A Mormon Scholar’s Journey to Catholic Faith

First Things ^ | August 30, 2012 | Richard Sherlock

[iowamark]

Early in the evening of May 28, 2010, I am attending Mass in the majestic Basilica di Sant’Apollinare next to the Pontificia Università della Santa Croce in Rome. From Utah I have come as a scholar to deliver a paper at an international conference on the work of the great Catholic philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand, and I have come as a tourist to see the Eternal City for the first time. Mass is being celebrated in the basilica for those attending the conference.

I am not Catholic—in fact, I was raised a Mormon, though I have had serious doubts about the Latter-day Saint faith for decades. Yet my journey of the heart—which ultimately ended in the Catholic Church—came long after I had intellectually departed—so I cannot receive Holy Communion. But when Archbishop Raymond Burke places his hand on my head in a blessing, the extraordinary presence of Jesus Christ moves my soul to tears. I now know, in my head and in my heart, that I have come to Rome as a pilgrim. I have finally heard his voice, and I will not turn away.

Of course, I was awestruck by the beauty of Rome. The conference was wonderful, and I made important contacts and great friends. But infinitely more important, I found a priceless gift: the God of truth I had ignored for decades. I found my soul, which had been lost in the fog of my pride and stubbornness. Thus began a journey that took me to the waters of Catholic baptism, the anointing of confirmation, and first Communion at the Easter Vigil of 2012. You do not need to travel thousands of miles to have a real encounter with Christ. But your soul does need to be open in a way mine had not been for years.

Mormon friends ask how I could leave the LDS Church. Catholic friends ask why the pilgrimage to Rome took me so long. My brother, a rabbi, was the first person I told I was converting. When we talked, he said simply, “You were a Catholic thinker when you were a graduate student at Harvard in the 1970s.”

Intellectually, there are two beliefs at the core of the LDS faith that I eventually realized I could not accept. The first is the doctrine of a “great apostasy” afflicting the church. Mormons do not deny that Peter led the church after Jesus’ Ascension. They deny that the Holy Spirit continued to guide it. Mormons believe that after Peter the patristic church lost its way.

And by “losing its way,” Mormons do not mean that the church suffered from human sinfulness or became too wedded to secular power. Christianity supposedly strayed so far that it was no longer Christianity. It did not merely require renewal, as St. Francis preached. It did not merely require a new vocabulary to express timeless truths, as Vatican II proclaimed. Mormons believe that the church—Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant visions alike—completely died and that Christianity required a “restoration” by God himself.

My intellectual journey was inspired in large part by my study of patristics. Reading the Church Fathers in my first year at Harvard in 1970–71, I realized that this story was false. Even my meager study of the Fathers allowed me to see what Newman had seen—that there was a development of Christian thought, a deepening of our understanding of such truths as the Incarnation and the Trinity. There simply was no evidence of a fundamental break from the church Jesus established. As one of Mormonism’s most brilliant minds of the last half century, Edwin Firmage, wrote after he left the LDS Church: “The idea that God was sort of snoozing until 1820 now seems to me absurd.”

Two passages from the Gospel of Matthew are particularly difficult to reconcile with the Mormon doctrine of the great apostasy. Jesus promised Peter that “the gates of the netherworld” would not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16) and he promised the Apostles that he would be with the Church until the end of the age (Matthew 28).

The other fundamental Mormon teaching that I cannot accept is the absence of an existential distinction between God and man. In an 1844 sermon, Joseph Smith made a claim that profoundly shapes the way Mormons see the world: “God himself was once as we are now and is an exalted man.” Parse this out and God himself becomes a finite, physical being. How, I wondered, can we have absolute confidence in a God whose power and knowledge are limited, not just by the rules of logic, as St. Thomas would have said, but by unknown barriers? A limited God cannot be our anchor in the face of extreme horrors or profound personal loss. In the face of terrible, inexplicable loss, Job did not place his trust in an “exalted man.” The God who spoke to Job did not start out on a world like ours. This God, who comforted Job and comforts millions of others every day, to whom we can truly pray “not my will but yours be done,” cannot be the limited being Mormons call “god.”

The Mormon “god,” who came from a world like ours, cannot be the creator of all worlds, as Scripture and reason tell us he is. The physical god of the Mormons cannot have been present at creation, when there was no matter. Furthermore, if all of us can become “gods,” then Mormonism is incompatible with Christian Trinitarianism and Jewish monotheism. It is polytheism.

Compounding all this, in my experience, is the fact that Mormons generally do not seek for serious answers. In fact, Mormon authorities actively discourage the marriage of faith and reason that we Catholics celebrate. I now profess openly what I always too silently believed: If a faith cannot be sustained in the face of serious questions, it is not a faith worth having.

If these reasons to reject Mormonism were sound for me over forty years ago, why did I stay? I could say it was culture, friendship, or inertia, and those reasons are accurate in a certain sense. But the full truth is found in Psalm 95: “Today if you hear His voice, harden not your heart.” I now know that at least four times in those forty years I specifically heard God calling me to his Church, but I turned away. My oldest and closest friend since 1970 told me twice directly that, like him, I should be a Catholic. I knew he was right. Yet I did nothing.

In one instance, the turning was literal. I had invited a Catholic theologian to speak at Utah State on religion and science, and I arranged a lunch for him with the Newman Club. After lunch, the parish priest and I talked for a long time. As our conversation wound down, I felt strongly that I should go with him to his office and talk about my faith. Yet I turned away and walked back to my office.

In the past two years, my journey towards the Catholic Church has brought me to a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ than I have ever had. I have not “given up my faith.” Leaving Mormonism for Catholicism is a journey many others are making, and it has allowed me to experience God’s love in a profoundly richer way.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

if one is going to opine about “romanism”, maybe it would be a good idea to get your “facts” straight.

“You will note, though, that the first statist Roman religion came into being under Constantine as one method of unifying his empirate, and it was of the one ruled by the Bishop of Rome.”

well, i guess you understand history as well as you do the greek language. the first statist roman religion DID NOT come into being under Constantine. ( maybe getting your history from dan brown is not a good idea ) Christianity did not become the state religion of Rome until 381ad and it wasn’t “one ruled” by the Bishop of Rome.

still researching my question on who has the authority ( if anyone does ) to declare the correct canon of Scripture??

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

forgot to mention Constantine died in 337ad, 44 years prior to “the first statist Roman religion” being declared.

btw, the Church IS NOT invisible now, and has NEVER been INVISIBLE. Jesus established a VISIBLE CHURCH. if the Church was invisible, who did Paul know to send his Epistle to the Romans to?

[imardmd1]

Do you happen to have "Bibleworks"?

No, but I have Logos ver. 1.6 purchased many years ago, e-Sword (free and extremely popular with downloadable textforms, lexicons, translations, and commentaries), Scrivener's Textus Receptus, Nestle's 1904 critical text, several English translations, Wittman's "The Gospels -- A Precise Translation," Strong's and Young's Concordances, and many other reference works; plus the whole wwweb.

With you up to the last sentence. It can be one of the premises of a debate. And the debate could be about many things, for example whether and how ἡ κτίσις is good.

I certainly do not neglect that The God made man(kind) in His Image (and therefore, me); thus eminently gifted with reason. But reason is not all of life and experience. Emotion is not necessarily suject to reason. Neither is morality. Reason is a tool, not the end. I found it interesting to read of Justin Martyr, of his conversion:

"Subsequently, he adopted Platonism after encountering a Platonist thinker who had recently settled in his city. Some time afterwards, he chanced upon an old man, possibly a Palestinian or Syrian Christian,[7] in the vicinity of the seashore, who engaged him in a dialogue about God, and spoke of the testimony of the prophets as more reliable than the reasoning of philosophers."

Of course, it was he and others like him that led apostates into error through knitting Platonic philosophy with the true apostolic faith, thus poisoning it. (And remarking on that, as I possess a doctorate of philosophy, which did not directly lead me to persistent committed trust in the Person and Work of The Lord Jesus Christ.)

That led a little further to reading about his First Apology, addressed to the then Roman Emperor, embodying the barest articles of The Faith; and thence to a summation of the doctrine and definition of "logos", which may be of interest to you.

But that's not the meat of the disagreement. Isn't the real question about the extent of the corruption of man's reason? It SEEMS you are suggesting ἡ ανακαίνωσις is a kind of end of reason. I think it is the restoration of right reason.

I'm saying that through Sin as a master, the human's ability to reason is so utterly debilitated that he can never find his way to The God through reasoning; neither can he have fellowship with the Uniplural Triune Godhead nor understand The God's mind through his bent reasoning mechanism. Sort of like me, on my level, trying to communicate with some other so deep in the folds of lysergic acid diethyl amide that my sense makes no sense to him, hence to him it is nonsense.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith The Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Is. 55:8-9)

But in invitation He says, "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, thet shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."

Now, what kind of reasoning is that!? It is Godly, spiritual reasoning, to which we must have our sin-wounded reasoning transformed:

So where you say "quenching and bypassing," I would say "redirecting, freeing, revivifying, indeed, renewing."

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of The God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto The God, which is your reasonable (logikos) service, And be not conformed to this world (this age, aionon); but be ye transformed by the renewing (metamorpohosis) of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of The God." (Rom. 12:1,2)

Without this metamorphosis, a caterpillar-to-butterfly permanent change, one will be blind and deaf to spiritual communication with The God Who does the seeking and saving. Yes, he appeals to one's heart, but only through suppressing the rejection to such Godly wooing by the Satan-blinded, sin-soaked, falsely-reasoning mind gained in the Garden of Eden. Like my mind did, for 34 years, inherited at conception.

He does it by planting the generative Seed, His Word, into a human's heart, where it may sprout if it is not a stony, scorched, or weed-choked heart. (1 John 3:9, Mt. 13:3-9,18-23)

Who speaks for The God?

The Preacher!

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by God's (spoken) word (hremata)." (Rom. 10:17)

And who responds? The soul verbally instructed in righteousness in The Faith, which says:

"But what sayeth it? The (spoken) word (hrema) is near thee, even in thy mouth, and in thine heart: that is, the (spoken) word of The Faith, which we preach; That if (and it may be) thou shalt confess (aorist, active, subjunctive) with thy mouth, 'Jesus! Lord!' and shalt believe (aorist, active, subjunctive) in thine heart that The God hat raised Him from the dead ones, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. ... For whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom. 12:8-10, 13)

Doen't say much about a need for water baptism to precede salvation, does it? There is no passage in The Christ's words or those of the New Testament writers by which baptismal regeneration must be accepted. It is only by a misleading interpretation of ambiguity that such a doctrine can be derived, when that is disproved by the greater context of the whole.

It is with humanistic, depraved reasoning that as-yet carnal humans under influence of their father, the god of this world, come to such naturalistic fictions as: pantheism; salvation conferred to infants by water baptism; a second chance for heaven after physical death; adding to the perfect works of Christ by works of supererogation; earning one's way to heaven; Jesus and Satan being brothers; The Father The God just being a glorified human; an Allah who had no Son being The True God; worship of thee Sun by sacrifice of children; ancestor worship; and atheistic worship of one's own reasonings, morality, and abortion,etc.; to name a few of the more important roads leading away from the Cross.

With a heavy, humbly-disposed heart toward hoi polloi, the many, the lost, those unloving because of the abundance of iniquity --

[imardmd1]

Then by what faculty did Paul expect the Corinthian Church to discern the sin in 1 Corinthian 5?

The Corinthian church had enough Hebrew members to apply the moral law of the Tanach as being still effective in the New Covenant. That does not take algebra or logic, just obedience.

[papertyger]

The Corinthian church had enough Hebrew members to apply the moral law of the Tanach as being still effective in the New Covenant. That does not take algebra or logic, just obedience.

Aside from you gratuitously giving your own inferences the weight of Holy Scripture, how does that moral calculation support "bypassed reasoning" in an "intelligent mind already ... prejudiced by sin?"

[imardmd1]

... that same Holy Ghost who without the Bible is mute. (imardmd1)

Why? What changed?

"But that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away" (1 Cor. 13:10)

The written Bible was finished with the death of the last apostles. Prior to that, The Spirit spoke to men from the beginning, as written by Moses and the prophets. So spoke He also by the holy men personally discipled Jesus The Anointed One. For Paul speaking and writing by the Holy Ghost, the time had not yet come, but it would. But after the primary sources, the charismata failed, as the could not enhanced that which was perfect (completed). The Holy Ghost-approved Scripture was present and had been distributed; later collected as the Canon. That is what is perfect, completed.

Now, the Bible is the voice of the Holy Ghost. So would one speaking the Word, as Jesus did to the Devil at the Temptation (Mt. 4:4). There is now no more special revelation, nor would it be needed since "that which is perfect" is come, though some "charismatic" adherents would claim otherwise, thus denying the above Scripture.

One cannot improve on perfection, AFIK.

That is what has changed, till He comes.

[imardmd1]

Aside from you gratuitously giving your own inferences the weight of Holy Scripture, how does that moral calculation support "bypassed reasoning" in an "intelligent mind already ... prejudiced by sin?"

Scriptural interprets itself. Read the first verse of that passage.

A human's mind, not transformed by its renewing, does not even receive the deep things of The Spirit of The God, let alone understand them, for they are foolish to him.

What is your problem? Your question does not seem to frame the issue.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

St. Justin Martyr:
“...Then they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: in the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior, Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [Jn 3:3]... The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles... and in order to obtain in the water the remission of past sins...” (First Apology [148-155 AD])

Justin kept the Catholic Faith received FROM THE APOSTLES and taught baptismal regeneration.

[papertyger]

The Holy Ghost-approved Scripture was present and had been distributed; later collected as the Canon. That is what is perfect, completed. Now, the Bible is the voice of the Holy Ghost.

That's not what 1Cor13:10 says ... it's a total inference, and one that's only recommended by it's support of an extra-biblical doctrine.

[papertyger]

Scriptural interprets itself.

Nonsense. There is absolutely no honest textual way to get the popular Protestant interpretation of Matthew 16:18 apart from defending a doctrine of men.

A human's mind, not transformed by its renewing, does not even receive the deep things of The Spirit of The God, let alone understand them, for they are foolish to him.

Yet the presumably transformed minds of the Corinthians were in grievous error.

What guards you from such error?

[stpio]

“Practical fact shows that it is not the only global denomination, hence the term “Roman Catholic” is an oxymoron, dear stpio.”

~ ~ ~

Thanks for the “with respect ~”, nice, means a lot.

“Denomination” is a Protestant term, there is only one
faith. Everything you, anyone, knows of Christ besides the prophetic in the OT comes from Roman Catholicism. You have
to look at history.

St. Ignatius, 3rd Bishop of Antioch used the term
Catholic for the first time. There is a hierarchy since
he was a Bishop. St. Peter appointed Ignatius to Antioch.

Our Lord is NOT returning “soon” to reveal everyone can believe what they want, why return? Prophecy, tradition and Scripture state He is coming to unite all to one belief, Roman Catholicism. The Remnant is Roman Catholic.

Skip all the disagreement and pray about the Real Presence, it is the pinnacle of the faith and shows true faith, one doesn’t see a change in the consecrated host. Believe Jesus is truly present in the most Holy Eucharist and you will make it through the times ahead.

All in God’s Will, some of the faithful will be martyred.

[stpio]

God has always wanted everyone to believe the same, you
can’t deny the fact. In prophecy Our Lord is helping
our non-Catholic brothers and sisters in a gentle way to prepare right now...to accept the faith.

Mary Clark is Protestant, she receives mostly “light” messages from Heaven.

message to Mary Clark

Fireside Chats – 21

September 3, 2012

These little chats that we have are doing even more than drawing you closer to your Beloved. They are advancing you into that place of wonder that I have for you. Yes, this place of wonder will strengthen you, fortify you, and guarantee to you all that I have promised. You will see things develop in your midst that you never dreamed possible. YOU WILL LEARN TRUTHS THAT YOU NEVER UNDERSTOOD. Yes, dear one, these little chats contain much more than you can imagine at this point, more than you could ever dream. Ponder this truth, dear one. Ponder this amazing fact.

[stpio]

“You will note, though, that the first statist Roman religion came into being under Constantine as one method of unifying his empirate, and it was of the one ruled by the Bishop of Rome.”

well, i guess you understand history as well as you do the greek language. the first statist roman religion DID NOT come into being under Constantine. ( maybe getting your history from dan brown is not a good idea ) Christianity did not become the state religion of Rome until 381ad and it wasn’t “one ruled” by the Bishop of Rome.

still researching my question on WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY ( if anyone does ) to declare the correct canon of Scripture??”

~ ~ ~

Dear friend, look at your forum name, think about it.

I can answer your last question, the Church that gave you
your Bible was given the authority by God to decide the
Canon. The pillar and ground of Truth is the Church not
the Bible. Protestants broke away from the RCC, taking the Bible, a Catholic book and calling it their one and only authority.

And the one man, the one and only one Protestants use to speak of in referring to Christian history before 1517 is Constantine. It usually amounts to one or two paragraphs to cover 33 A.D. until 1517. Why would Protestants think
no one notices? They can’t refer to saints of this very long time period, centuries, because they’re Catholic.

First....

The Apostles including Paul, the Apostolic Fathers believed
in the Eucharist. You can too.

Peter speaks of the Church being in Rome, long before Constantine. Peter as leader of Christ’s Church, he was persecuted (like the faithful in our time will be persecuted again in the Great Tribulation). The first Christians had to come up with a code name for Rome, Babylon.

1 Peter 5:13-14
[13] The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark. [Latin] [14] Salute one another with a holy kiss. Grace be to all you, who are in Christ Jesus. Amen.

Roman Catholicism is the faith, everybody else has broken
away. Our Lord, Our Shepherd is going after the lost sheep, the Orthodox and Protestants and the non-Christians...to bring them home “soon” before the
appearance of the anti-Christ.

[imardmd1]

St. Justin Martyr:
“... For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [Jn 3:3]...”

Fallible as we are, so was Justin, and he clearly says so here, if this is a verbatim translation, his thought was flawed and unscriptural, contradicting the Holy Ghost, for what Jesus said to Nicodemus was, precisely from the Koine:

>> Jesus answered and He said unto him,
>> "Amen, amen I am saying unto thee,
>> 'Unless anyone be born* from above**,
>> he is not able to behold The Kingdom of
>> The God' " (Jn. 3:3)
* begotten, ** or again cf. Gal. 4:9

Furthermore, look at v. 5:

>> Jesus answered, "Amen, amen,
>> I am saying unto thee,
>> 'Unless anyone be born by* means of
>> water^ and of Spirit**, He is not
>> able to enter into The Kingdom
>> of The God. ...
^ cf. Eph. 5:26 (washing of water by the Word/hremati),
* ablative of means, ** anarthrous

Going on to V. 6:

>> The| one~ having been born* by** means
>> of the flesh is continually*** flesh
>> and the| one~ having been born by* means
>> of The Spirit is continuously*** spirit.' ...
| neuter, ~ child, * begotten,
** ablative of means, *** present tense
-----

Now to make a point, the only mention of The Kingdom of Heaven is made in Matthew, never anywhere else in the Bible. The Kingdom of Heaven was that which was announced to the Jews under the Law, and was available only as long as John was alive. If the king, Herod, had bowed to Christ and offered up his authority to The Messiach Jesus, The Kingdom of Heaven, on earth, and visible, could have been instituted in place of this world system. But Herod, representing the Jews, beheaded the Messiah's plenipotentiary, John Baptist, and the offer was withdrawn. That was not the same as The Kingdom of The God, which is invisible, and not of this world system, but is in the midst of those qualified by new birth. From thenceforth Jesus preached only the Kingdom of The God. And that is what he taught Nicodemus (and Nicodemus believed).

So Justin was just plain flat-out doctrinally wrong in that statement--and in the same breath voiced another doctrine which is insupportable by Scripture, whatever anyone says beyond what the Holy Ghost has given. Remember, none of the Twelve (and one of them was a devil) were saved at the time they were all baptized into discipleship. And none of the other eleven were mentioned as having been baptized anywhere else. Why? Because salvation was not conferred by the determinate action of any human.

But it is crystal clear that water baptism of the professed believer was ordained by Christ as applying to disciples made by the Apostles, not merely to converts; nor did John nor Christ nor the Apostles baptize to impart salvation. The purpose was to publicly signify a persistent faith in the Person and Work of The Christ, unto death. By faith, my sins were remitted at the Cross, not by the public rite of inductance into discipleship. That real occasion of invisible commitment was again rehearsed in a public figurative-literal rite of immersion thus displaying in a figure of that which is recounted in Romans 6:3,5 in the likeness of His death, a Biblical metaphor of what happened at the cross for all, and accepted by trusting in His Faith.

BTW, when was John the Beloved (or Peter, or any of the 11 apostles regenerated? Not twice, I hope.

[imardmd1]

imardmd1: The Holy Ghost-approved Scripture was present and had been distributed; later collected as the Canon. That is what is perfect, completed. Now, the Bible is the voice of the Holy Ghost.

papertyper: That's not what 1Cor13:10 says ... it's a total inference, and one that's only recommended by it's support of an extra-biblical doctrine.

I would appreciate it if you would give me an accurate exegesis of this verse using a literal, normal, historical interpretation.

No more on this until I hear from you on that, please.

Respectfully --

[imardmd1]

imardmd1: Not my test. The Holy Spirit witnessing with one's own spirit is the test to pass.

papertype: How does one qualify such a "test?"

As I said, not me testing you--it's you and the Holy Ghost:

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Rom. 8:14-17)

That should be a clue, and here are some indices by which one might to check oneself:

===========

TEN EVIDENCES (PROOFS) OF SALVATION

The Witness of the Holy Spirit

o Within the child of God (Romans 8:9-16; 1 John 3:24)
o With another child of God (Romans 8:16)
o By fellowship with God (Romans 8: 14; 1 John 1:7)

The Witness of God

o Chastening (Heb. 12:5-11)

The Witness of Love

o For The God (Matthew 22:37; 1 John 5:1-3)
o For the brethren (John 13:34,35; 1 John 3:14-10; 4:7,8,11, o love1 Peter 1:22)
o For the neighbor (Matthew 5:43-45, 19:19, 22:39' Romans 13:8-10)

The Witness of Your Life

o A New Creature (2 Corinthians 5:17)
o Not practicing sin wilfully (1 John 3:7-10; Hebrews 10:26)

The Witness of God's Word

o Your reaction to it
-- Obedience to it (1 John 3 :24; James 1 :22; 1 John 2:3-5)
-- Resistance to it
>>> By Resisting (Acts 7:51-54)
>>> By Wresting (twisting) (2 Peter 3: 16)
o The Truth related by it (1 John 3:1-10)

The Witness of Holiness

o Following it (Hebrews 12:14b)

The Witness of Your Walk

o Behavior (1 John 2:6,29; 3:6-8)

The Witness of Christ's Preeminence

o Lord of ALL (Acts 10:36; Romans 10:9)

The Witness of Fruit

o Making/teaching more disciples (Matthew 7:15-20; John 15:2-8,16)

The Witness of Warfare

o Overcoming (1 John 5:4,5; 4:4; Revelation 2:7,11,17,26,27; 3 :5,12,21; 21 :7)

After "Notes by Dr. Fred Wittman"
http://www.happyheralds.org/

===========

"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" (2 Cor. 13:5)

Sent as a sincere response, useful for all --

[wintertime]

I was raised a Mormon,... My brother, a rabbi,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Maybe his mom was Jewish and his dad a Mormon. This makes me wonder how “Mormon” was his so-called “raised Mormon” was.

Anyway,....I am pleased that he has found the church to which God has called him.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

let’s consider for a moment how the universal church became the Catholic Church.
the apostles, especially Paul went thru the known Roman world and preached the good news of salvation thru Jesus Christ. this means they went to greece, syria, lebadon, turkey, israel, egypt, rome, etc. etc. PREACHING THE SAME GOSPEL, THE SAME JESUS, THE FAITH, THE SAME WAY OF REGENERATION.
so when the last Apostle to die, John the Beloved around 95ad, there were thousands, if not tens of thousands of Christians spread all thru the Empire. and when a Christian from Rome went to Antioch, and one from Jerusalem went to Athens, and one from Alexandra went to Syria, WHAT DID THEY FIND??? They found they had THE SAME UNIVERSAL FAITH.
how is this possible? because the author of the faith was the same, THE HOLY SPIRIT! the Holy Spirit led them to all truth.
now, since they all received the same FAITH, THEY NAMED THIS SHARED FAITH, THE CATHOLIC FAITH, THEY NAMED THE CHURCH “CATHOLIC” SINCE IT WAS UNIVERSALLY PLANTED BY THE APOSTLES AND IT’S LEADERS COULD TRACE THEIR FAITH TO AN APOSTLE AND THEY HAD THE WRITINGS FROM THE APOSTLES ( THE NT )
now, since it was very dangerous to be a Christian ( i.e. Rome might kill you, like it did Peter, Paul and Justin ), if you were a Christian, i think it’s not a stretch to think they took their FAITH seriously.
what two doctrines CAN WE BE SURE the Christians completely understood from the Apostles??
1. who is Jesus Christ?
2. how does one have their sins forgiven and become a Christian?
Hopefully you are with me so far, this is just common sense.

Now, i agree Justin Martyr’s writings are not Scripture, if they were, the Church would have included them WHEN IT SET THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE.
but although not Scripture, Justin’s writings ACCURATELY convey what HE WAS TAUGHT the CATHOLIC FAITH RECIEVED FROM THE APOSTLES WAS.
Justin was born late 1st century, early second century. THERE IS NO DOUBT HE WAS TAUGHT THE FAITH FROM MEN WHO WERE TAUGHT THE FAITH DIRECTLY FROM THE APOSTLES.
WHAT JUSTIN WROTE ABOUT BAPTISMAL REGENERATION NOT ONLY WAS IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH WHAT PAUL, LUKE AND PETER TAUGHT ABOUT BAPTISM IN THE BIBLE, IT ALSO WAS IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH WHAT THE APOSTOLIC CATHOLIC FAITH WAS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD!!
IT’S AS IF YOU LEARNED THE FAITH FROM A MINISTER, WHO LEARNED THE FAITH FROM AN ENGLISH MINISTER 40 YEARS AGO.
DOES ANYONE NOT BELIEVE YOUR MINISTER COULD ACCURATELY TEACH YOU WHAT HE LEARNED FROM THE ENGLISH MINISTER 40 YEARS AGO??? OF COURSE HE COULD, ESPECIALLY IF IT’S WHAT EVERYONE BELIEVED!!
I think it is very safe to say that Justin learned how to be regenerated and become a Christian very well, after all the Apostle John had only died 20 or some odd years before.
so we have the Scriptures all teaching baptismal regeneration, and we have the whole CATHOLIC CHURCH believing it from Apostolic times, but what don’t we have??

we don’t have RECORD of anyone from 95 ad on that believed or taught:

1. that there are two baptisms, spirit and water.
2. that baptism is some kind of public rite or act of obedience.
3. that there is something called believers baptism.
4. that someone is supposed to say a sinners prayer to become a Christian.

Don’t you find it odd that we don’t see any of those 4 beliefs??? you can’t say it’s because the Church killed anyone who believed this, the Church was busy avoiding Roman soldiers itself, to be persecuting anyone.

this should make ANY SINCERE SEEKER OF TRUTH GO, HMMMMM!!!

now, to answer your question, when were the Apostles regenerated? the Scriptures are silent, so i will be also.
we do know they were baptized at some point or else they would not have been regenerated or in Christ.

we do know Paul was regenerated in Acts 22:16 by BAPTISM.

i guess you don’t want to admit to following the CATHOLIC TRADITION of a 27 Book NT, I UNDERSTAND!!

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

the Mormons use the same test when they go around making converts.

of course, this test tells us nothing.

i believe the Holy Spirit witnesses with my own spirit, and so do you and so does every Mormon.

the question i have, does the Holy Spirit lead someone to believe something different than He did Christians in all 2000 years since Pentecost???

I say NO HE DOESN’T, THAT’S WHY I PROFESS THE ONE, HISTORICAL, ORTHODOX, BIBLICAL, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC FAITH BELIEVED EVERYWHERE AND AT ALL TIMES FOR 2,000 YEARS.

any other belief is led by a spirit alright, but you can be sure it’s not the Holy Spirit.

[Mad Dawg]

Here's something from PapaBen XVI:

Faith is not the resignation of reason in view of the limits of our knowledge; it is not a retreat into the irrational in view of the dangers of a merely instrumental reason. Faith is not the expression of weariness and flight but is courage to exist and an awakening to the greatness and breadth of what is real.

Faith is an act of affirmation; it is based on the power of a new Yes, which becomes possible for man when he is touched by God. It seems to me important, precisely amid the rising resentment against technical rationality, to emphasize clearly the essential reasonableness of faith. In a criticism of the modern period, which has long been going on, one must not reproach its confidence in reason as such, but only the narrowing of the concept of reason, which has opened the door to irrational ideologies. The mysterium, as faith sees it, is not the irrational but rather the uttermost depths of the divine reason, which our weak eyes are no longer able to penetrate. It is the creative reason, the power of the divine knowledge that imparts meaning. It is only from this beginning that one can correctly understand the mystery of Christ, in which reason can then be seen to be the same as love.

The first word of faith, therefore, tells us: everything that exists is thought that has poured forth. The Creator Spirit is the origin and the supporting foundation of all things. Everything that is, is reasonable in terms of its origin, for it comes from creative reason. . . The mysterium is not opposed to reason but saves and defends the reasonableness of existence and of man.

Maybe I'll have time to think in the next couple of days. Thanks for keeping this going.