I am implementing a change of course for this ongoing
series. The intent of my original plan was to be strictly
chronological, proceeding from the oldest to the newest contributions on “the
Great Apostasy”. However, certain comments published in the comboxes of the
previous AF thread (link), and in a thread over at ‘Nick’s Catholic
Blog’ (link), have prompted me to make some adjustments. Instead of examining a
number of works from the writings James E. Talmage and B.H. Roberts concerning
the “the Great Apostasy”, I am jumping forward to an essay written by Dr. Hugh
Nibley. Of the dozens of works I have read from an LDS viewpoint on this
topic—articles, essays, pamphlets and books—Nibley’s, “The Passing of the
Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme”, provides the best defense of
the LDS belief that the Church founded by Jesus Christ and his apostles in the
first century had fallen into a deep, wholesale apostasy, to the point that the
ordinances that had been authoritatively instituted, were no longer available
on Earth, and needed to be restored at a future date. Importantly, Nibley
focuses heavily on what the New Testament and a number of early Church Fathers
had to say on the issue of the apostasy, providing hundreds of quotes and/or
references from those sources to support his position
Dr. Nibley’s essay was first published in the Cambridge
journal, Church History (Vol. 30, Issue 2 – June 1961, pp. 131-154 - link); it was reprinted in the book, When The Lights Went Out – Three
Studies on the Ancient Apostasy (Deseret Book 1970, pp. 1-32 - link); again
in BYU Studies (Vol. 16.1, Autumn 1975, pp. 139-184 - link); and then in the
book, Mormonism and Christianity (Deseret Book/FARMS 1987, pp. 168-208 - link). Selections from the essay in this post will be from the online BYU
Studies PDF version (LINK)—the page numbers in the online version differ
from the original paper edition, so citations will include page numbers from both,
with the first being the online, and the second, the paper.
Nibley begins his treatment with the following:
A Somber Theme:—Ever since Eusebius sought
with dedicated zeal to prove the survival of the Church by blazing a trail back
to the Apostles, the program of church history has been the same: “To give a
clear and comprehensive, scientifically established view of the development of
the visible institution of salvation founded by Christ.” To
describe it—not to question it. By its very definition church history requires
unquestioning acceptance of the basic proposition that the Church did survive.
One may write endlessly about The Infant Church, l’Eglise naissante, die
Pflanzung der Kirche, etc., but one may not ask why the early Christians
themselves described their Church not as lusty infant but as an old and failing
woman; one may trace the triumphant spread of The Unquenchable Light through
storm and shadow, but one may not ask why Jesus himself insisted that the Light
was to be taken away. Church history seems to be resolved never to raise
the fundamental question of survival as the only way of avoiding a disastrous
answer, and the normal reaction to the question— did the Church remain on
earth?—has not been serious inquiry in a richly documented field, but shocked
recoil from the edge of an abyss into which few can look without a shudder.
(Page 1/139 – see online essay for footnotes)
In the next paragraph, Nibley outlines the “purpose of
this paper”:
The purpose of this paper is to list briefly the principal
arguments supporting the thesis that the Church founded by Jesus and the
Apostles did not survive and was not expected to. We shall consider the fate of
the Church under three heads: 1) the declarations of the early Christians
concerning what was to befall it, 2) their strange behavior in the light of
those declarations, 3) the affirmations and denials, doubts and misgivings of
the church leaders of a later day. Our theme is the Passing of the
Church, our variations, designated below by Roman numerals, are a number
of striking and often neglected facets of church history. (Page 1/140)
He then writes:
(I) Jesus announced in no uncertain terms that his message
would be rejected by all men, as the message of the prophets had been before,6 and that
he would soon leave the world to die in its sins and seek after him in vain.7 The
Light was soon to depart, leaving a great darkness “in which no man can work,”
while “the prince of this world” would remain, as a usual, in possession of the
field.8 (II) In their turn the Disciples were to succeed no better
than their Lord: “If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how
much more shall they call them of his household?”9 Like him they were to be “hated of all men,” going forth as
sheep among wolves, “sent last as it were appointed unto death,”10 with the
promise that as soon as they completed their mission the end would come.11 (Page
2/140)
[Notes:
6. Matthew, xvii:12; xxi:37–39; xxiii:31–37; Mark xii:6–8;
Luke xvii:25; John 1:5, 10–11; iii:11f, 19, 32; v:38, 40–47; vii:7; viii:19;
23f, 37f, 40–47; xv:22–25; cf. Acts iii:13–15.
7. Matthew xi:15; Luke ix: 41; xiii:25–27; xvii:22 John
vii:33f; xii:35f; xiii:33; xiv:30; xvi:16; cf. Acts iii:21.
8. John ix:4f; vix:30. Evil triumphs from Abel to the eschaton:
Matthew xxiii:35–39; xvii:12 Luke xi:51; Clementine Recognitions, iii.
61.
9. Matthew x:24f; Mark xiii:13; Luke x:16; John xv:18–21;
xvii:14: Acts xxviii:26f; F. C. Grant, “The Mission of the Disciples,” J.B.L.,
XXXI (1916), 293–314.
10. Matthew x:16–22, 28; xxiv:9; Mark xiii:9; Luke x:3;
John xvi:1–2, 33; I Corinthians iv:9; II Clement v.
11. Matthew. xxiv:14; xxviii:20; Mark xiii:10. Below,
notes 17,21.]
And then:
As soon as the Lord departs there comes “the lord of this
world, and hath nothing in me”; in the very act of casting out the Lord of the
vineyard the usurpers seize it for themselves, to remain in possession until
his return;18 no sooner does he sow his wheat than the adversary
sows tares and only when the Lord returns again can the grain be “gathered
together,” i.e., into a church, the ruined field itself being not the church
but specifically “the world.”19 After the sheep come the wolves, “not sparing the
flock,” which enjoys no immunity (Acts xx; 29) after sound doctrine come
fables;20 after the charismatic gifts only human virtues (1
Cor. xiii; 8, 13). The list is a grim one, but it is no more impressive than
(VI) the repeated insistence that there is to be an end, not the end of
the world, but “the consummation of the age.”21 It is to
come with the completion of the missionary activities of the Apostles, and
there is no more firmly-rooted tradition in Christendom than the teaching that
the Apostles completed the assigned preachingto the nations in their own
persons and in their own time, so that the end could come in their generation.22 (Page
2/140)
[Notes:
18. John xiv:30; Matthew xxi:38; Mark xii:7; Luke xx:14.
19. Matthew xiii: 24–30, 38. Both syllegein and synagogein
are used.
20. II Timothy. iv:2–4; II Thess. ii:9–12; Rom. i:21–31.
21. Matt. xxiv:14; cf. x:23; xxviii:20, where aeon refers
to that particular age. O. Cullmann, in W. D. Davies & D. Daube (eds.). The
Background of the New Testament and Its
Eschatology (Cambridge Univ., 1956), 417; cf. N. Messel, Die
Einheitlichkeit der
jüdischen Eschatologie (Giessen, 1915), 61–69,
44–50. See below, note 181.
22. Mark xiii:9f; Acts ii:16f, 33; Origen, In Mt. Comm.
Ser. 39, in P.G., XIII, 1655B, concludes that, strictly speaking, jam
finem venisse; so also John Chrysostom, In Ep Heb. xi, Homil. xxi.3,
in Migne, P.G. LXIII, 1655B.]
Shifting focus to the Apostolic Fathers, Nibley writes:
(X) The Apostolic Fathers denounce with feeling the all
too popular doctrine that God’s Church simply cannot fail. All past triumphs,
tribulations, and promises, they insist, will count for nothing unless the
People now repent and stand firm in a final test that lies just ahead; God’s
past blessing and covenants, far from being a guarantee of immunity (as many
fondly believe) are the very opposite, for “the greater the blessings we have
received the greater rather is the danger in which we lie.”33
(Page/s 4/142, 143)
[Note:
33. I Clem. xli. 4; xxi. 1; Barnab. iv. 9, 14; Ignat., Ephes,
xi. 1. “The last stumbling-block approaches . . .” Barnab. iv. 3, 9; I Clem.
vii. 1; II Clem. viif; xvi; Hermas, Vis., ii. 2; iv. 1.]
A bit later:
(XII) The call to repentance of the Apostolic Fathers is a
last call; they labor the doctrine of the Two Ways as offering to Christian
society a last chance to choose between saving its soul by dying in the faith
or saving its skin by coming to terms with the world.41 They
have no illusions as to the way things are going: the Church has lost the gains
it once made, the people are being led by false teachers,42 there is
little to hinder the fulfillment of the dread (and oft-quoted) prophecy, “. . .
the Lord shall deliver the sheep of his pasture and their fold and their tower
to destructions.”43 The original Tower with its perfectly cut and
well-fitted stones is soon to be taken from the earth, and in its place will
remain only a second-class tower of defective stones which could not pass the
test.44 In the Pastor of Hermas (Vis. iii. 11–13) the
Church is represented as an old and failing lady—“because your spirit is old
and already fading away”—who is carried out of the world; only in the world
beyond does she appear as a blooming and ageless maiden. The Apostolic Fathers
take their leave of a Church not busily engaged in realizing the Kingdom, but
fast falling asleep; the lights are going out, the Master has departed on his
long journey, and until he returns all shall sleep. What lies ahead is the
“Wintertime of the Just,” the time of mourning for the Bridegroom, when men
shall seek the Lord and not find him, and seek to do good, but no longer be
able to.”45 (Pages 4, 5/ 143, 144)
[Notes:
41.
Ignat., Magnes., v; II Clem. vi; Barnab. v; xviii; see K. Lake’s note on
Hermas in his Apostolic Fathers (Loeb ed., 1912), ii. 21, n. 1.
42. I
Clem. i; iii; xxiv; xix; Ignat., Trall, vii; Ephes., xvii; ix. 5;
Hermas, Vis., iii. 3, 10. Cf. Test. of Hezekiah, ii. 3B–iv. 18.
43. Didache,
xvi. 3; Barnab. xvi; Enoch lxxxix; lvi; lxvif; Logion No. xiv, in Patrologia
Orientalis, IV, 176f; cf. IX, 227f.
44.
Hermas, Vis. iii. 3–7.
45. Hermas, Sim. iii; iv; ix; I Clem. lviii;
Euseb., H. E., III. xxxi. 3; V. xxiv. 2.]
Two more selections before ending this introductory post
to Nibley’s essay:
Arguments
for Survival:—The arguments put forth by those who would prove the
survival of the Church are enough in themselves to cast serious doubts upon it.
(XXXIV) The first thing that strikes one is the failure of the ingenuity of
scholarship to discover any serious scriptural support for the thesis. There
are remarkable few passages in the Bible that yield encouragement even to the
most determined exegesis, and it is not until centuries of discussion have
passed that we meet with the now familiar interpretations of the “mustard seed”
and “gates-of-hell” imagery, which some now hold to be eschatological teachings
having no reference whatever to the success of the Church on earth. (Page
12/152)
And:
Christians
have often taken comfort in the axiom that it is perfectly unthinkable that God
should allow his Church to suffer annihilation, that he would certainly draw
the line somewhere. This is the very doctrine of ultimate immunity against
which the Apostolic Fathers thunder, and later Fathers remind us that we may
not reject the appalling possibility simply because it is appalling. (Page
13/153)
Shall
end here for now, hoping that the folk who are interested in this topic will
take the time to read the entire essay, and look up the extensive quotes and
references provided therein.
Grace
and peace,
Hi David.
ReplyDelete"Jesus announced in no uncertain terms that his message would be rejected by all men, as the message of the prophets had been before...", Latter-day Saint apologist and scholar, Dr. Hugh Nibley claims. But why would an apostate church adopt these pronouncements of Christ which according to Nibley, clearly show that the true Church didn't exist anymore? Latter-day Saints already accuse the apostate church of editing its canonical writings to favor its own errors. Why, if the apostate church would have the boldness to take away wonderful truths, was it willing to allow the message of its own condemnation to remain?
Did Chairman Mao recommend as readings for his "flock", writings that opposed communism? If Nibley's claims are as clear as he seems to think they are, the scenery changes from mere unorthodoxy, in to something incredible. To this day, the Catholic Church then, according to Nibley, continues to read out its own condemnation, ("in no uncertain terms"!), at every Mass where any of these same readings might be read out. That makes about as much sense as Fidel Castro reading Adam Smith (an early free market economist) to his children before bed. It is already my opinion therefore, before a thorough investigation of the evidence, that Nibley's confidence in the clarity of these Scriptures is unjustified. I believe there must be plausible alternative ways of interpreting the texts which Nibley claims as proof of his "Great Apostasy".
Rory
Dr. Nibley gives us eighteen passages of Scripture which he interprets as an announcement that his message would be rejected by all men. The first passage is Mt. 17:12:
ReplyDeleteBut I say to you, that Elias is already come, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they had a mind. So also the Son of man shall suffer from them.
Immediately following the Transfiguration, Jesus' disciples wondered about why the Jewish scribes understood that before the Messiah should come, that Elias must return. Probably this was prompted by their seeing Moses and Elias with the Lord on the Mount of Transfiguration.
I confess, I see little in this explanation of our Lord to imply that the Apostolic message would be "rejected by all men". Coming a few days before His Passion and Death, Jesus' Transfiguration was intended to fortify the faith of Peter, James, and John for its severest trial which is close upon them. Here He begins to explain the necessary sufferings that Christ would soon endure, and in which they would by participation, suffer as well. St. John, the only Apostles to escape martyrdom, perhaps suffered a more cruel martyrdom at the foot of the Cross.
I am trying to understand what in this passage I am missing that it would support the idea that Christ's message "would be rejected by all men". I need a fuller explanation of the LDS interpretation of Mt. 17:12 on why this verse points to the truth of the Great Apostasy coming almost immediately. Thanks to anyone LDS, or with an "LDS thinking hat" that could help. Mine isn't working very well.
Rory
The second of Dr. Nibley's passages proving that the true church quickly became apostate is taken from Mt. 21:37-39:
ReplyDeleteAnd last of all he sent to them his son, saying: They will reverence my son. But the husbandmen seeing the son, said among themselves: This is the heir: come, let us kill him, and we shall have his inheritance. And taking him, they cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him.
Latter-day Saints who follow Hugh Nibley would seem to believe that the Parable of the Vineyard, as it is identified by Catholics, applies to the Apostolic Church. That somehow, by becoming apostate, they kill Christ, figuratively of course, and take over "his inheritance", his church.
But that is not the only way to understand the passage. It will help to see the context of the message. Continuing in Mt. 21, we read in verses 42-44, that it will not go well for those of whom the Lord is speaking:
Jesus saith to them: Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? By the Lord this has been done; and it is wonderful in our eyes. Therefore I say to you, that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone, shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder.
Nibley apparently thinks that Jesus is speaking to a future generation that kills the son and heir of the Vineyard, after His Apostles have preached to all nations. I can see how a Latter-day Saint might be persuaded that this condemnation is in reference to the New Covenant Church people established by the Apostles. The Latter-day Saint sees the Restored Church as "yielding the fruits thereof."
But there are other ways of looking at the passage that seem equally plausible. One of these is that those who kill the son are a reference to those who will call for Him to be crucified in a few days. After that, it is fulfilled when the kingdom of God is taken away from the Jews. It is then given to a nation fulfilling the fruits of the kingdom of God. That would be the Apostolic Church.
The Jews were the builders who rejected the corner stone, not the Apostolic Church. A good reason for those who follow Nibley to consider this interpretation is found in verse 45:
And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they knew that he spoke of them."
If Jesus was speaking of the chief priests and Pharisees, we would see a promise that the kingdom taken from the Jews, would be "given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof". It seems a poor description of a nation which would become almost immediately apostate as also, a "nation yielding the fruits thereof". I guess if you are LDS, you would have to say that Christ is referring to corrupt fruit.
Of course, I find the Catholic interpretation to be adequate. I certainly can not see this as prophetic of Christ's message being "rejected by all men in no uncertain terms". As I am wont to say, the Scriptures alone are never adequate to resolve doctrinal controversy. When I say above that the Catholic view is adequate, I do not mean that it proves the Catholic position. I mean that if the passage means what Latter-day Saints who follow Nibley think it means, that it is in truly "uncertain terms", because there is a plausible alternative explanation of Jesus' words. That is the sense in which I claim adequacy for the Catholic view of the Scripture which Nibley provided.
Rory
Hi Rory,
ReplyDeleteThanks much for taking the time to share some of your thoughts on Nibley’s essay. It seems that Tom, our LDS friend and interlocutor, has taken an extended hiatus from this blog. In his absence, I shall put on my LDS hat, and play ‘devil’s advocate’.
You asked:
== Why, if the apostate church would have the boldness to take away wonderful truths, was it willing to allow the message of its own condemnation to remain?==
Perhaps due to some of the same reasons the Pharisees retained the OT—e.g. confidence that there was no way they could be the apostates spoken of; the condemnations applied to past and/or future generations, but certainly not theirs.
== It is already my opinion therefore, before a thorough investigation of the evidence, that Nibley's confidence in the clarity of these Scriptures is unjustified. I believe there must be plausible alternative ways of interpreting the texts which Nibley claims as proof of his "Great Apostasy".==
The above is as it should for any devoted Catholic who undertakes the task of investigating Nibley’s assessments.
Dr. Nibley’s apologia for his understanding of the "Great Apostasy” is formulated from his view that the Gospel and Kingdom message will ultimately be rejected when it goes out to the Gentiles, just as it would be rejected by the ‘House of Israel'. Yes, there would be some initial success; but the apostasy that is already at work during Paul’s ministry, will eventually replace all legitimate apostolic efforts, including John’s.
As such, Nibley's references begin with the Jews misunderstanding and eventual rejection of the Gospel and Kingdom message that He was proclaiming—the premise that His apostles will fair not better is always in mind though.
Grace and peace,
David
Hi Guys,
ReplyDeleteThis post gives the quotes of the Apostolic Fathers on the apostasy: https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Apostasy/Patristic_evidence_of
I see no statement implying an end to the church these Fathers belong to & a need to transfer to a new "pure" church.
Their comments are calling people back to the truth not to form something new.
Also, what about "John 17:20
"But I am not praying for them only, but also for those who through their word shall believe in me."
Does this mean the end came after the first post Apostolic believers ? Obviously not ! The faith is implied to continue.
Also, there is a quote from Cyril in that link. If the Mormons say the Father is the same fleshly form as the Son, they are falling into this same heresy of unwittingly identifying the Son with the Father. What differentiates them if they are the same form ?
Cheers
Dennis
Dave. Hi.
ReplyDeleteDo LDS believe in perspicuity of the Scriptures. It would seem like at least selectively, they do. Based on my limited experience, they use words, as does Dr. Nibley, which make it appear that they think the Scripture is clear about the certainty of an early apostasy. I am not saying that the LDS interpetations are untenable. I am saying that their apparent confidence and certainty on this question is unjustifiable in light of opposite interpretations that are also tenable.
Nibley's third biblical proof of a post-apostolic apostasy is Mt. 27:31-37:
And after they had mocked him, they took off the cloak from him, and put on him his own garments, and led him away to crucify him. And going out, they found a man of Cyrene, named Simon: him they forced to take up his cross. And they came to the place that is called Golgotha, which is the place of Calvary. And they gave him wine to drink mingled with gall. And when he had tasted, he would not drink. And after they had crucified him, they divided his garments, casting lots; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: They divided my garments among them; and upon my vesture they cast lots. And they sat and watched him. And they put over his head his cause written: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
If I were LDS, I would not be enthused about proposing this as evidence that the early church would apostasize. The reasoning seems to be that Jesus was crucified when the Jews rejected their Messiah, therefore the early church is apostate.
Rory
Dennis, hey.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
I see no statement implying an end to the church these Fathers belong to & a need to transfer to a new "pure" church.
Their comments are calling people back to the truth not to form something new.
Me:
I looked up some of them. I agree with your assessment of his quotes from the Fathers.
You also quoted from Jn. 17;20 about the fact that Jesus prayed to His Father for those who through the Apostles' word, "should believe in me". I suppose an early apostasy would be an answer to Jesus' prayer that staved off a quick slaughter of each Apostle who had no converts?
I was thinking of this passage from John's Gospel:
You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain...
We also find veneration of the Mother of God would never cease while God's mercies are ever present, "...henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." The Blessed Virgin further asserts that "...his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him." (Lk 2:48, 50)
The Gospel of Jesus Christ was supposed to be Good News. Peace on earth to men of good will and so on.
That is what I find in both Testaments as well as history. According to Dr. Nibley, "the Gospel" is compatible with what sounds like a never ending nightmare for men:
What lies ahead is the “Wintertime of the Just,” the time of mourning for the Bridegroom, when men shall seek the Lord and not find him, and seek to do good, but no longer be able to.
Certainly, very few, if any accepted Nibley's Gospel of Gloom. But were things so terrible as Nibley describes them? Unless you or Dave or someone else wants to continue with Nibley's proof texts, I would advocate looking at "apostate Christianity" during this alleged wintertime midnight that lasted for almost two millenia.
Rory
Pope St. Leo the Great was made the 47th bishop of Rome on Sept. 29, 440 AD. In a sermon that he made on the occasion of the Feast of the Ascension, which was celebrated last Thursday, we begin to see how the triumph of Christ's Church throughout the ages has been accomplished. Understanding the mystery of faith, which cannot now see and touch our Blessed Lord, for which Jesus Himself prepared Mary Magdalen, when He admonished her not touch Him. It was to prepare her for a faith that believes and acts more firmly because through His Ascension, we now understand how when Jesus was on earth, He was also with His Father, and when Jesus is in heaven, we are raised up with Him, as the Apostle says. This is the faith that overcomes the world. Notwithstanding every proud heresy and malicious envy that would oppose it, this faith is it what has manifested itself plainly in all times, for those not corrupted by pride or ambition. It was so obvious by the times of Leo, that he could preach it without fear of contradiction:
ReplyDeleteThis Faith, increased by our Lord's Ascension, and strengthened by the gift of the Holy Ghost, was proof against every trial; so that neither chains, nor prisons, nor banishment, nor hunger, nor fire, nor wild beasts, nor all the ingenuity of cruelty and persecution, could affright it. For this Faith, not only men, but even women--not only beardless boys, but even tender maidens--fought unto the shedding of their blood, and this in every country of the world. This Faith cast out devils from such as were possessed, and raised the dead to life.
---2nd Sermon on the Ascension, #74, in Vol. 12 of the translation of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers by Hendriksen Publishers in 1994.
This is the credible record of the Church from the times of the Apostles for four centuries. I would take note, besides the miracles of grace which gives the faithful supernatural courage unto death, of what has been argued recently, that the true church will also be manifested by observable miracles in the created universe, as Leo mentions. This Tradition of the Roman Church, and was canonized at Vatican Council I:
This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the catholic church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.
Faith, declares the Apostle, is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Nevertheless, in order that the submission of our faith should be in accordance with reason, it was God’s will that there should be linked to the internal assistance of the holy Spirit external indications of his revelation, that is to say divine acts, and first and foremost miracles and prophecies, which clearly demonstrating as they do the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are the most certain signs of revelation and are suited to the understanding of all.
April 24, 1870, Session 3, Ch. 3, On Faith
Rory
I think my most recent quote from the First Vatican Council, which I pasted, may have had a significant typo. From above:
ReplyDelete...it was God’s will that there should be linked to the internal assistance of the holy Spirit external indications of his revelation, that is to say divine acts, and first and foremost miracles and prophecies, which clearly demonstrating as they do the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are the most certain signs of revelation and are suited to the understanding of all.
It is significant that when the Church speaks of miracles we are discussing historical events that are reliably verifiable. In the English translation found in Denziger's The Sources of Catholic Dogma. instead of the word "acts", we have "divine facts". I suspect this to be the more accurate of the translations, or else my post from yesterday had a typo.
Rory
Hello again Rory,
ReplyDeleteI was going to respond to your posts from yesterday this morning, but was totally side-tracked by some research I became engaged in due to an email I received. I am a bit pressed for time, so my response in this post will be brief. (V and I head out tomorrow for our bi-weekly shopping trip over the river, so it will probably be Thursday before I can work on a more detailed reply.)
You wrote:
==Do LDS believe in perspicuity of the Scriptures. It would seem like at least selectively, they do. Based on my limited experience, they use words, as does Dr. Nibley, which make it appear that they think the Scripture is clear about the certainty of an early apostasy. I am not saying that the LDS interpetations are untenable. I am saying that their apparent confidence and certainty on this question is unjustifiable in light of opposite interpretations that are also tenable.==
Latter-day Saints are not sola scripturians, so any perspicuity concerning Biblical interpretation they would defend would come via the insights provided by their apostles and unique scriptures. This has some similarity to Catholics who defend the infallibility of Sacred Tradition. The insights provided by ST makes Biblical interpretation ‘clear’ to faithful Catholics on a number of key and/or controversial issues.
==If I were LDS, I would not be enthused about proposing this as evidence that the early church would apostasize. The reasoning seems to be that Jesus was crucified when the Jews rejected their Messiah, therefore the early church is apostate.==
Nibley’s reasoning is that if the teachings and miracles of Israel’s promised Messiah would ultimately be rejected—apart from a small minority—then one should not expect greater results via His apostles when they take His message and teachings to the Gentiles.
Paul tells us that our Lord’s second coming will not take place, “except there come a falling away”; “the mystery of iniquity doth already work”, such that, “all they which are in Asia be turned away from me”; after his departing “grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock”.
Peter warns the early Christians that, “the end of all things is at hand”. From the pen of John we read:
“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.”
Anyway, must end for now. Hope you can check back in Thursday afternoon.
Grace and peace,
David
Hello again Rory,
ReplyDeleteBefore moving on to, “looking at ‘apostate Christianity’ during this alleged wintertime midnight that lasted for almost two millennia", as you suggested, I would like try one more time to summarize Nibley's take on “great apostasy” as reflected in the NT and early Church Fathers.
To understand Nibley's interpretation and selection of the texts he references, I think that it is important to identify his presuppositions; if one does not understand the connections between those presuppositions and his assessments, one will find his arguments wanting.
Nibley’s presuppositions:
1. Apart from Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice, the primary focus of His ministry and teachings were to the ‘house of Israel’.
2. Apart from a tiny minority of Israelites, Jesus knew in advance that His message and teachings would ultimately be rejected—that He would be persecuted and killed—resulting in judgment upon Israel.
3. Jesus knew in advance that His apostles and disciples would fair no better.
Matt. 10:5-7, 16-25 is an excellent starting point for the unfolding of the above presuppositions:
Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. 17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; 18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. 19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. 20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. 21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. 22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. 23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. 24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. 25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?
Prior to above, we are informed that those who respond to "the gospel of the kingdom” message will be “few”.
Quoting the prophet Isaiah, Matthew also introduces the motif of light entering the darkness (Matt. 4:16). This theme is enlarged in John’s Gospel, wherein we learn that this light has ‘children’ who also shine in the darkness. But this light will be taken away—and by implication so too the ‘children of light’—such that only the darkness remains.
Cont’d
Cont’d
ReplyDeleteNow, when the gospel is taken to the Gentiles, does the NT give one the impression that the ultimate result with be a different? Nibley provides Biblical references that suggest the result will be the same—i.e. after some initial success, the Gentiles will ultimately reject the light being provided by Christ’s apostles.
The following are some examples:
Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
2 Timothy 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
1 Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
In Revelation, chapters 2 and 3, we learn apostasy pervades five of the seven churches that are mentioned. None of those seven churches have remained.
My eyes are getting tired, will move on to the early Church Fathers in a later post, the Lord willing.
Grace and peace,
David
When St. Magdalen met our Lord, the morning of His Resurrection, she supposed Him to be the gardener. She did not recognize Him until He spoke. Jesus knew that she would impulsively have perhaps covered His feet with her kisses. She was forbidden to do so. What is the reason given by our Lord?
ReplyDelete"Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God.
---Jn. 20:17
Hugh Nibley and the Latter day-Saints are like St. Mary before she was instructed to not touch Jesus. They are like the woman at the well, who was attaching excessive importance to the physical location where one might worthily worship.
Woman, believe me, that the hour cometh, when you shall neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, adore the Father...But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him. God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth.
---Jn. 4:21, 23-25
Save St. John, the rest of the Apostles were absent at Calvary, and skeptical after the Resurrection. They were skeptical and fearful before the hour (Jn. 4:21) came. The hour when Jesus' physical presence is taken away, at the Ascension, and the prescribed way for man to worship is like the angels who have the beatific vision, perceiving the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost without benefit of sensible experience. "For the Father seeketh such to adore him."
It was expedient, as Jesus told the Apostles before His Passion, that He should leave them. The Paraclete could not come while Jesus was on earth. The unseen presence of the Third Person of the Trinity is much more precious than the physical presence of the Second Person...for the same reason that Jesus gave to the woman at the well. The Persons of the Blessed Trinity want us to know Them the way they know each other...in spirit, not the sight of the eyes.
More to come, the Lord willing...on the ramifications of recognizing and failing to recognize the Ascended Christ through the Holy Ghost Descended.
Rory
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Rory,
ReplyDeleteI like that you quoted "God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth."
Firstly this affirms God the Father is not flesh. 1 Cor 11:27 says taking communion unworthily is guilty of the Body of Christ, why not also the body of God if He was flesh ?
The Spirit helps us adore Him & some ways that occurs is through the gifts of the Spirit. We have lots of evidence of true gifts through the centuries & through the valid charismatics. For all the hyperbole of Orson's article, where are the abundance of spiritual gifts in Mormonism (besides the purported prophecies ?).
Also we adore in truth (& reality). Everything in actuality without false interpretations, false philosophy & acceptance of human limitations, is of God.
So where is all the archeological evidence of Mormon civilisations in the Americas ? I believe Mr Smith possibly did find plates with writing, but are they what he claimed them to be ?
Were there any hand written copies made of the plates for posterity ? If not, why not ?
Cheers
Dennis
Though Dr. Nibley should speak all languages and make Sts. Augustine and Aquinas out to be fools, his clever manipulation of the Scriptures and Fathers of the Catholic Church will yield him and his followers an eternity of endless and hopeless sorrow unless they repent.
ReplyDeleteOur Lord explains the difficulty in the Gospels. The first three Gospels report the incident where Jesus casts a devil from one who had been blind and dumb, and healed him. The enemies of Christ remarked that it was by the devil himself that Jesus had made this man to speak and to see. This is where Jesus tells his listeners about how one may be forgiven for blasphemy against the Son, particularly in His unglorified humanity. However, there is a blasphemy that is worse and unforgivable. This would be to speak against the Holy Ghost.
He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. Either make the tree good and its fruit good: or make the tree evil, and its fruit evil. For by the fruit the tree is known.
---Mt. 12: 30-33
Christ could forgive critical and ignorant analyses of His own miracles. But if miracles accomplished by the Holy Spirit are likewise ignorantly criticized, it appears to be far more injurious to the soul. We begin to see why with a careful meditation on St. John's Gospel, especially chapters 13-17. Our Lord's final words before His Passion, clearly illustrates the necessity of Christ's physical absence before His disciples can grow to perfection through the non-physical Presence of the Holy Ghost:
But I told you not these things from the beginning, because I was with you. And now I go to him that sent me, and none of you asketh me: Whither goest thou? But because I have spoken these things to you, sorrow hath filled your heart. But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you...I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.
---Jn. 16:5-7, 12, 13
This might help explain what our Lord means by "speaking against the Holy Ghost". When Christ was on earth even after the Resurrection, His followers were sorrowful, timid, and of little faith. The Ascension of Christ was followed ten days later with the first Pentecost, and a truly miraculous transformation in Christ's disciples.
---to be continued
There is an Old Testament story with which we should be familiar. Genesis 24 takes up the narrative where the servant (the Holy Spirit), explains to the family of Rebecca (the bride of Christ), how his master Abraham (the Father), has had a Son (Isaac), whom "he has given all that he had":
ReplyDeleteAnd he said: I am the servant of Abraham: And the Lord hath blessed my master wonderfully, and he is become great: and he hath given him sheep and oxen, silver and gold, men servants and women servants, camels and asses. And Sara my master's wife hath borne my master a son in her old age, and he hath given him all that he had. And my master made me swear, saying: Thou shalt not take a wife for my son of the Chanaanites, in whose land I dwell: But thou shalt go to my father's house, and shalt take a wife of my own kindred for my son.
---vv. 34-38
Human history ends with a Marriage Supper. It would not be possible to enumerate all of the ramifications of the fact that the Holy Ghost has been sent to find a bride for God's Son. I would urge anyone that is seriously considering the idea that the Catholic Church is false to realize that if they are wrong, they are accepting criticism of miracles of grace and of visible signs of almost endless variety pointing us to knowledge of the abiding Presence of the Paraclete in the Holy Catholic Church. Additionally they are casting insults at Her to Whom the Son of God is betrothed.
Finally, I would close my remarks for today, the last day before the Octave of Pentecost, by asking you to consider a wonderful and glorious alternative to the idea that the Church simply disappeared for centuries. From my oft used source, Dom Gueranger, who in these days since the Ascension, has been cataloguing the career of the Bride of Christ as animated by the Paraclete who will never abandon Her until She is given safely in to the bosom of the Son. At this time, all creation will rejoice at the feast that accompanies the splendid and sublime work which the servant of Abraham prefigured when he completed his promise to his master, and delivered up to Isaac his lovely and chaste bride. From Dom Gueranger (italics and bold are mine):
We have seen with what fidelity the Holy Ghost has fulfilled, during all these past ages, the Mission he received from our Emmanuel, of forming, protecting, and maintaining his Spouse the Church. This trust given by a God has been executed with all the power of a God, and it is the sublimest and most wonderful spectacle the world has witnessed during the eighteen hundred years of the new Covenant. This continuance of a social body,--the same in all times and places,--promulgating a precise Symbol of Faith which each of its Members is bound to accept,--producing by its decisions the strictest unity of religious belief throughout the countless individuals who compose the society,--this, together with the wonderful propagation of Christianity, is the master-fact of History. These two facts are not, as certain modern writers would have it, results of the ordinary laws of Providence; but Miracles of the highest order, worked directly by the Holy Ghost, and intended to serve as the basis of our faith in the truth of the Christian religion.
---The Liturgical Year, Easter Part Three. (unfortunately, I lost my hardback copy that was published by St. Bonaventure Press, Great Falls Mt, in the year 2000. The paperback I use for the time preceding the Ascension until the Octave of Pentecost is priceless to me. It is the most instructive volume of Catholic literature I can recommend to anyone if you can find it.) This seems to be a photocopy of some other edition. There is a little note on the back page which says, Made in the USA, San Bernardino, CA, 21 December 2014)
Thanks, Rory
Dennis, hi.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your encouragement:
Hi Rory,
I like that you quoted "God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth."
I decided to go that direction after Dom Gueranger shed light on our Lord's mind at the moment that it seemed like a naturally emotional Mary Magdalen, appeared ready to give Him some kind of embrace. That has been a difficult passage for many I think. To lovingly embrace Jesus physically at that point, would be to experience an obstacle for that worship in spirit to which Christ will lead His Church through His physical absence.
God bless,
Rory
Hi Rory,
ReplyDeleteForgive the tardiness of my reply, but I have been deeply pondering over what you have written in your D-Day posts (06/06/2020), and whether or not I should respond. After much thought, I have decided to share some of my musings…
You wrote:
==Though Dr. Nibley should speak all languages and make Sts. Augustine and Aquinas out to be fools, his clever manipulation of the Scriptures and Fathers of the Catholic Church will yield him and his followers an eternity of endless and hopeless sorrow unless they repent.==
If the RCC is God’s one true Church, and if Nibley does not fall into the ‘invincible ignorance’ category, then yes, his eternal destiny is in hell.
As for “blasphemy against the Holy Ghost/Spirit", after reading the accounts given to us on this specific issue in Matthew, Mark and Luke, I am reticent to adopt the interpretation you have provided. The following selection from “The Navarre Bible" New Testament commentary series, is pretty much my understanding:
>>Sin against the Holy Spirit is said to be unforgivable not so much because of its gravity or malice but because of the subjective disposition of the sinner is this case: his attitude shuts the door on repentance. Sin against the Holy Spirit consists in maliciously attributing to the devil the miracles and signs wrought by Christ. Thus, the very nature of this sin blocks the person’s route to Christ, who is the only one who can take away the sin of the world (Jn 1:29), and the sinner puts himself outside the range of God’s forgiveness. In this sense the sins against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven.>> (Saint Matthew’s Gospel, English ed. 1988, pp. 122, 123.)
In addition to the above commentary, I would like to add a couple of important points: first, the Scribes and Pharisees were not questioning whether or not the healing of the blind man and casting out of demons had actually occurred; and second, they were not attempting to suggest that those events were of the natural order rather than supernatural actions.
Now, with all the above in mind, it seems to me that the unforgivable sin is very narrow and specific in its very nature.
More later, the Lord willing…
Grace and peace,
David
Hi Dave,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your critique. While I take issue with one important point taken from the Navarre Commentary, I am inclined to modify my previously stated position. Already before your post, I had realized that before I was Catholic, I had been guilty in my ignorance of "speaking against the Holy Ghost".
Before I became Catholic, my knowledge of church history was somewhat limited. I had no right to say bad things about the Catholic faith without knowledge of Catholic claims. I believe I was guilty of culpable ignorance. But such ignorance is not parallel to the sin of the Pharisees who saw the miracles of Christ. Knowing that a good and wonderful work had been performed, in their malice, they could not attribute it to God. They opted for the devil.
Neither Nibley, nor I before conversion, were familiar with and appreciated the career of the Holy Ghost, working visible miracles and wonders of grace in the Catholic Church through the centuries. I am relieved to be able to retreat from my previous position. I still insist that we were both (Nibley and I) guilty of culpable ignorance in this matter. But that would not qualify as the unforgivable sin against the Holy Ghost. That sin would require a certainty that a miracle has happened, and from malice against the Catholic Church, to deny that it is the work of God.
Now this brings me to the quibble I have with the Navarre Commentary:
Sin against the Holy Spirit consists in maliciously attributing to the devil the miracles and signs wrought by Christ.
It was expedient that Christ return to the Father at the Ascension. Pentecost, the beginning of the glorious reign of the Holy Ghost in the Church on earth must be contrasted with the mission of Christ. Christ made the foundation of that Church out of material that wass weak, frail, timid, and with the exception of St. Paul, who was only chosen after Pentecost, without any academic credentials. Given the actual logistics of the situation before Pentecost, it is truly humanly impossible that the Apostolic mission could have succeeded. Dom Gueranger references Bossuet who characterized the advance of Christianity through the converts the Apostles gained, as a miracle comparable to creation out of nothing. (Quoted above in a different post)
1) It is the will of God that the Church which will be His Son's Bride has faith, without sight. Christ certainly has this in mind when he tells Thomas the Apostle how blessed are those who will believe without ever seeing any of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity with their eyes.
2) Greater works than that of Christ will be performed by and through the Church. (Jn. 14:12-16), because Christ is leaving and sending the "spirit of truth", who will abide with the Spouse of Christ, "for ever". No one can qualify, or even wish for the beatific vision without doing greater works than raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, or moving mountains. As St. Paul said, all of these are pale in comparison to the miracles of grace, of "faith, hope, and charity" which unite the Apostles, and their disciples with the Blessed Trinity in the "face to face" vision of God in spirit and in truth. So it is the lives of the saints that are the surest supernatural sign of the work of the Holy Ghost. But the visible inevitably signs follow as well.
---to be continued
I fear that the Navarre Commentary does not sufficiently make the distinction between what God wrought through the presence of Christ on earth, and through the presence of the Holy Ghost on earth. This is a necessary distinction to draw if we will understand why Christ announced that it would be more serious to speak against the Holy Ghost, than to speak against the son of Man.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't simply Jesus being humble and more forgiving than the Third Person of the Trinity. It is a recognition that "greater works" would be performed, by Him who would abide "for ever", and for whom Jesus subsequently prayed, shortly before His Passion and Death:
"And not for them only [His Apostles] do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me...Just Father, the world hath not known thee; but I have known thee: and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have made known thy name to them, and will make it known; that the love wherewith thou hast loved me, may be in them, and I in them.
---Jn 17:20, 25, 26
This very morning, Christ's Church read out St. Paul's letter to Timothy warning him about itching ears and souls inclined to turn away from the truth for fables. Holy Mother Church can not fear Nibley's picking through her Scriptures. She publishes and proclaims them loudly! She can do this not because she imagines her interpretations are obviously superior to Nibley's on their own. She can do this because her interpretations are also plausible, and they are complimented with 20 centuries of greater works in the lives of God's saints than Jesus ever did with His Apostles before giving way to the Holy Ghost.
The early career of the institution that has a transformation happen where from being persecuted by Roman Emperors, it has Roman Emperors bending the knee and asking for admission in to that same institution. Hugh Nibley's preconceived misconceptions oblige him to make this institution in to a ruthless, ugly hag. Catholics recognize this instituion as the answer to Christ's prayer to the Father in Jn. 17. That institution has to be the chaste bride of Jesus Christ, the Holy Catholic Church.
Thanks for your correction, David. You are right. I was wrong about making the sin against the Holy Ghost too broad. Unchecked enthusiasm got the better of me.
Grace and peace,
Rory