How is the CoJCoLDS like the New Testament Church

[Jason_J]

Many Christian churches claim that, in some fashion, they are like/a continuation/a restoration/etc. of the church established by Jesus Christ as found in the New Testament.

In your opinion, what are the ways in which the LDS Church is like the New Testament Church, thus strengthening its claim to be a restoration of the primitive church? This doesn't necessarily have to be limited to organizational structure, though obviously it can include it.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by Jason_J

Many Christian churches claim that, in some fashion, they are like/a continuation/a restoration/etc. of the church established by Jesus Christ as found in the New Testament.

In your opinion, what are the ways in which the LDS Church is like the New Testament Church, thus strengthening its claim to be a restoration of the primitive church? This doesn't necessarily have to be limited to organizational structure, though obviously it can include it.

One way that is similar for both the Latter-day Saint and the ancient Saints in the days of Jesus is that the foundation of the Church is built upon the foundation of 12 Apostles. And since these 12 Apostles are responsible in authority only to Jesus Christ then it is that Jesus is the “chief” cornerstone for the Apostles. And as it was in the days of Jesus - it was established that when one Apostle is lost that the other Apostles select another to replace the lost Apostle - so it is with the church restored.


The Traveler

[mrmarklin]

Originally Posted by Jason_J

Many Christian churches claim that, in some fashion, they are like/a continuation/a restoration/etc. of the church established by Jesus Christ as found in the New Testament.

In your opinion, what are the ways in which the LDS Church is like the New Testament Church, thus strengthening its claim to be a restoration of the primitive church? This doesn't necessarily have to be limited to organizational structure, though obviously it can include it.

There are really only two churches with any sort of legitimate claim to being the "real" Christian church. Us and the Catholics. All the protestants are breakaways from the original Catholic church, and were repudiated by that church. It's difficult to see how they would have any authority of priesthood at all. In every Catholic church, one can see a chart tracing the Popes in sucession from Peter. That continuity is essentially the Catholic claim to authority and legitimacy.

Like the breakaway churches, the LDS claim that the true gospel was corupted, and that authority was lost along the way. We differ in that we claim (uniquely at the time) that Jesus Himself restored the true and only church as well as the authority from God to manage its affairs. There are some scriptures that forecast this restoration. In other words, we are a new dispensation, and not a breakaway. Our beliefs were restored to the true doctrines of the ancients as well, since they had been so corrupted by the arts of man. There's a long list, beginning with the name of the church!

[Jason_J]

Originally Posted by mrmarklin

There are really only two churches with any sort of legitimate claim to being the "real" Christian church. Us and the Catholics.

I would also expand that to include the oft-forgotten (though the second largest Christian church!) Orthodox Church. While the Catholic Church sees them as being in schism, the CC still teaches that they have a valid priesthood and thus valid sacraments (while I have issues with the logic of that belief, this is what my church teaches ).

All the protestants are breakaways from the original Catholic church, and were repudiated by that church. It's difficult to see how they would have any authority of priesthood at all. In every Catholic church, one can see a chart tracing the Popes in sucession from Peter. That continuity is essentially the Catholic claim to authority and legitimacy.

Yes, the Catholic claim is that all of her bishops are successors of the apostles, with the bishop of Rome, the Pope, as the successor specifically of Peter.

I've actually never seen this chart in a Catholic parish or cathedral...Perhaps its in an office or something, but I know what you're referring to (I've seen it online).

Like the breakaway churches, the LDS claim that the true gospel was corupted, and that authority was lost along the way. We differ in that we claim (uniquely at the time) that Jesus Himself restored the true and only church as well as the authority from God to manage its affairs. There are some scriptures that forecast this restoration. In other words, we are a new dispensation, and not a breakaway. Our beliefs were restored to the true doctrines of the ancients as well, since they had been so corrupted by the arts of man. There's a long list, beginning with the name of the church!

I'd be interested in a few items from the list, if you don't mind!

[BenRaines]

A friend of mine went to the Vatican and was allowed to tour through some of their stuff. At one place there was a plaque with the names of the Popes through the ages. He said that there were several periods of 100 years or more where there was no established Pope. Also there were many times where there were more than one Pope as the Popes were warring with each other.

Here is a published list. According to the list continuous but then again that doesn't account for those who were opposed.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: List of Popes

Ben Raines

[mordorbund]

Originally Posted by Jason_J

Many Christian churches claim that, in some fashion, they are like/a continuation/a restoration/etc. of the church established by Jesus Christ as found in the New Testament.

In your opinion, what are the ways in which the LDS Church is like the New Testament Church, thus strengthening its claim to be a restoration of the primitive church? This doesn't necessarily have to be limited to organizational structure, though obviously it can include it.

You can take a walk through our Articles of Faith

• Salvation comes through Christ's Atonement, but is also contingent on certain rites.
• Those rites include being born of the water (baptism) and the Spirit (confirmation).
• The organization is largley the same (although we cheat a little with evangelists).
• We enjoy the same gifts of the Spirit.
• Although the primitive church heard from Christ directly (including as late as the 40 day ministry), they still had prophets among them receiving revelation and setting policy. We do the same.

[rameumptom]

I think the two most important things that connect LDS with the Primitive Church are these:

Melchizedek Priesthood authority
Continuing revelation through apostles and prophets

While other Christian faiths have personal inspiration to help guide individuals, they do not have the restored authority to administer in the saving rites. Nor are they built upon the foundation of living apostles and prophets, who are the only people God calls upon to direct his earthly operation en toto.

It definitely comes down to the issue of whether the Church continued from ancient times through the Pope and Patriarch, or whether it fell out of favor and required a Restoration through modern prophets and apostles.

[Justice]

Originally Posted by Jason_J

Many Christian churches claim that, in some fashion, they are like/a continuation/a restoration/etc. of the church established by Jesus Christ as found in the New Testament.

I'm not answering your question, I know. However, I had to respond to this.

In actuality, there are very few who claim they are like the New Testament church, fewer who claim they are a continuation, and even fewer yet who claim they are a restoration.

Most Christian churches aren't structured like the New Testament church; nor do they have the same leaders/titles, the same authortiy, and even claim there is no more revelation.

I have always found it interesting that the people who belong to those churches don't seem to care.

I mean, if you don't believe there is any more revelation, why belong to or attend church at all? It would have nothing to offer.

Who are these many churches you have found making these claims?

Sorry, just had to express that... back to the topic.

[Jason_J]

Originally Posted by rameumptom

I think the two most important things that connect LDS with the Primitive Church are these:

Melchizedek Priesthood authority

I'm interested in this. Could you expand more? I'm sure that you're aware that traditional Christians don't believe in a "Melchizedek priesthood", or, if they do, they believe that only Jesus Christ and Melchizedek held that priesthood. Those that do believe in a ministerial priesthood, such as Catholics and Orthodox, still believe that as well. Could you expand more on the relationship between the Melchizedek Priesthood and the primitive church? Thanks.

[Dravin]

Originally Posted by Jason_J

I'm interested in this. Could you expand more? I'm sure that you're aware that traditional Christians don't believe in a "Melchizedek priesthood", or, if they do, they believe that only Jesus Christ and Melchizedek held that priesthood. Those that do believe in a ministerial priesthood, such as Catholics and Orthodox, still believe that as well. Could you expand more on the relationship between the Melchizedek Priesthood and the primitive church? Thanks.

I think (could be wrong) he's getting at that from the LDS perspective the biggest thing that connects us to the primitive Church is the possession of the Melchezidek priesthood. Much like how Catholic Church's big claim is that they posses the same authority that the primitive church had.

Needless to say the LDS position and the Catholic one don't get along with each other. If the RCC has the proper priesthood authority there is no need for a Restoration and the LDS Church has it's strongest claim to legitimacy kicked out from under it. But if the authority had to be restored than the RCC has it's strongest claim to legitimacy kinda kicked out from under it. So in that respect we are similar, both our claims to legitimacy go back to claiming the same proper priesthood authority possessed by the primitive church. Rameumptom is just saying that said connection is more fundamental than some other ones we might make.

For instance LDS are inclined to believe that the primitive Church and we practice(d) baptisms for the dead. But that can be seen as boiling down to us both possessing the proper priesthood authority to perform such and the proper priesthood authority to maintain revelation through proper channels to maintain that doctrine (which would tie into his second thing). Rather than it just being a "We do that too!" kinda claim, or "We call our Y's the same thing they did!"