Blog Archive

Saint Moses the Black

Saint Moses the Black
Saint Moses the Black

Popular Posts

  • Calvin Forum Moderator Becomes Orthodox
    A former Calvinist becomes Eastern Orthodox. In the podcast " The Illumined Heart Podcast " Kevin interviews Robert Meyering. From...
  • Justin Martyr's dialogue at Ephesus
    "(6) He also wrote a dialogue against the Jews, which he held at Ephesus with Tryphon, the most distinguished among the Hebrews of his ...
  • Getting ready for the AncientChristian Conference
    It's in a few weeks, and I gotta make sure I know who is coming with me. So far, I have three people in Pittsburgh who are interested,...
  • Homilies on the Apocalypse
    This is a link of the Sermons of Fr. Athanasios Mitilinaios on the Apocalypse of St. John. Introduction of the Apocalypse part 1 part 2 Fo...
  • Leave of Absence
    I recently took a leave of absence from the St. Stephen's Course in Orthodox Theology program. My finances were short for this semester...
  • Bishop Daniel of Erie (Memory Eternal!)
    Bishop Daniel was a bishop over the Russian Old believers in communion with Russia through ROCOR. Alot of people don't know about the Ol...

Labels

Saint John the Theologian

Saint John the Theologian
Saint John the Theologian

Followers

Total Pageviews

Powered By Blogger
Sunday, November 1, 2009

Perry tackles the Mormon issue

3:33 PM | Posted by Jnorm | | Edit Post
As seen from his blog:

Quote:
"For some time, the Mormons have been availing themselves of
material in the Fathers of the Church regarding theosis in order to render their
own doctrines more plausible. There is no shortage of LDS blogs and websites
that exclaim with glee that the LDS doctrine of exaltation is within the bounds
of Christian teaching on the basis of the Orthodox

doctrine of theosis.
They routinely pelt Protestants as well as Catholics with patristic material
maintaining that not only is their view within the corral of Christian
orthodoxy, but that they alone possess the true teaching with respect to
deification. They then put such claims in the service of motivating their claims
of an apostasy after the apostolic age. Of course, such claims are, so far as I
have seen not only false and supported by fallacious reasoning, but in many
cases the use of Patristic material would make the cut and pasters over at the
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society blush. Here I leave an examination of these
specific claims by LDS apologists for another time.



To read the rest please visit the link.


It's a very long piece, but I found it both informative and thought provoking.




ICXC NIKA
Labels: , ,

2 comments:

Peter Davidson said...

Gerald R. McDermott, the Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion at Roanoke College and author, with Robert Millet, of Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate, addressed the question of whether Latter-day Saints are Christians in an article "Is Mormonism Christian?" published in First Things magazine (October 2008).

By examining Professor McDermott's critique in light of the Bible, one can see that Mormonism differs from historic Christian orthodoxy to the degree that historic Christian orthodoxy diverges from Biblical truths.

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2mH1gj1Vq-BYjczOWYyMDItNDE5NC00YzAxLTgxZDUtZGZhN2IxMzc2MjIz&hl=en

Most points where sectarian Christians have problems with LDS doctrine illustrate the departure of sectarianism from the Bible.

November 2, 2009 at 9:17 AM
あじ said...

@Peter,

Point 6 is wholly negated by the plain meaning of 2 Peter 3:16. Moreover, the verses provided to support it are completely unrelated to its claims.

Regarding point 7, which says that "We can accept Biblical statements without interpretation," this statement is fundamentally worthless. All biblical statements are subject to interpretation, indeed all writing (all humanly intelligible communication, really) in any form at any time and place in history is necessarily subject to interpretation. Even the bible does not say that it should not be interpreted, but rather that it is not subject to "private interpretation." The point fails, because interpretation cannot be so simplistically dismissed.

Sophistry is not a biblical term, making point 9 rather puzzling. Throwing the term around cavalierly, rather than in description of specific offenses, does not bolster one's credibility.

By making point 10 as you do, you are claiming apostolic authority for yourself. You might not have a problem with that, but the verses you cited uncompromisingly demand that you be an apostle.

Much of the rest of the document is simply a reiteration of the Arian heresies. In that sense, Mormonism doesn't look like anything new at all.

November 2, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Related Posts with Thumbnails