LDS The 'beginning' of God in Mormonism

[Alla27]

Notice "Either way..." Based on what I have concluded, I do make the claim that the lds church "looks nothing like the 1st century church", which is something the lds have claimed and have yet to prove.

The Bible claims that in the first century Church of JESUS CHRIST had foundation that no other earthly organization had - Twelve Apostles and Prophets who lived on earth, walked/traveled on earth and preached on earth the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The same is today - Church of JESUS CHRIST has the same foundation no other earthly organization has - Twelve Apostles and Prophets who live on earth, walk/travel on earth and preach on earth the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Can God add or take away something to the body? Yes. But God does NOT take away this FOUNDATION- living on earth 12 Apostles and Prophets.
Judah Iscariot (one of the ORIGINAL 12) died. God REPLACED him with another LIVING Apostle. There were twelve AGAIN.

 

[fatboys]

Jesus disagrees with you. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28).



The book that the rest of the world knows is false? And that your church admits the papyrus fragments JS translated them from were not the originals?

"the fragments do not have to be as old as Abraham for the book of Abraham and its illustrations to be authentic. Ancient records are often transmitted as copies or as copies of copies. The record of Abraham could have been edited or redacted by later writers much as the Book of Mormon prophet-historians Mormon and Moroni revised the writings of earlier peoples. Moreover, documents initially composed for one context can be repackaged for another context or purpose. Illustrations once connected with Abraham could have either drifted or been dislodged from their original context and reinterpreted hundreds of years later in terms of burial practices in a later period of Egyptian history."

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

That's a lot to hang your hat on for being "so important to us". How do you know the fragments JS used were copied correctly and not part of the "apostasy"? That is the claim the lds make with the Bible, that many plain and precious truths were lost in this "Great Apostasy" and you guys claim to have restored them. Why does that not apply to the BoA? JS is no translator. His changing of certain passages in the Bible with his attempt at the JST is proof of that.

The book of Abraham was burned in the Chicago fire after Emma sold it to a museum that went up in smoke. There some fragments that survived from the papyrus that Joseph purchased but what we have is not what the book of Abraham was translated from. The book of Abraham was written upon papyrus that was twenty feet long as part of a scroll. So we do not have the book of Abraham. Also this papyrus is not the original writings of Abraham but a copy. And there are always going to be mistakes because of man.

 

[Jane_Doe]

[Staff edit]

Did I make that claim

Yes you did, in post 406. If you misspoke, that's ok, just clarify what you meant to say.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Jesus disagrees with you. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28).

???? Yes God loves us all, he doesn't love men more than women.

And that your church admits the papyrus fragments JS translated them from were not the originals?

And we don't have the original Bible pages either sooooo

There are eye witnesses who saw the scrolls and said they rolled out across the floor and there were 5 of them. The room they were talking about was maybe 20 feet long. Only a small portion has been found, Lord isn't going to let you find them either, got to have faith.

 

[Peter1000]

15 changes the structure, thereby adding to the list of items that discounts any claim your church has that lds church resembles the 1st century church.

The lds preach a different gospel and have a different structure that the 1st century church.

You really do not want to say, because we have 15 apostles instead of 12 we preach a different gospel and have a different structure than the 1st century church.

Have you in all this talk about church organization looked at any mainline Christian churches? They have 0 apostles and prophets. If Mormons have 15 and therefore preach another gospel, what of those churches that have 0? What gospel are they preaching?

As far as organization goes, at least Mormons have apostles and prophets, just like the 1st century church. At least our foundation is the same foundation as the 1st century church. At least we have the key to bind and loose as the 1st century church. At least we have bishops, deacons, elders, priests, teachers, pastors, evangelists, etc. as the 1st century church. At least if you were to compare side by side with other churches you would find the Mormon church to be closer associated with the 1st century church than any other mainline Christian church.

Using your logic, the Mormon church would be preaching the gospel closer to what the 1st century church was teaching than any other mainline Christian church.

In fact JS said, he was not expounding a new theology or had joined a new church. The theology of Mormonism was the old teaching of the church of Christ, and the doctrinal beliefs of the Mormons were those views of truth which were founded in the Word of God, and which had been known, or at least felt, by pious people all down the generations from the earliest centuries. He believed and taught the old theology of the earliest doctrines, made plain and freed from the superstitions which mediaeval theologians had borrowed from pagan philosophy and practices.

So my challenge still stands, show me a mainline church that comes closer to the 1st century church than the Mormon church? You will search in vain.

 

[Peter1000]

Jesus disagrees with you. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28).

The book that the rest of the world knows is false? And that your church admits the papyrus fragments JS translated them from were not the originals?

"the fragments do not have to be as old as Abraham for the book of Abraham and its illustrations to be authentic. Ancient records are often transmitted as copies or as copies of copies. The record of Abraham could have been edited or redacted by later writers much as the Book of Mormon prophet-historians Mormon and Moroni revised the writings of earlier peoples. Moreover, documents initially composed for one context can be repackaged for another context or purpose. Illustrations once connected with Abraham could have either drifted or been dislodged from their original context and reinterpreted hundreds of years later in terms of burial practices in a later period of Egyptian history."

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

That's a lot to hang your hat on for being "so important to us". How do you know the fragments JS used were copied correctly and not part of the "apostasy"? That is the claim the lds make with the Bible, that many plain and precious truths were lost in this "Great Apostasy" and you guys claim to have restored them. Why does that not apply to the BoA? JS is no translator. His changing of certain passages in the Bible with his attempt at the JST is proof of that.

Jesus disagrees with you. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28).

Jesus was not talking the pre-existence in Galatians 3:28 so he would neither agree or disagree.[/QUOTE]

The book that the rest of the world knows is false? And that your church admits the papyrus fragments JS translated them from were not the originals?

"the fragments do not have to be as old as Abraham for the book of Abraham and its illustrations to be authentic. Ancient records are often transmitted as copies or as copies of copies. The record of Abraham could have been edited or redacted by later writers much as the Book of Mormon prophet-historians Mormon and Moroni revised the writings of earlier peoples. Moreover, documents initially composed for one context can be repackaged for another context or purpose. Illustrations once connected with Abraham could have either drifted or been dislodged from their original context and reinterpreted hundreds of years later in terms of burial practices in a later period of Egyptian history."

Now your getting the Mormon view about how hundreds of translations and copies of copies can affect the bible. Nice to see you on our side on this one.
The difference with the BofA is that a prophet of God with the guidance of the HS is translating a document that could have been tampered with. But the translation would still come out correct because of the HS.

That's a lot to hang your hat on for being "so important to us". How do you know the fragments JS used were copied correctly and not part of the "apostasy"? That is the claim the lds make with the Bible, that many plain and precious truths were lost in this "Great Apostasy" and you guys claim to have restored them. Why does that not apply to the BoA? JS is no translator. His changing of certain passages in the Bible with his attempt at the JST is proof of that.

[/QUOTE]

The books of Abraham and Moses were written before the apostasy. They were brought forth and restored in our time, so the apostasy did not affect them.

Have you ever really sat down and read the volumes of books that JS has put out. He had a was a upstate New York farm boy, with a 3rd grade education, and yet when you read his works, you would think that he was a genius scholar of the highest levels of doctrinal mastery. Believe him or not, you have to be impressed with his works. Huh, isn't that what Jesus said.

 

[NYCGuy]

You really do not want to say, because we have 15 apostles instead of 12 we preach a different gospel and have a different structure than the 1st century church.

Have you in all this talk about church organization looked at any mainline Christian churches? They have 0 apostles and prophets. If Mormons have 15 and therefore preach another gospel, what of those churches that have 0? What gospel are they preaching?

You're missing the point. He is using your own argument against you.

As far as organization goes, at least Mormons have apostles and prophets, just like the 1st century church. At least our foundation is the same foundation as the 1st century church. At least we have the key to bind and loose as the 1st century church. At least we have bishops, deacons, elders, priests, teachers, pastors, evangelists, etc. as the 1st century church. At least if you were to compare side by side with other churches you would find the Mormon church to be closer associated with the 1st century church than any other mainline Christian church.

Emphasis added. I believe I asked you earlier where is the office of pastor in the Mormon church? I don't see that name of a priesthood office anywhere.

Now you've brought up evangelists. Where is the office of evangelist in the Mormon church? Oh, you mean where Joseph Smith claimed that patriarch is evangelist? Please point out where that was the case in the 1st century church.

Using your logic, the Mormon church would be preaching the gospel closer to what the 1st century church was teaching than any other mainline Christian church.

In fact JS said, he was not expounding a new theology or had joined a new church. The theology of Mormonism was the old teaching of the church of Christ, and the doctrinal beliefs of the Mormons were those views of truth which were founded in the Word of God, and which had been known, or at least felt, by pious people all down the generations from the earliest centuries. He believed and taught the old theology of the earliest doctrines, made plain and freed from the superstitions which mediaeval theologians had borrowed from pagan philosophy and practices.

Lets be clear. Based on actual history, Mormonism most certainly does not teach the old teachings of the Church of Christ. Joseph Smith most certainly did not bring back any lost teachings from the earliest doctrines. What is clear is that the most ancient, historical, Christians have always been here, never lost. We still believe those teachings. Mormonism invents a host of ideas and innovations found nowhere in the most ancient, earliest doctrines.

 

[Peter1000]

You're missing the point. He is using your own argument against you.



Emphasis added. I believe I asked you earlier where is the office of pastor in the Mormon church? I don't see that name of a priesthood office anywhere.

Now you've brought up evangelists. Where is the office of evangelist in the Mormon church? Oh, you mean where Joseph Smith claimed that patriarch is evangelist? Please point out where that was the case in the 1st century church.

Lets be clear. Based on actual history, Mormonism most certainly does not teach the old teachings of the Church of Christ. Joseph Smith most certainly did not bring back any lost teachings from the earliest doctrines. What is clear is that the most ancient, historical, Christians have always been here, never lost. We still believe those teachings. Mormonism invents a host of ideas and innovations found nowhere in the most ancient, earliest doctrines.

Lets be clear. Based on actual history, Mormonism most certainly does not teach the old teachings of the Church of Christ. Joseph Smith most certainly did not bring back any lost teachings from the earliest doctrines. What is clear is that the most ancient, historical, Christians have always been here, never lost. We still believe those teachings. Mormonism invents a host of ideas and innovations found nowhere in the most ancient, earliest doctrines.

Now that we know that JS talked about teaching the old teachings of the Church of Christ, let me give you a quote from Calvin, one of the most notable reformation leaders:
From: 'A History of the Reformation', by Thomas M. Lindsay,
Pages 100-110.
"Calvin did not think he was expounding a new theology or had joined a new Chruch. The theology of the Reformation was the old teaching of the Church of Christ, and the doctrinal beliefs of the Reformers were those views of the truth which were founded in the Word of God, and which had been known, or at least felt, by pious people all down the generations from the earliest centuries. He and his fellow Reformers believed and taught the old theology of the earliest creeds (Apostolic Creed) made plain and freed from the superstitions which mediaeval theologians had borrowed from the pagan philosopy and practices."

IOW Calvin wanted to go back to the original Church of Jesus Christ (in structure and doctrine) and away from the superstitions which mediaeval theologians had borrowd from the pagan philosophy and practices. Calvin believed in the apostasy, and he did something about it too.

Does that sound like Mormonism 101 or what, and this is 300 years before JS.

 

[Peter1000]

You're missing the point. He is using your own argument against you.

I am not missing the point. If you think we are preaching another gospel because we have 15 apostles instead of 12, then how do you maintain that mainline Christians are not preaching another gospel since they have 0 apostles?

At least, Mormonism has apostles and prophets. Mainline Christains have 0 apostles and prophets. Tell me how you think having 0 apostles and prophets does not teach another gospel?

 

[dzheremi]

Now that we know that JS talked about teaching the old teachings of the Church of Christ, let me give you a quote from Calvin, one of the most notable reformation leaders:
From: 'A History of the Reformation', by Thomas M. Lindsay,
Pages 100-110.
"Calvin did not think he was expounding a new theology or had joined a new Chruch. The theology of the Reformation was the old teaching of the Church of Christ, and the doctrinal beliefs of the Reformers were those views of the truth which were founded in the Word of God, and which had been known, or at least felt, by pious people all down the generations from the earliest centuries. He and his fellow Reformers believed and taught the old theology of the earliest creeds (Apostolic Creed) made plain and freed from the superstitions which mediaeval theologians had borrowed from the pagan philosopy and practices."

IOW Calvin wanted to go back to the original Church of Jesus Christ (in structure and doctrine) and away from the superstitions which mediaeval theologians had borrowd from the pagan philosophy and practices. Calvin believed in the apostasy, and he did something about it too.

Does that sound like Mormonism 101 or what, and this is 300 years before JS.

Well yes, Peter, of course Calvin didn't think of himself as starting a new religion. That's why they're called "Reformers", and the initial Protestant movement "the Reformation". Because they had all been Roman Catholics. As in, members of an actually preexisting Church/communion.

Restorationism shares with them a certain viewpoint that says that the Church has gone off the rails and hence needs to be brought back to its earlier ways of being, with the important distinction that while the Reformers intended to reform a particular Church to which they belonged, the Restorationists instead claim that the entire Church has become so utterly corrupted by man that it has, in essence, between "taken from the Earth" (to borrow LDS phrasing), and thereby needs to restored in order to exist. This is an attitude that is much more in keeping with later ideas in Protestantism, after it had been firmly established as its own thing.

Hopefully this distinction is recognized and understood, because it really does mark a significant difference between someone like, say, Martin Luther (who kept many ideas inherited from Rome), and later groups and their ideas like the Landmark Baptists, who saw the official/imperial Church as a longstanding and basically irredeemable source of evil that had historically persecuted the 'true Christians', who of course these Baptists saw as their forefathers so as to give themselves a historical pedigree that they absolutely did not have, and hence sought very unwisely to identify the heretics of the past like the Novatianists and Cathari with the Baptist Church somehow, despite the fact that the Baptists and these much earlier groups did not share a common theology. That sounds like Mormonism 101, insofar as its claims of continuity with the NT Church are concerned.

 

[Peter1000]

15 changes the structure, thereby adding to the list of items that discounts any claim your church has that lds church resembles the 1st century church.

The lds preach a different gospel and have a different structure that the 1st century church.

The foundational scripture says, the foundation of the church is made up of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). So the foundation (structure) is 'apostles' and 'prophets'.

Notice the scripture does not say 12 apostles and 5 prophets?

So the church that has 'apostles and prophets' is on much firmer ground biblically, than a church that has 0 'apostles and prophets'.

And answer this question:
Since to you, having 15 apostles changes the structure and means that Mormons are preaching another gospel.

I would think then, that you would be in a difficult position. If you are willing to say that about us. Then you must say that a church that has 0 apostles also changes the structure and means that they are too, preaching another gospel. IOW the entire Christian population of churches are preaching another gospel.

Explain to me how I am wrong about that?

 

[BigDaddy4]

The foundational scripture says, the foundation of the church is made up of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). So the foundation (structure) is 'apostles' and 'prophets'.

Notice the scripture does not say 12 apostles and 5 prophets?

So the church that has 'apostles and prophets' is on much firmer ground biblically, than a church that has 0 'apostles and prophets'.

And answer this question:
Since to you, having 15 apostles changes the structure and means that Mormons are preaching another gospel.

I would think then, that you would be in a difficult position. If you are willing to say that about us. Then you must say that a church that has 0 apostles also changes the structure and means that they are too, preaching another gospel. IOW the entire Christian population of churches are preaching another gospel.

Explain to me how I am wrong about that?

Revelation 21:14 "The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

 

[Peter1000]

Well yes, Peter, of course Calvin didn't think of himself as starting a new religion. That's why they're called "Reformers", and the initial Protestant movement "the Reformation". Because they had all been Roman Catholics. As in, members of an actually preexisting Church/communion.

Restorationism shares with them a certain viewpoint that says that the Church has gone off the rails and hence needs to be brought back to its earlier ways of being, with the important distinction that while the Reformers intended to reform a particular Church to which they belonged, the Restorationists instead claim that the entire Church has become so utterly corrupted by man that it has, in essence, between "taken from the Earth" (to borrow LDS phrasing), and thereby needs to restored in order to exist. This is an attitude that is much more in keeping with later ideas in Protestantism, after it had been firmly established as its own thing.

Hopefully this distinction is recognized and understood, because it really does mark a significant difference between someone like, say, Martin Luther (who kept many ideas inherited from Rome), and later groups and their ideas like the Landmark Baptists, who saw the official/imperial Church as a longstanding and basically irredeemable source of evil that had historically persecuted the 'true Christians', who of course these Baptists saw as their forefathers so as to give themselves a historical pedigree that they absolutely did not have, and hence sought very unwisely to identify the heretics of the past like the Novatianists and Cathari with the Baptist Church somehow, despite the fact that the Baptists and these much earlier groups did not share a common theology. That sounds like Mormonism 101, insofar as its claims of continuity with the NT Church are concerned.

Although the Mormon church does claim continuity with the NT Church, it does not claim a kindred spirit to Novationists, Cathari, or Baptists or any Christian church, other than we are all believers in Jesus Christ. In that sense we are all Christians.

It does claim that the continuity of the true church was lost to the world for X years and that there needed to be a complete restoration, rather than a reformation. Since it was impossible to reform the Catholic/Orthodox churches, as seen from the experiences of reforming type popes and of the reformers such as Calvin and Luther, who just added a level of complexity to the religious tensions of the day, but secured very little reform.

 

[dzheremi]

Although the Mormon church does claim continuity with the NT Church [....] It does claim that the continuity of the true church was lost to the world for X years and that there needed to be a complete restoration, rather than a reformation.

So you claim continuity with something that you also believe completely stopped existing for X number of years.



con·ti·nu·i·ty
ˌkäntəˈn(y)o͞oədē/
noun
noun: continuity
1.
the unbroken and consistent existence or operation of something over a period of time.

 

[Peter1000]

Revelation 21:14 "The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

Was one of the names of the foundations named 'Judas'?
Was one of the names of the foundations named 'Paul'?
Was one of the names of the foundations named 'Barnabus'?

There was many more than just 12 apostles. So which of the apostles gets their names on a foundation?

I believe what you are looking at in Revelations could be a real wall with 12 foundations, with the names of the original 12 apostles on each foundation (but then you would have to have the name of Judas there too.) So this wall is in remembrance of the original 12. So what does that have to do with having 15 apostles to make sure the church is staying on track and growing the right way?

You could have hundreds of apostles and still have a wall that memorializes the original 12. Everyone looks back to the original 12 with reverence. But that in no way means that the Lord is stuck with using 12 apostles, and 12 only, even if he needs more to finish the work before the second coming. You would argue for that position, I would argue that the Lord does as he pleases and as is necessary, not what was done 2,000 years ago for a church just getting off the ground.

 

[Peter1000]

So you claim continuity with something that you also believe completely stopped existing for X number of years.



con·ti·nu·i·ty
ˌkäntəˈn(y)o͞oədē/
noun
noun: continuity
1.
the unbroken and consistent existence or operation of something over a period of time.

After a short period of apostasy, the Mormon church now continues the work of the NT church, call that continuity or call it restoraton or call it what you wish.

The Mormon church is structurally and doctrinally closer to the NT church than any mainline Christian church. That is one of the reasons we are growing as fast as we are, because people recognize, maybe for the first time in their lives that this is a true statement.

 

[Peter1000]

Revelation 21:14 "The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

Your church foundation has 0 apostles. That should make you stop and think.

 

[dzheremi]

After a short period of apostasy, the Mormon church now continues the work of the NT church, call that continuity or call it restoraton or call it what you wish.

The point is not what I wish to call it (I believe I've made myself clear on that by now), but that you can't both believe in the apostasy and believe in your group's continuity with the early Church, because the Mormon doctrine of the apostasy is itself the exact antonym of what continuity actually means: "unbroken and consistent existence" (of the Church). If you have some doctrine that requires you to believe that the Church was somehow taken away and not to be found on the earth anymore for X amount of time, then it can't be unbroken. And given Mormonism's complete and utter lack of historical antecedents tracing back to the early Church that it claims to be the sole continuation of, it cannot possibly be consistent, either. (That's even disregarding its own doctrinal innovations, for the sake of limiting the argument to what can be historically shown -- as via traditional churches' consistent recourse to their own fathers -- rather than what can be doctrinally argued about; at some level, it can be very easily argued that Mormonism is not even doctrinally consistent with itself, to say nothing of the much more obvious and vast disparity between it and the early Church.)

The Mormon church is structurally and doctrinally closer to the NT church than any mainline Christian church.

This assertion is one that you and other Mormons make, but never actually back up with anything beyond your appeals to your belief that it is the case. You will notice how when I state something about my own church or its practices, generally it is with reference to some historical source from which the practice comes or by which the rule is established (as in the fathers, the canons, etc.); hence you will see familiar names pop up in my posts like HH St. Athanasius, HH St. Cyril, St. Basil, and so forth. These and many others are the proof that we have that actually existing Christian churches that were on the earth in the early centuries and continue to be here today are in conformity with the rules laid down for them from the earliest preserved evidence (e.g., the Didache and other documents of the ante-Nicene Church), via the continuous witness of the Church at particular locations (be they Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, or less illustrious places).

Where is anything similar from Mormonism? Where are the early communities of the 1st-5th centuries which testify to the acceptance of LDS doctrines and scriptures by the early church itself, which after all you are claiming continuity with? Where are the lines of bishops testifying to the antiquity of their faith, so that we know that they have received the faith from the ones entrusted with carrying it forward to today? Where is anything like Mormonism among the saints attested to in the historical records such as the various synaxaria of the different churches, the church histories of men like Eusebius, Dionysius of Tel Mahre, or Severus Al Ashmunein?

That is one of the reasons we are growing as fast as we are, because people recognize, maybe for the first time in their lives that this is a true statement.

So goes the script at Mormon meetings, I suppose, but history doesn't go by what is 'faith promoting' for Mormons.

Rather, historical inquiry -- actual historical inquiry, not confirmation bias -- does not reveal anything like Mormonism predating its invention by Joseph Smith (though there are certainly works and historical currents that could be argued to have influenced him in his own prophetic career and writings). It is quite decidedly not in keeping with the early Church. One need only compare what Mormons claim and what the fathers claimed many, many centuries before Joseph Smith.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Now that we know that JS talked about teaching the old teachings of the Church of Christ, let me give you a quote from Calvin, one of the most notable reformation leaders:
From: 'A History of the Reformation', by Thomas M. Lindsay,
Pages 100-110.
"Calvin did not think he was expounding a new theology or had joined a new Chruch. The theology of the Reformation was the old teaching of the Church of Christ, and the doctrinal beliefs of the Reformers were those views of the truth which were founded in the Word of God, and which had been known, or at least felt, by pious people all down the generations from the earliest centuries. He and his fellow Reformers believed and taught the old theology of the earliest creeds (Apostolic Creed) made plain and freed from the superstitions which mediaeval theologians had borrowed from the pagan philosopy and practices."

IOW Calvin wanted to go back to the original Church of Jesus Christ (in structure and doctrine) and away from the superstitions which mediaeval theologians had borrowd from the pagan philosophy and practices. Calvin believed in the apostasy, and he did something about it too.

Does that sound like Mormonism 101 or what, and this is 300 years before JS.

You claim Calvin believed in "the apostasy" but don't back that up. And can't, because quite frankly the Magisterial Reformers didn't believe that the Church had fallen into apostasy and needed to be restored, they believed that errors had crept into the Church--recently--and thus there was need for reform.

Even in your quote you present Calvin as affirming that what he was teaching was, in his view, connected to the historic teachings of the Church--the Creeds, the fathers, and the councils, the very things which have always defined Christian orthodoxy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[fatboys]

You claim Calvin believed in "the apostasy" but don't back that up. And can't, because quite frankly the Magisterial Reformers didn't believe that the Church had fallen into apostasy and needed to be restored, they believed that errors had crept into the Church--recently--and thus there was need for reform.

Even in your quote you present Calvin as affirming that what he was teaching was, in his view, connected to the historic teachings of the Church--the Creeds, the fathers, and the councils, the very things which have always defined Christian orthodoxy.

-CryptoLutheran

Your right he wanted to reform but knew there was no authority on earth. He didn't know how it was going to come back. The reformers wanted to reform the old church. Each one had their reform that was specific to the church that was orgainzed after they had died. Some saw that baptism was important by immersion instead of sprinkling for example.