In this article I will address the claims of this LDS apologist. Keep in mind in this response, who was responsible for the "great apostacy" who was responsible for replacing Apostles? The LDS position is the prophet/president is responsible, or at least the apostles, but do they even claim the Apostles appointed replacement after the time of Matthias?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z3Q51IqGGg&fbclid=IwAR0BzoyH-jMFUnB76dg1d_CmZoKqcjB4nIM_QCJBX-Yda3yFJTkOiNHg_kw
2:03
The Catholic is presenting is somewhat of a false dichotomy. There would be several alternatives if Catholics are wrong. Restorationist sects were a dime a dozen during the time of Joseph Smith. Furthermore, restorationism and the great apostacy is inconsistent with Scripture which Christ states he will be with the church til the end of the age and the gates of hades will not prevail against the church.
The LDS does not even believe in a total apostacy, the Apostle John never died according to D&C, what did he not keep the church afloat? Why did Joseph have to receive his authority through visions rather than a living apostle? John the most senior member of the 12, he was more deserving to be prophet than Joseph, John had seniority by 1700+ years by the time of Joseph Smith.
4:17
Acts 1:21-22 tells us the criteria to even be among those to be in the 12. The man had to have been with them since the Baptism of John, and had been with the 11 since the time Christ was crucified and resurrected. All the people that could have qualified to see this are dead, except according to D&C John the Apostle who is not among the present Quorum of the 12, or the first presidency, making the number of apostles over 12 again.
5:07
All the Apostles, properly speaking--the 12, as well as Paul and Barnabas were long dead at this point. The qualifications for being among the 12 no longer could be met and there is no indication the 12 even intended to keep the number of the 12 after replacing Judas with Matthias. The apostles continued to ordained deacons and bishops/presbyters. Some were called Apostles beyond this because they were sent out as missionaries like Paul and Barnabas. St Ignatius himself was a disciple of John, yet he replies to understanding that the Apostles intended for there to be full replacements of them. It is interesting that "college of apostles" is underlined. St Ignatius is called the presbyters the college of the apostles. He does this elsewhere in his Epistles too, for instance in the previous chapter of the same Epistle he writes:
5:34
The claim is made that only Apostles can ordain bishops. Not only is this not what is stated, it is conveniently left out the mention of deacons along side bishops. If the same reasoning only Apostles can ordain bishops, according to the provided interpretation, then it must likewise follow that only Apostles can ordain deacons, yet the LDS do nor believe this either.
If the 12 Apostles can appoint a replacement apostle, why can't bishop have the ability to replace bishops? In fact, Paul when he was ordained was not done so by the 12 Apostles in Acts 13:1-3.
What is meant by St Clement of Rome is to state the origin of the office of Bishop and deacon--the Apostles established these offices. This is why he calls the bishops the "first fruits" of the Apostles. Where does St Clement after this state that only apostles can appoint bishops? It should also be noted in Acts 1 the 12 Apostles are referred to as bishops, also.
8:42
A book by a Mormon and Catholic is quoted and a significant false claim is made that Pope Leo the Great was the first pope to assert universal authority. He only refers to the Mormon's statement by Alonzo Gaskill. Furthermore, without going on, its clear the Catholic writer of this book is not really in line with Church understanding of the LDS. The Catholic Church does not call Mormons "brothers and sisters in Christ" since the Church states Mormon baptisms are invalid, thus precluding them from being in Christ due to the seriously defection understanding of God in Mormon theology. But is Alonzo Gaskill's claim true that Pope Leo the Great was the Pope to reinject universal authority into the Church?
We see in St Clement of Rome, the very one quoted near the beginning of the video, this:
St Irenaeus of Gaul states the Bishop of Rome possesses pre-eminent authority in the Church:
10:37
The speaker quotes another book, this time by another LDS Alexander B Morrison. This writer seems to contradict the claims by the other LDS writer cited--Alonzo Gaskill who does not seem to deny Catholic bishops descend from apostolic times, whereas Morrison says there is no proof for any of it.
To be continued.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z3Q51IqGGg&fbclid=IwAR0BzoyH-jMFUnB76dg1d_CmZoKqcjB4nIM_QCJBX-Yda3yFJTkOiNHg_kw
2:03
The Catholic is presenting is somewhat of a false dichotomy. There would be several alternatives if Catholics are wrong. Restorationist sects were a dime a dozen during the time of Joseph Smith. Furthermore, restorationism and the great apostacy is inconsistent with Scripture which Christ states he will be with the church til the end of the age and the gates of hades will not prevail against the church.
The LDS does not even believe in a total apostacy, the Apostle John never died according to D&C, what did he not keep the church afloat? Why did Joseph have to receive his authority through visions rather than a living apostle? John the most senior member of the 12, he was more deserving to be prophet than Joseph, John had seniority by 1700+ years by the time of Joseph Smith.
3:43
the scriptures cited at anti-thetical to LDS theology. They are saying FIRST are apostles, SECOND are prophets. Meaning Apostles have authority greater than prophets. The prophets in the NT were subject to the Apostles and to Paul, they just aided them telling them about visions God gave them. This is the case of Agabeus and the female prophets who were the daughters of Phillip. New Testament prophets actually predicted the future, not made church policy.
Revelation 21:14 tell us the New Jerusalem has the names of the 12 Apostles written on its pillars:
The wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb--Revelation 21:14
Furthermore, the LDS has 15 not 12, the Apostle Peter was one of the 12, but the currently LDS prophet has 12 under him plus 2 joining him in the first presidency. The NT says there are 12 pillars, not 13, not 15. If there are 12 names, then its certain the LDS prophet is not among them since is not part of the Quorum of the 12. The fact only 12 names are mentioned in Rev 21 shows there was not intention of perpetually replacing the Apostles. Rather, the apostles ordained bishops like Timothy who would exercise authority of their region.
Not only this, but in the NT the term apostle was expanded beyond the 12. Paul was not ordained an apostle by Peter, or the living apostles, but by the gather of presbyters in Acts 13:1-3 when the Spirit spoke to them. Paul and Barnabas were both counted as apostles in Acts 14:14. Later on in scripture others are called apostles, possibly even a woman named Junia, the term apostle just refers to someone sent out.
4:17
Acts 1:21-22 tells us the criteria to even be among those to be in the 12. The man had to have been with them since the Baptism of John, and had been with the 11 since the time Christ was crucified and resurrected. All the people that could have qualified to see this are dead, except according to D&C John the Apostle who is not among the present Quorum of the 12, or the first presidency, making the number of apostles over 12 again.
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us *all the time* that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, *Beginning from the baptism of John**, unto that **same day* that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a **witness with us of his resurrection**.--Acts 1:21-22
5:07
All the Apostles, properly speaking--the 12, as well as Paul and Barnabas were long dead at this point. The qualifications for being among the 12 no longer could be met and there is no indication the 12 even intended to keep the number of the 12 after replacing Judas with Matthias. The apostles continued to ordained deacons and bishops/presbyters. Some were called Apostles beyond this because they were sent out as missionaries like Paul and Barnabas. St Ignatius himself was a disciple of John, yet he replies to understanding that the Apostles intended for there to be full replacements of them. It is interesting that "college of apostles" is underlined. St Ignatius is called the presbyters the college of the apostles. He does this elsewhere in his Epistles too, for instance in the previous chapter of the same Epistle he writes:
It is therefore necessary that, as you indeed do, so without the bishop you should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ,--Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, Chapter 2In his letter to the Magnesians he writes similar:
while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons--Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, Chapter 6When St Ignatius states in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, "Apart from these, there is no Church" here is not referring to "college" or "assembly of the apostles" but to all which he mentions in the previous sentence: bishop, presbyters, and deacons.
5:34
The claim is made that only Apostles can ordain bishops. Not only is this not what is stated, it is conveniently left out the mention of deacons along side bishops. If the same reasoning only Apostles can ordain bishops, according to the provided interpretation, then it must likewise follow that only Apostles can ordain deacons, yet the LDS do nor believe this either.
And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.--St Clement of Rome's Letter to the Corinthians: Chapter 42
If the 12 Apostles can appoint a replacement apostle, why can't bishop have the ability to replace bishops? In fact, Paul when he was ordained was not done so by the 12 Apostles in Acts 13:1-3.
What is meant by St Clement of Rome is to state the origin of the office of Bishop and deacon--the Apostles established these offices. This is why he calls the bishops the "first fruits" of the Apostles. Where does St Clement after this state that only apostles can appoint bishops? It should also be noted in Acts 1 the 12 Apostles are referred to as bishops, also.
8:42
A book by a Mormon and Catholic is quoted and a significant false claim is made that Pope Leo the Great was the first pope to assert universal authority. He only refers to the Mormon's statement by Alonzo Gaskill. Furthermore, without going on, its clear the Catholic writer of this book is not really in line with Church understanding of the LDS. The Catholic Church does not call Mormons "brothers and sisters in Christ" since the Church states Mormon baptisms are invalid, thus precluding them from being in Christ due to the seriously defection understanding of God in Mormon theology. But is Alonzo Gaskill's claim true that Pope Leo the Great was the Pope to reinject universal authority into the Church?
We see in St Clement of Rome, the very one quoted near the beginning of the video, this:
"The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth....If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger."--Clement of Rome[regn. c A.D.91-101],1st Epistle to the Corinthians,1,59:1 (c.A.D. 96),in JUR,I:7,12
St Irenaeus of Gaul states the Bishop of Rome possesses pre-eminent authority in the Church:
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."--Irenaeus, Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:1415-416The claim the keys were lost needs evidence, furthermore, bind and loosing was done by all the apostle as we are informed in Matthew 18. The claim that they keys can mean the ability to receive new revelation requires evidence. Jesus said the Pharisees in Matthew 23 had power to bind. In rabbinical literature the term bind and loose refers to deciding matters of Jewish law.
10:37
The speaker quotes another book, this time by another LDS Alexander B Morrison. This writer seems to contradict the claims by the other LDS writer cited--Alonzo Gaskill who does not seem to deny Catholic bishops descend from apostolic times, whereas Morrison says there is no proof for any of it.
To be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment