11

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" height=90 BGCOLOR="#CC9900" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="043005a0dwnjzk.gif"> <div> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="EDWARD WATSONS WEBWORLD"><U><B>home</B></U></A><B> | </B><FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#FFCC66" FACE="Arial" ><B>EDWARD WATS</B><B>ON'S WEBWORLD</B></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="id166.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="SECTION 7: INTRODUCTION"><U><B>SECTION 7: INTRODUCTION</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id169.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="1"><U><B>1</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id170.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="2"><U><B>2</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id171.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="3"><U><B>3</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id172.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="4"><U><B>4</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id173.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="5"><U><B>5</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id174.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="6"><U><B>6</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id175.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="7"><U><B>7</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id176.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="8"><U><B>8</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id177.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="9"><U><B>9</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id178.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="10"><U><B>10</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><B>11</B><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id180.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="12"><U><B>12</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id181.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="SECTION 7: CONCLUSION"><U><B>SECTION 7: CONCLUSION</B></U></A></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" height=390 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B>[MORMONISM. The Faith of the Twenty-first Century. Section 7. Edward K. Watson. (Liahona Publications. Copyright © 2002 Edward K. Watson.) pp 148-160. MORMONISM: Section 7, Chapter 11. All rights reserved.]</B></div> <bR> <div> <U>CHAPTER 11</U></div> <bR> <div> <B>THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE CHARISMATIC </B></div> <div> <B>AND ECCLESIASTICAL GROUPS</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The deterioration of purity</B></div> <bR> <div>      First century Christianity was charismatic (relied upon the Spirit) in nature. The leaders of the church were all charismatic such as the apostles, prophets and the teachers (seventy). The workings of the spirit were constantly before the Christians. Healing, speaking in tongues, prophesying, visions, divine revelation and other spiritual miracles were part of everyday life, “The divine was always [present], like a huge electric charge waiting to break through the cloud.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >1</FONT> To these early Christians, the church was the bride of Christ (Matt 22:1-14; 25:1-13; Luke 12:36; 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:22-27; Rev 19:7-9) and consequently, had to be pure and spotless (Eph 5:27; Rev 19:8; 21:2,9; 22:17; D&C 43:14). They viewed themselves as a church of saints, and even called themselves “the saints.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >2</FONT> They called each other “brother” and “sister,”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >3</FONT> and never tolerated sin to exist within their midst.</div> <div>      The simplicity, purity and charismatic nature of early Christianity <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >4</FONT> deteriorated and was completely extinguished by the second half of the third century.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >5</FONT> When the fifth century church triumphed over paganism, paganism conquered Christianity by its perpetuation within Christian doctrines, traditions, practices and rituals. Same paganism, only this time, it was clothed in the robes of Christianity.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Orthodoxy and heretics</B></div> <bR> <div>      Because of the influence of the Roman Catholic Church, people have been led to believe the original Christian Church continued to exist as one individual church. This is not the case. During the first two centuries, Christianity was comprised of many churches,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >6</FONT> each squabbling with the other,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >7</FONT> with vastly different beliefs,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >8</FONT> but united under the name Christian.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >9</FONT> There wasn't a single, central pyramid-type hierarchy that the general Christian body existed under.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >10</FONT> Second century groups who are now considered “heretics” originally weren't so. They believed they were the “orthodox” Christians and the group that became what is now Catholicism was heterodox.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >11</FONT> The “orthodox” (read Catholic) group didn't become the dominant group among the multitude of Christian bodies until the third century or possibly not until the early fourth. Even after it became the dominant group, it still didn't possess the centralized hierarchal structure Roman Catholicism is today.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >12</FONT> This structure of authority was a gradual development that only had the appearance of being originally apostolic since “it drew to itself from all quarters both the powers and the forms of life”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >13</FONT> (in other words, it adopted contemporary traditions and practices).</div> <div>      Since the “heretics” in the early centuries were considered Christians,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >14</FONT> the division between the “heretics” and the “orthodox” presupposes a standard existed that enabled one to determine which is which. Unfortunately, this standard is non-existent.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >15</FONT> Late first to mid-second century Christianity lacked a central structure recognized by the Christians as the legitimate successors of the apostles. There wasn't a “main” Christian body. There were around fifty competing Christian groups ranging from the ultra-conservative (like the Ebionites and Nazarenes) to the ultra-liberal (like the Carpocratians). This period of Christianity is identical with present-day Protestantism but with more drastic diversity since there wasn't a recognized canon, creed or traditions common to all of them except they all believed they were the true followers of Christ. </div> <bR> <div> <B>The birth of Catholicism (100-140 AD)</B></div> <bR> <div>      A group<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >16</FONT> emerged amid this second century sea of chaos, which developed and merged two concepts together, Apostolic Succession and Monarchical Bishop. The result was the creation of a monarchical structure based upon apostolic succession. They created traditions of Episcopal successions (successions of bishops) of various churches leading back to apostolic times a hundred years after the supposed “successions” took place. Their line of authority can only be demonstrated to go to the sub-apostolic period.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >17</FONT> Any line of authority that goes back to the apostles is purely imaginative.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >18</FONT> This group tied salvation to membership within the group (naturally) but most importantly, made the monarchical bishop the sole dispenser of grace and authority. </div> <div>      This group increased in power and numbers and imposed its structure upon the other churches. Eventually, it arose to become the main body of Christians and became what is called the “orthodox” church and those groups outside of this church were condemned as heretics.</div> <div>      The group that later became known as Orthodox Christianity or the Catholic Church in reality was way more liberal and compromising than certain primitive churches.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >19</FONT> </div> <div>      Those late-second to fourth century Christians who wanted to preserve the uncompromising nature and teachings of early Christianity separated from the main (read Catholic) body of Christians,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >20</FONT> and were systematically exterminated by the Catholic Church after it came into power,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >21</FONT> together with the other older “heretical” churches. The Marcionites, Novatians, Valentinians, Paulians, Montanists, etc. were so numerous in the second and third century that if Constantine didn't begin a systematic extermination campaign against them,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >22</FONT> Christianity today would be unrecognizable since these “heretics” were nearly as numerous as the “orthodox” group,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >23</FONT> and together with the Manicheans, were steadily gaining members away from the Catholic Church.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >24</FONT></div> <div>      The unyielding and uncompromising groups such as the Novatianists,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >25</FONT> Montanists, Encratites, Ebionites, Donatists, Melatians,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >26</FONT> etc. were labeled heretics for not changing with the times and for their insistence of clinging to the old beliefs of the original church.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >27</FONT> The old orthodoxy became the new heresy.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >28</FONT> From Irenaeus onward, the Ebionites were considered a deviationist sect,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >29</FONT> and the Montanists were viewed as heretics around 177 A.D.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >30</FONT> The  conservative Donatists were nearly wiped out by Augustine in the fifth century but survived for two more centuries before becoming extinct. </div> <bR> <div> <B>Catholicism is</B><I><B> not</B></I><B> the ancient “great and abominable church”</B></div> <bR> <div>      Because of the late arrival of Catholicism,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >31</FONT> it is not the great and abominable church that is mentioned in 1 Nephi 13 because this apostate group edited the different biblical books before the Catholic Church was even formed. The “whore of all the earth” wasn't a particular church that existed in the first century but was a term of reference to the apostates who fought against the church (2 Ne 10:16). Its broader meaning has reference to all evil-doers in the world and church who will be burned at the Last Day (D&C 88:94). </div> <div>      When the Catholic Church became dominant, the genuine authority that the apostles had was already lost, the gift of prophecy was slowly dying,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >32</FONT> because the remaining prophets who continued to flourish in the second century,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >33</FONT> were increasingly more troublesome to the growing church organizations,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >34</FONT> and by the third century were likely to be excommunicated from the Christian body by the ecclesiastical leaders.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >35</FONT> </div> <bR> <div> <B>Charismatic vs. ecclesiastical</B></div> <bR> <div>      Why would the ecclesiastical leaders of the churches push out the charismatic leaders such as the prophets? If they were true prophets (and all the indications point to that conclusion) why would it be necessary for them to be silenced? It is obvious that they were giving a message the ecclesiastical rulers didn't want the members of their congregations to hear. What could that message be?<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >36</FONT> If the prophets were telling the people that the Apostasy was taking (or had taken) place and the increasingly institutionalized churches were apostate organizations then the action these churches took is certainly understandable. (In fact, this is the message they were preaching).<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >37</FONT></div> <div>      The conflict between the prophets and other charismatic rulers and the ecclesiastical leaders like the bishops and deacons of individual congregations,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >38</FONT> already occurred during the time of the Apostles as can be seen by the following passages:</div> <bR> <div>   (1) 1 Cor 12:28 <I>And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers,</I> after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.</div> <div>   (2) Eph 2:19-20 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints and of the household of God; And<I> are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,</I> Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.</div> <div>   (3) Eph 4:11-12 And<I> he gave some, Apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;</I> For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.</div> <div>   (4) 3 John 9-10 I wrote unto the church: but <I>Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, received us not.</I> Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, <I>prating against us with malicious words</I>: and not content therewith, <I>neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbidding them that would, and casteth them out of the church.</I></div> <div>  </div> <div>      Paul was emphasizing the superiority of the apostles and prophets over any other ecclesiastical office. The charismatic offices (apostles, prophets, evangelists) were always superior to the ecclesiastical offices (bishops/pastors, elders/presbyters, deacons, priests). This was disregarded by the later Christian church that subsequently pushed them out, thereby losing the primary feature and foundation of the true church.</div> <div>      The apostles and prophets were always superior to the bishops of the churches. They were the foundation of the church and were supposed to have successors but because they upset the status quo, they were pushed out by the bishops and deacons,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >39</FONT> who increasingly institutionalized and unified the churches according to their desires and then assumed the mantle of authority that the apostles and prophets originally had.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >40</FONT> Diotrephes' actions against John and the other charismatic leaders triumphed as can been seen by the eventual preeminence of the ecclesiastical leaders in the Christian churches. </div> <div>      The second century Christian church didn't receive the monarchical structure from the apostles,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >41</FONT> they created this structure and viewed it as the only possible authoritative head of their churches.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >42</FONT> In fact, the monarchical bishops, replaced the original college of elders/bishops (they were interchangeable -Acts 20:17,28),<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >43</FONT> that existed under the charismatic leaders in the church.</div> <div>      The church at Rome didn't have a monarchical bishop until mid-second century with Anicetus (154-166),<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >44</FONT> neither did the church at Philippi have one during Ignatius' and Polycarp's time (Polycarp. Phil 5.3)<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >45</FONT> but were governed by a council of elders/presbyters.</div> <div>      According to Jerome, </div> <bR> <div>   “A presbyter [elder], therefore, is the same as a bishop, and before ambition entered into religion by the devil's instigation and people began to say: `I belong to Paul, I to Apollos, I to Cephas (1 Cor 1:12)', the churches were governed by the council of the presbyters, acting together. But after each began to think that those whom he had baptized were his, not Christ's, it was unanimously decreed that one of the presbyters should be elected and preside over the others, and that the care of the church should wholly belong to him, that the seeds of schism might thus be removed.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >46</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      The first evidence of the bishops assuming the authority of the prophets and apostles over the church,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >47</FONT> can be seen in the letter of Ignatius of Antioch where he constantly emphasized the supreme authority of the bishops,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >48</FONT> in direct opposition to the biblical stance. During Ignatius' time prophets were still going around the churches,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >49</FONT> and his statements were such that they would eliminate their importance.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >50</FONT></div> <div>      The monarchical bishops and their allies won their battle against the original charismatic leaders of the church.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >51</FONT> Unfortunately, without authorized prophets and apostles, who were the foundation of the church, the Apostasy of the early Christian Church was finally completed. The Catholic Church emerged before the middle of the second century, with the churches claiming to be founded by the apostles as those possessing superior honor among the churches.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >52</FONT> A mere two hundred years later, the Catholic Church came to rule the Roman Empire and dominate Europe. </div> <bR> <div> <B>The development of the Catholic hierarchy and genuine authority</B></div> <bR> <div>      Late second and third century Catholicism was a religion governed by bishops who were equal to each other, just as all Mormon bishops are equal with one another. Gradually, the bishops in the main cities started asserting their authority over the bishops in the areas around it.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >53</FONT> Eventually, the most prominent cities such as Rome, Carthage, Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, etc. were recognized as being superior to the churches in their areas but equal in authority with each other. After a time, the three greatest cities (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch) were given the highest honor at the Council of Nicea. Even later, in 381, the top ranking was changed to be Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch.</div> <div>      In order to realize the significance of the development of the Catholic hierarchy and the effect it would have on genuine authority, the Mormon should visualize the LDS Church a hundred years from now. In our hypothetical future, the ecclesiastical leaders of the church (the bishops, elders, priests, deacons, etc.) kicked out the charismatic leaders (the First Presidency [prophets], the Twelve Apostles, the Seventy) and then claimed to be the legitimate leaders of the church.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >54</FONT></div> <div>      All of the bishops would initially be equal to one another, but gradually the bishops in major population centers chose one as their leader who later on started asserting supremacy over the bishops in the surrounding areas. Gradually, the most prominent cities with a large Mormon population such as Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, San Diego, Mexico City, Lima, and Manila started claiming supremacy over all the churches in their spheres. The Mormon Church held a General Council, which designated certain churches to occupy the highest honor among the churches (Salt Lake, Los Angeles, San Diego, Mexico City, Manila), with all of them equal with each other but ranked according to honor. A hundred years later, the bishop of Salt Lake started claiming to possess a monarchical authority or supreme jurisdiction over the Mormon Church. The other bishops of the major Sees (Los Angeles, San Diego, Mexico City and Manila) disregarded this claim and viewed the bishop of Salt Lake as confusing primacy of honor with primacy of jurisdiction. Hundreds of years later, the four other major Sees were conquered by another religious group and no other church existed that was capable of rivaling the church of Salt Lake. After hundreds of years, nearly all Mormons believed that the bishop of Salt Lake was the only source of authority and possessed a monarchical supremacy over the church and was the sole representative of God upon the earth.</div> <div>      Would any Mormon today believe that the above-mentioned development would possess an authentic authority? Of course not. The charismatic leaders are always superior to the ecclesiastical leaders and any bishop who would usurp the authority of the charismatic leaders automatically loses his authority and is in a state of apostasy. This development accurately portrays the development of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and its departure from the original structure proves its apostate nature. </div> <bR> <div> <B>[ENDNOTES]:</B></div> <bR> <div> 1.THE END OF ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY (Markus). p.23.</div> <div> 2.The Holy Bible, LDS Version. <I>Bible Dictionary.</I> pp.767-768; <I>Topical Guide</I>. pp.443-444; VINE'S EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF BIBLICAL WORDS.<I> New Testament Section</I>. p.544.</div> <div> 3.THE EXPANSION OF CHRISTIANITY (Harnack). 2:7-10,31.</div> <div> 4.THE EXPANSION OF CHRISTIANITY (Harnack). 1:260; THE HOLY FIRE (Payne). p.9.</div> <div> 5.THE EXPANSION OF CHRISTIANITY (Harnack). 1:256,268-270,447,493-494; THE STORY OF THE CHURCH (Renwick and Harman). p.22; THE RIDDLE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM (Pelikan). pp.28.</div> <div> 6.SAINTS AND SINNERS IN THE EARLY CHURCH (Frend). pp.175-176.</div> <div> 7.ORIGEN. The Bible and Philosophy in the Third Century Church. (Trigg). p.216. In Celsus' book<I> True Doctrine </I>(180 A.D.) he attacks the Christians as numerous sects at odds with each other and the name of Christ is the only thing all these groups have in common. This charge is quoted in Origen's book, <I>Contra Celsus</I> 3.10-12,14 & 5.63.</div> <div> 8.NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA Vol 1 (Hennecke). p.23; THE SECRET GOSPEL (M. Smith). p.20; ADAM, EVE, AND THE SERPENT (Pagels). pp.151-152; THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS (Pagels). Intro xxiii, xxxviii, pp.7-8; ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY (Bauer). xxii; EARLY CHRISTIANITY (Hazlett). pp.200-201.</div> <div> 9.THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH VOL II. (Davies). p.261-262.</div> <div> 10.HISTORY OF PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY (Conzelmann). pp.118,145; THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). p.255.</div> <div> 11.THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). p.268; THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS (Pagels). pp.138-140.</div> <div> 12.THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). pp.310-311.</div> <div> 13.THE EXPANSION OF CHRISTIANITY (Harnack). 2:57,59,104,113.</div> <div> 14.HISTORY OF PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY (Conzelmann). pp.123,125; THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Davies). p.136; ORTHODOXY AND HERESY IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY (Walter Bauer).</div> <div> 15.THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p.195; EARLY CHRISTIANITY (Hazlett). p.201.</div> <div> 16.EARLY CHRISTIANITY (Hazlett). p.68.</div> <div> 17.SAINTS AND SINNERS IN THE EARLY CHURCH (Frend). pp.63-64.</div> <div> 18.THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p.231.</div> <div> 19.THE BIBLE IN THE MAKING (MacGregor). p.91.</div> <div> 20.PAGANS AND CHRISTIANS (Fox). pp.280,590.</div> <div> 21.PAGANS AND CHRISTIANS (Fox). pp.419,656,675.</div> <div> 22.Eusebius.<I> Life of Constantine</I>. Book 3, Chapters 63-66; THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Schaff and Wace). Vol 1. pp. 538-540.</div> <div> 23.THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). p. 282.</div> <div> 24.THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p.568; EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES (Kelly). p.142.</div> <div> 25.PAGANS AND CHRISTIANS (Fox). p.549; PATROLOGY Vol 2 (Quasten). pp.214-215.</div> <div> 26.PAGANS AND CHRISTIANS (Fox). p.609.</div> <div> 27.PAGAN ROME AND THE EARLY CHRISTIANS. (Benko). pp.146-147.</div> <div> 28.THE INFLUENCE OF GREEK IDEAS ON CHRISTIANITY. (Hatch). pp.131-133. </div> <div> 29.THE EARLY CHURCH (Chadwick). p.23; THE EXPANSION OF CHRISTIANITY (Harnack). 1:72; CHRISTIANITY IN THE ROMAN WORLD (Markus). p.22.</div> <div> 30.ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA. VOL.8. p.278; PAGANS AND CHRISTIANS (Fox). pp. 408,656. </div> <div> 31.THE CONSTITUTION AND LAW OF THE CHURCH IN THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES (Harnack). p.253, f.1. Harnack says, “Catholic elements do not constitute do not constitute the essence of primitive Christianity. It would therefore be misleading to call primitive Christianity `Catholic.' Even for the post-apostolic age, it is better to avoid this name.” Cited from THE RIDDLE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM (Pelikan). p.242.</div> <div> 32.THE INFLUENCE OF GREEK IDEAS ON CHRISTIANITY. (Hatch). p. 107; NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA Vol. 1 (Hennecke). p.37; THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION (Pelikan). 1:98.</div> <div> 33.THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). p.4.</div> <div> 34.PAGANS AND CHRISTIANS (Fox). p.493; THE BEGINNING OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). p.315; EARLY CHRISTIANITY (Hazlett). p.106.</div> <div> 35.THE SECRET GOSPEL (M. Smith). p.120; THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE (Gibbons). 1:418; THE EXPANSION OF CHRISTIANITY (Harnack). 1:442.</div> <div> 36.For example, see The Shepherd of Hermas. <I>Vision </I>3, Verses 102-104.</div> <div> 37.Shepherd of Hermas, <I>Similitude</I> 10:4-5; Elchesai, (Hippol. ref 9.13.1-4.) as cited from PAGANS AND CHRISTIANS (Fox). p.388.</div> <div> 38.PATROLOGY Vol 2 (Quasten). p.331; EARLY CHRISTIANITY (Hazlett). p.106.</div> <div> 39.INFALLIBLE? An Inquiry (Kung). pp.82-84; THE PAPACY (Shimmelpfennig). p.7.</div> <div> 40.THE RIDDLE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM (Pelikan). p.26; SAINTS AND SINNERS IN THE EARLY CHURCH (Frend). pp.35-36; THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). pp.4-5.</div> <div> 41.SAINTS AND SINNERS IN THE EARLY CHURCH (Frend). p.35.</div> <div> 42.THE CHURCH (Jay). pp.48-49; THE PAPACY (Schimmelpfennig). p.2; WHO WAS THE FIRST BISHOP OF ROME? (Shortt). p.139.</div> <div> 43.THE EXPANSION OF CHRISTIANITY (Harnack). 2:113; HISTORY OF PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY (Conzelmann). p. 117; THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p. 140; THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Davies). p.92; EARLY CHRISTIANITY (Hazlett). pp.107,137; THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). p.213.</div> <div> 44.Eusebius.<I> Eccl. Hist.</I> Book 4, Chap. 22:3; Book 5, Chap.24:16; THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). p.243.</div> <div> 45.HISTORY OF PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY (Conzelmann). pp. 117,155.</div> <div> 46.Jerome. <I>Commentary on the Epistle to Titus</I>. 1:6-7. See also Jerome's 69th and 146th <I>Epistles.</I></div> <div> 47.THE EXPANSION OF CHRISTIANITY (Harnack). 1:279; 2:95; EARLY CHRISTIANITY (Hazlett). p.106.</div> <div> 48.1 Clement 44:1-2; Ignatius, Magn 3:1; 6:1; Trall 6; Phil 3; Eph 4; Smyr 8:1; Pol 5:2.</div> <div> 49.<I>The Didache.</I> Chapters 10-11,13,15-16.</div> <div> 50.Catholic apologists will claim that Ignatius' willingness to be martyred shows he was a zealous follower of the true apostolic teachings. However, there were many “heretics” who believed they were zealously following the truth who were also martyred and who were Gnostics, Ebionites, Montanists, Manichians, Donatists, etc. Justin Martyr believed doctrines that are considered heresies by the post-fourth century church such as Jesus being subordinate to the Father (<I>Apology</I> 2,6;<I> Dialog</I> 61), the Logos is a second God (<I>Dialog</I> 56) and taught that God wasn't omnipresent (<I>Dialog</I> 127). In fact, Justin Martyr believed many doctrines that are identical with Mormonism such as a physical resurrection (<I>Dialog</I> 120:4-5), the coming Millenium (<I>Dialog</I> 80:5), and even describes the Mormon sacrament, “When the president has given thanks and the whole congregation has assented, those whom we call deacons give to each of those present a portion of the consecrated bread and wine and water, and they take it to the absent. This food we call Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes the things which we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth and who lives as Christ handed down to us.”(1 <I>Apology</I> 65-66,<I>67</I>.)</div> <div>      The Early Christians, both “orthodox” and “heretic” weren't martyred for their particular beliefs that differentiate them from each other; they were martyred because they considered themselves to be Christians who wouldn't abandon faith in Christ and sacrifice to idols.</div> <div>      Christians in the first three centuries viewed the martyrs as being the greatest Christians and because of their martyrdom, will go straight to heaven and receive a hundred-fold blessing (Cyprian. <I>Epistle</I> 76,6) bypassing the spirit world regardless of the sins they committed while alive. The martyrs were imitators of Christ (Letter concerning Polycarp from Smyrna to Philomelium). This is why the “orthodox” Christians viewed even the “heretics” as going to heaven if they were martyred.</div> <div>      Even in the last two centuries, there were many Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews who've died for their faiths. A willingness to die for one's faith doesn't prove it's the true religion.</div> <bR> <div> 51.THE EXPANSION OF CHRISTIANITY (Harnack). 1:431; THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM. (Elliott-Binns). p.314; THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY (Frend). pp.255-256.</div> <div> 52.THE RIDDLE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM (Pelikan). pp.25-26.</div> <div> 53.EARLY CHRISTIANITY (Hazlett). p.107; The Council of Antioch (341)<I> Canon Nine</I>. THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:112, states:</div> <bR> <div>   “It behoves the bishop in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the Metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the Metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him.” (See also <I>Apostolic Canon</I> 34).</div> <div> 54.Stake Presidents are another story. The first century church didn't have state presidents since the office is designed for a permanent institution. The first-century mentality of the imminent end would've caused this office to be redundant since the bishops would be functioning directly under the seventy and apostles.</div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="mailto:ewatson@shaw.ca" TARGET="_top" TITLE="mailto:ewatson@shaw.ca"><U>e-mail me!</U></A></div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>