to be discovered. There
is always an element of uncertainty that we can't get rid of. Paul wrote:
"Scripture says, 'I will destroy
the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the cleverness of the clever.'
Where is your wise man now, your man of learning, or your subtle debater
-- limited, all of them, to this passing age? God has made the wisdom of
this world look foolish. As God in his wisdom ordained, the world failed
to find him by its wisdom, and he chose to save those who have faith by
the folly of the Gospel." (1 Corinthians 1:19-21 NEB)
The problem with "subtle debaters"
like Steve and me is that we present our arguments based on the "wisdom
of the world", which is "limited . . . to this passing age". For instance,
we can look to scientific disciplines like archaeology to confirm certain
aspects of sacred narratives like the Bible, but as noted archaeologist
William Dever writes, archaeology cannot "'prove' the Bible in any sense
-- either by demonstrating that the events . . . actually happened, much
less by validating the theological inferences that are drawn from these
events."49 The same can be said of the Book of Mormon.
A stunning array of archaeological, geographic, linguistic, textual, and
historical evidences can be marshaled to show that this book of scripture
is exactly what it claims to be, and that no 19th century man, least of
all the barely literate Joseph Smith, could have forged such a document.
(Since this sort of thing lies outside the scope of this debate, however,
I will simply footnote a few resources to get the interested student started.50)
But all of this can never be anything but tentative. Science cannot "prove"
God's purposes, because science never "proves" anything.
Follow the Holy Spirit
So what should the reader do
now? Maybe this debate has confirmed for the reader the position she started
with. Perhaps she has been swayed one way or the other. Alternatively,
certain arguments may have left lingering doubts. "A double minded man
is unstable in all his ways," says James (James 1:8), and I think we can
all agree that such a condition of doubt is antithetical to that faith
which is required of the Good Shepherd's sheep. How can you move beyond
doubt toward certainty? Paul explained:
"And my speech and my preaching
was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the
Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of
men, but in the power of God . . . . For what man knoweth the things of
a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God
knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God . . . . But the natural man receiveth
not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him:
neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
(1 Cor. 2:4-5, 11, 14)
"Strait is the gate, and narrow is
the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matt.
7:14) Only the Holy Spirit can lead us on the strait and narrow path, according
to Paul. I ask the reader, do you know you are on the right path? "And
hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given
us." (1 Jn. 3:24) Likewise, Paul wrote that Jesus Christ has "given us
the earnest [or 'guarantee'] of the Spirit in our hearts." (2 Cor. 1:22)
If the Holy Spirit has not told you so, you have no assurance of salvation.
Why wallow in self-doubt? "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God,
that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given
him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering." (James 1:5-6) You can
have faith, right now, that God will keep His promises and answer your
prayers.
Please consider taking on the challenge
given by the prophet Moroni at the end of the Book of Mormon, to read,
ponder, and pray about that book:
"Behold, I would exhort you that
when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should
read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto
the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time
that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when
ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God,
the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true;
and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith
in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the
Holy Ghost." (Moroni 10:3-4)
I promise you that it will not end
there. Joseph Smith preached:
"A person may profit by noticing
the first intimation of the spirit of revelation; for instance, when you
feel pure intelligence flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes
of ideas, so that by noticing it, you may find it fulfilled the same day
or soon; (i.e.) those things that were presented unto your minds by the
Spirit of God, will come to pass; and thus by learning the Spirit of God
and understanding it, you may grow into the principle of revelation, until
you become perfect in Christ Jesus." 51
If even one person accepts the invitation
to seek a closer relationship with the Holy Spirit, I will consider this
debate to have been worth the effort.
Forget Peter, You Can Be a Rock Yourself!
This discussion of the principle
of personal revelation brings me to my final point. One of the major points
of debate has been the interpretation of Matt. 16:18. "Thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell [Greek
hades ] shall not prevail against it." Roman Catholics claim that Jesus
called Simon "Peter" (Greek Petros = "rock") because he and his successors
are "the rock" upon which Jesus built His Church. Joseph Smith, on the
other hand, noted that Jesus made this statement after He asserted that
Peter had received a knowledge of Jesus' Divine Sonship by revelation.
"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed
it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (Matt. 16:17) Joseph preached,
"What rock? Revelation."52 To me these contrasting interpretations
typify the dilemma facing those who are pondering this debate. Should one
accept the traditions passed down by the Popes, Peter's supposed successors,
or seek personal revelation about whether God has restored the true Church
of Jesus Christ?
Time and time again, Steve and I
have referred to various early Christian writings to establish a historical
basis for our interpretations. After all, if Catholicism is right, one
ought to be able to trace its traditions back to the beginning of Christianity,
and if Mormonism is right, one ought to be able to show that its doctrines
and practices are, for the most part, restorations of genuine early Christian
doctrines and practices.
How did the earliest Christians interpret
Matt. 16:18? The two earliest citations of this verse come from the writings
of Justin Martyr (ca. 150 A.D.) and Origen (mid-third century), and both
authors appear to agree with Joseph Smith. Peter was called "the rock"
simply because he received a revelation. First Justin: "For [Christ] called
one of His disciples--previously known by the name of Simon-Peter; since
he recognised Him to be Christ the Son of God, by the revelation of His
Father...."53 Next Origen:
"And perhaps that which Simon
Peter
answered and said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' if
we say it as Peter, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto us, but by
the light from the Father in heaven shining in our heart, we too become
as Peter, being pronounced blessed as he was, because that the grounds
on which he was pronounced blessed apply also to us, by reason of the fact
that flesh and blood have not revealed to us with regard to Jesus that
He is Christ, the Son of the living God, but the Father in heaven, from
the very heavens, that our citizenship may be in heaven, revealing to us
the revelation which carries up to heaven those who take away every veil
from the heart, and receive 'the spirit of the wisdom and revelation' of
God. And if we too have said like Peter, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son
of the living God,' not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us,
but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become
a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, 'Thou art Peter,' etc.
For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of
the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built
every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in
each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts
which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God."
54
Consider that before the mid-third
century, we have no record of anyone connecting this verse to Peter's supposed
bishopric of Rome! Again, it is clear that the later Roman Church did not
inherit this interpretation as a tradition, but invented it at some point
to establish its own authority.
Furthermore, consider Origen's words.
Any disciple who receives "the spirit of the wisdom and revelation" of
God is "a rock", just like Peter was. I hope the information I have presented
in this debate has left you at least open to the possibility that Christ
has restored His true Church, and I invite you to become a "rock" by receiving
a revelation to that effect. I have received such a revelation, and it
is the bedrock of my life.
References Cited
1 Bruce M. Metzger
and Michael D. Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the Bible (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 277.
2 S. Butler, N. Dahlgren,
and D. Hess, Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the
Papacy (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 1996), 168-169.
3 Tertullian, Prescription
Against Heretics 32, in Roberts, A., and Donaldson, J., eds., The
Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 vols., (Buffalo: The Christian Literature
Publishing Company, 1885-1896,) 3:258. Hereafter cited as ANF.
4 Apostolic Constitutions
7:46, in ANF 7:478.
5 See also Polycarp,
Philippians
5, in ANF 1:34.
6 Mathetes to
Diognetus 6, in ANF 1:27.
7 Clement of Alexandria,
Stromata
7:3, in ANF 2:528.
8 Peter, in Clementine
Recognitions 5:8, in ANF 8:145.
9 Barnabas
6, in ANF 1:140.
10 Papias, Fragment
2, in ANF 1:153, brackets in original.
11 The Pastor
of Hermas, Sim. 9:29, in ANF 2:53. Hermas also speaks of a class of
people who had been "born good": "When the Lord, therefore, saw the mind
of these persons, that they were born good, and could be good. . . ." The
Pastor of Hermas, Sim. 9:30, in ANF 2:53.
12 See
Aristides, Apology 15, in ANF 10:278; Justin Martyr, Dialogue
With Trypho 88, in ANF 1:243; Kelly, J.N.D., Early Christian Doctrines,
Revised ed., (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1978), 168. (Hereafter
cited as ECD.) As for Irenaeus, he "nowhere formulates a specific
account of the connexion between Adam‘s guilty act and the rest of mankind."
ECD 172.
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis
3:16, translated by J. Ferguson (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic
University of America Press, 1991), FC 85:319.
13 Clement of Alexandria,
Stromateis
3:16, translated by J. Ferguson (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University
of America Press, 1991), FC 85:319.
14 Wagner, W. H.,
After
the Apostles: Christianity in the Second Century (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1994), 194. Since Jesus‘ Father was God, Tertullian
argued that Jesus‘ soul was not tainted by original sin because he (Tertullian)
considered women to merely be channels for the male sperm, which developed
into a human being.
15 Tertullian, Against
Marcion 2:15, in ANF 3:309; cf. ECD 176.
16 Origen, De
Principiis 2:10:4, in ANF 4:295.
17 Cyprian, Epistle
58, in ANF 5:354.
18 Cyril of Jerusalem,
Catechetical
Lectures 4:19, in Schaff, P., and Wace, H., eds., The Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, 14 vols., (New York: The Christian
Literature Publishing Company, 1890-1900,) 7:23-24. (Hereafter cited
as NPNF Series 2.)
19 Everett Fergusen,
ed., Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (New York: Garland Publishing,
1990), 133.
20 Tertullian, On
Baptism 18, in ANF 3:677.
21 Gregory of Nazianzus,
Oration
40:28, in NPNF Series 2, 7:370. However, it should also be said that Gregory
believed that unbaptized infants, and presumably even baptized infants,
would receive neither reward nor punishment in the afterlife. See Gregory
of Nazianzus, Oration 40:23, in NPNF Series 2, 7:367.
22 Ferguson, Encyclopedia
of Early Christianity, 133. Perhaps Greek religious influence had some
effect, also, since H.J. Rose reports that in Greek cults "a baby was put
through a ceremonial corresponding in some measure to baptism." H. J. Rose,
Ancient
Greek Religion (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1995), 11.
23 John Chrysostom,
To
the Neophytes, in Henry Bettenson, The Later Christian Fathers
(London: Oxford University Press, 1970), 169.
24 Augustine, Enchiridion
93, in Schaff, Philip., ed. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
Series 1, 14 vols. (New York: The Christian Literature Publishing
Company, 1886-1890), 3:266, hereafter cited as NPNF Series 1; cf. ECD 485.
25 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#XI
26 John, J., "Anointing
in the New Testament," in Martin Dudley and Geoffrey Rowell, eds., The
Oil of Gladness: Anointing in the Christian Tradition (London:
SPCK, 1993), 64-68.
27 Justin Martyr,
Dialogue
With Trypho 141, in ANF 1:270; Tertullian, Exhortation to Chastity
6, in ANF 6:53-54; Augustine, Reply to Faustus 22:47, in NPNF Series
1, 4:288.
28 Halliburton,
J., "Anointing in the Early Church," in Dudley and Rowell, eds., The
Oil of Gladness, 86.
29 Halliburton,
J., "Anointing in the Early Church," in Dudley and Rowell, eds., The
Oil of Gladness, 89.
30 Robert J. O'Connell,
The
Origin of the Soul in St. Augustine's Later Works (New York: Fordham
University Press, 1987), 16.
31 John G. Davies,
The
Early Christian Church (New York: Anchor Books, 1965), 235.
32 ECD 155.
33 Clementine
Recognitions 1:28, in ANF 8:85.
34 Robert G. Hammerton-Kelly,
Pre-Existence,
Wisdom, and the Son of Man (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1973),, 156, 152.
35 Hammerton-Kelly,
Pre-Existence,
Wisdom, and the Son of Man, , 154. See also Titus 1:2, "In hope of
eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began."
36 Metzger and Coogan,
The
Oxford Companion to the Bible, 74.
37 Fillion, La
Sainte Bible commentee d’apres la Vulgate, translated in Barker, The
Divine Church, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1951),
1:68.
38 The Pastor
of Hermas, Sim. 9:16, in ANF 2:49.
39 Kirsopp Lake,
tr., The Apostolic Fathers, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1912-13), 2:263.
40 Porter, J.R.,
"Oil in the Old Testament," in Dudley and Rowell, eds., The Oil of Gladness,
40.
41 Irenaeus, Against
Heresies 4:38:4, in ANF 1:522.
42 Origen, Dial
Heracl. 2:3, quoted in Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven:
Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1977), 231.
43 Origen, Against
Celsus 8:12, in ANF 4:643-644.
44 ECD 236, 247-248.
45 Augustine, Reply
to Faustus 22:47, in NPNF Series 1, 4:288.
46 Joseph Smith,
in Smith, J.F., ed., The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,
(Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1976), 170.
47 Hippolytus, On
the Twelve Apostles, in ANF 5:254-255.
48 Papias, quoted
in Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:5:1, in ANF 1:531; Peter in Clementine
Recognitions 1:52, in ANF 8:91.
49 William G. Dever,
"Archaeology, Syro-Palestinian and Biblical," in The Anchor Bible Dictionary
(New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1:366.
50 See John L. Sorenson,
An
Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City and
Provo, UT: Deseret Book Company and the Foundation for Ancient Research
and Mormon Studies, 1985); Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon Authorship
(Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1996);
Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence
for Ancient Origins (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and
Mormon Studies, 1997); Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book
of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 1981).
51 Joseph Smith,
in Smith, ed., The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 151.
52 Joseph Smith,
in Smith, ed., The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 274.
53 Justin Martyr,
Dialogue
With Trypho 100, in ANF 1:249.
54 Origen, Commentary
on Matthew 12:10, in ANF 10:455-456.
Back
to the Index
|