Restoring the Ancient Church. Apostasy and Restoration, Part 2

It appears there are some changes being made. Perhaps you should FM the Religion mod.

You just did.

As did someone with influence, apparently.

Hmm, that should be interesting to read. I must save it for the future.

As for the article, it’s funny how the passage Matt 16:18 is never discussed with regards to the claim of total apostacy. Hopefully it will be in the debate you cited.

Whoops, I spoke too quickly. Apparently there’s a discussion about Matt 16:18 in the chapter notes. Reading that now.

Yep, they are being moved, and I’m not sure why. Another one just happened too.

Mods, is there a reason these are being moved to the news forum? Not that I mind specifically, but they are religious in nature and deal with doctrines and such. They have no caucus or devotional umbrella, so I’m not sure what the issue is?

Thanks,

Sevenbak.

What is "the Church" (Greek ekklesia = "assembly") that Jesus spoke of? The mainline interpretation suggests it was "the Church" in its manifestation as an earthly organization. However, in a broader sense, "the Church" is much more inclusive. Two of the earliest post-New Testament Christian writings, The Pastor of Hermas and 2 Clement (both early second century) claimed that God created the Church even before he created the world. "She was created first of all . . . and for her sake was the world made."132 "Moreover, the books and the Apostles declare that the Church belongs not to the present, but existed from the beginning."133 Paul wrote, "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world." (Ephesians 1:3) The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews went on: "But we are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and in an innumerable company of angels. To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect." (Hebrews 12:22-23) The message here is clear. "The Church" is not just an earthly organization--it existed before the foundation of the world, and it exists with the saints of all ages, both those who are on the earth and those who have passed on. Therefore, even if the Church as an earthly organization disappears and reappears periodically, the Church will always survive!

This entire line of reasoning makes no sense. The author goes into great detail proving that the "church" is not just an earthly organization, but also something eternal. - I don't know about other Christians, and denominations, but the Catholic Church doesn't deny that, in fact, we agree (there are 3 parts to the Church: Church Militant {here on Earth}, Church Hopeful {those in Purgatory}, and the Church Triumphant {those in Heaven}). Where we obviously disagree is in the author's interpretation of Matt 16:18, specifically, where, despite the fact that the Church has other "parts" in other "areas", the passage in question says that "upon this rock I shall BUILD my Church". Now, if the passage "upon this rock I shall build my church" was referring to the church in Heaven, (or the "eternal portion of the church" as the author implies), then what "building" needed to be done at that point? None! No, the "building" in Matt 16:18 (that is, the construction of the church) is obviously to occur (is occuring now) on Earth. To say that there still needs to be something "built" in Heaven is ludicrous, but that's what the author is implying when he tries to do a "bait and switch" as he did.

But is there any reason to believe Jesus was speaking primarily of the earthly Church? On the contrary, the text says that "the gates of hell [Greek hades = "the world of the dead"] shall not prevail against it." What are "the gates of "? Hades is not hell--it is the underworld, and in early Christian and Jewish thought it was believed to be a place of waiting where the spirits of the dead, both the just and unjust, remained until the resurrection. (If Jesus had been speaking in Roman Catholic terms he might have said, "the gates of Purgatory shall not prevail against it.") Thus Tertullian (ca. 200 A.D.): "All souls, therefore; are shut up within Hades: do you admit this? (It is true, whether) you say yes or no . . . ."134 The "gates of hades," then, represent the "powers of death"135, and "the sting of death is sin." (1 Corinthians 15:56) Thus the text seems to be a promise of protection from the powers of death and sin for Christ's assembly (ekklesia) of believers. For this reason Michael M. Winter, former lecturer in Fundamental Theology at St. John's Seminary (Roman Catholic), in his excellent scholarly defense of the papacy, admits that "although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil."

All very well and good, but at best, the author here merely succeeded in demonstrating that Scripture has such depth, that it can have more than one meaning, all pointing to one central truth.

Here, the central truth is that "death will not prevail against the Church". Thus the text seems to be a promise of protection from the powers of death and sin for Christ's assembly (ekklesia) of believers. A point the author and I would agree upon. However, the meaning of such a simple statement can clearly go beyond the simple interpretation of "although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil".

The previous statement in quotes isn't wrong, but it's not necessarily the only conclusion that can be drawn from the general point "death shall not prevail against the Church". In fact, the author IRONICALLY shows that the classical (and historic, before Joseph Smith came on the scene) interpretation of Matt 16:18 is actually correct, i.e: THAT THE CHURCH WILL NOT DIE! This is obviously, also a reasonable exegesis of the passage as it would be impossible for the Church to triumph over evil if (and/or when) the Church itself, were dead.

I guess you didn't get the memo, huh?

Frankly I think my idea to set up a private mormon forum, only allowing TR-carrying folks to post in it, would solve the perceived problem.

>>>Frankly I think my idea to set up a private mormon forum, only allowing TR-carrying folks to post in it, would solve the perceived problem.

Seperate but equal?

Separate and SUPERIOR!. No disputes allowed. High-fives all around, all day every day.

Mormanism might look nice from the outside, but get in to it in depth, or look at the original teachings and frankly it is a weird sex cult. Kind of a cross between islam and the Greek gods.

Ignorance is no excuse. Sorry if the truth is offensive.

I am not MormonSo I am not sure of the meaning of your post.

My belief is that we are to do as the early church in admission, acceptance, baptism, filling with the Holy Ghost, speaking in other tongues, laying on of hands, praising Him openly in worship, dancing for him, clapping to him, singing to him.