Robert F. Smith writes online book

[_CaliforniaKid]

I'm left wondering how to sort out Seekers; Quakers; Joseph Smith, say before 1830; present day evangelicals and Pentecostals. Would you say Pentecostals are heirs of Seekers?

Quakers are heirs of the "Spiritual Anabaptists" of the Reformation era, such as Schwenckfeld, Franck, and Denck. This is addressed, if I recall correctly, in Rufus M. Jones, Spiritual Reformers in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (London: Macmillan, 1914).

I don't know a lot about the intellectual genealogies of Seekers. I think they were partly just the result of a lack of religious supply in early America. If none of the local churches fit your religious sensibilities, you're probably going to hold out hope that the true church will eventually come along.

But I also suspect that Seekers were the heirs of restorationist expectations dating back to the time of Joachim of Fiore (twelfth century), who anticipated the dawning of an "age of the Spirit" in conjunction with the millennium. Joachim's expectation survived among Protestants in various forms, especially in spiritualist and Anabaptist circles. There were Anabaptists in early America, and they may have been the conduit by which Joachim's idea reached our shores. However it got here, this expectation of a restoration of the Spirit became one of America's latent religious aspirations, which surfaced in Mormonism, camp-meeting revivalism, the healing movement, and countless Pentecostal movements and revivals.

Most Mormons and Pentecostals don't realize, I think, how similar their overarching religious narratives are. Both believe there was an apostasy after the apostolic era, resulting in a loss of the gifts and power of the Spirit. And now, in the last days, the gifts of the Spirit have been restored to the world in order to prepare it for the millennium. The similarity exists because both Mormons and Pentecostals drink from Joachim of Fiore's well. And the Anabaptists, by the way, beat both of them to this narrative by several centuries. Go read about Munster, and tell me that doesn't sound just like Joseph Smith!

[_lulu]

However it got here, this expectation of a restoration of the Spirit became one of America's latent religious aspirations, which surfaced in Mormonism, camp-meeting revivalism, the healing movement, and countless Pentecostal movements and revivals.

I keep puzzling over why they separated. How Mormons made it from "semi-scripture" as you say, to Scripture.

Most Mormons and Pentecostals don't realize, I think, how similar their overarching religious narratives are.

That's one of the things I'm learning from you. And its time to read up on Joachim.

Go read about Munster, and tell me that doesn't sound just like Joseph Smith!

I'm with you on Munster, I nearly fell out of my chair the first time I read about it. I had a fine professor for my Anabaptist class who came out of the Pentecostal tradition.

[_madeleine]

In Catholicism, numerous saints have claimed to receive revelations for the world, and plenty of Marian apparitions have made similar claims.

These are still considered private revelations. No Catholic is bound to them, at all. We are bound to the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

In comparison to Mormonism, an example would be Joseph Smith's claimed revelations. As a Catholic, I view them as private revelations (assuming they are to believed to have occurred).

As you say, the test of a private revelation is put against scripture (the Bible), and as a Catholic the Magisterium.

Both Catholics and Protestants expect such revelations to agree with scripture, but it's not quite sola scriptura. For the communities that accept them, public prophecies act as semi-scriptures. And the fact that they don't get written down or canonized is arguably a healthy thing for the community, because it prevents doctrinal splintering and allows for continual renewal of God's word to the community. In other words, easier to avoid getting stuck in a rut.

I agree with you that sola scriptura isn't really sola scripture, but many Protestant are very insistent that it is.

Doctrines cannot be changed, added to, removed in any Protestant denomination or Catholicism. Private revelations that claim to change doctrine would be rejected immediately. Revelation given to the Church, in the form of the Magisterium, are for the purposes of guiding the Church. Not for creating new doctrines.

I would argue that sola scriptura is now a bit of an anachronism, with the decline of the mainline and Fundamentalists, and the rise of the charismatics and Pentecostals.

Pentecostals are a very small group. For them, sola scripture may have less of a meaning, I don't know that can be said for mainline Protestants such as Lutherans or Presbyterians.

[_MCB]

Recent comments noted for further reading.

Waiting for what promises to be a rich source for another tangent-- USPS is so slow.

[_CaliforniaKid]

These are still considered private revelations. No Catholic is bound to them, at all. We are bound to the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

So "public" means "binding"? Is this a technical term?

Doctrines cannot be changed, added to, removed in any Protestant denomination or Catholicism.

Um... I guess that depends on how you define "doctrine." If by "doctrine" you mean "that which is true," then I mostly agree with you. But if you mean "that which is accepted as true by the church," then I strongly disagree.

Pentecostals are a very small group.

Even if you define them narrowly, to include only the North American Pentecostal diaspora that began at Topeka and Azusa Street, they number over a hundred million. Defined more broadly, to encompass indigenous Spirit-churches and Catholic and Protestant Charismatics, we're talking in the neighborhood of 600-800 million.

[_madeleine]

So "public" means "binding"? Is this a technical term?

I guess you can look at it that way. By "binding", I mean, must be believed. As an example, the Incarnation...must be believed, otherwise, you've gone off the Christian map and are something else, maybe a Mormon!

Um... I guess that depends on how you define "doctrine." If by "doctrine" you mean "that which is true," then I mostly agree with you. But if you mean "that which is accepted as true by the church," then I strongly disagree.

Pure spiritual milk, as St. Peter says, is what I think is a very good definition of doctrine. That which comes from God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Even if you define them narrowly, to include only the North American Pentecostal diaspora that began at Topeka and Azusa Street, they number over a hundred million. Defined more broadly, to encompass indigenous Spirit-churches and Catholic and Protestant Charismatics, we're talking in the neighborhood of 600-800 million.

Relatively speaking, 1.1 billion Roman Catholics + 240 million Orthodox. Catholic and Protestant charismatics aren't Pentecostals. :)

Not playing a number game here. Christians are Christians to me, all 2.something billion of us.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Pure spiritual milk, as St. Peter says, is what I think is a very good definition of doctrine. That which comes from God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ.

That's not a very useful definition from a sociological standpoint. I understand, for instance, that a Catholic would say the Ineffabilis Deus merely clarified or unfolded something that's been true and latent within the tradition all along. Nevertheless, even Catholics speak of that bull as the moment when the immaculate conception "became dogma." From an institutional, sociological standpoint, dogma/doctrine does change as a result of continuing revelation, even in the Catholic Church. See John Henry Cardinal Newman's "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine."

1.1 billion Roman Catholics + 240 million Orthodox.

Yes. And they are not, on the whole, cessationists. A great many of those Catholics and Orthodox believe not only in miracles and the revelatory authority of the magisterium, but also in the revelatory authority of various saints and apparitions.

Catholic and Protestant charismatics aren't Pentecostals. :)

No, but the difference between a charismatic like Oral Roberts and a Pentecostal like Benny Hinn is slim. To be sure, charismatics fall along a spectrum from those who are charismatic only in name, to those who are basically indistinguishable from Pentecostals. But my point is just that the days are past when cessationism could be considered "mainstream." Grouping charismatics with Pentecostals, I think, suffices to make that point.

[_MCB]

Private revelations that claim to change doctrine would be rejected immediately. Revelation given to the Church, in the form of the Magisterium, are for the purposes of guiding the Church. Not for creating new doctrines.

All new revelations are actually based on previously existing doctrine, so, therefore are not new. They must be logically consistent, based upon previous conclusions.

Mormonism is a hodgepodge of heresies that have been previously rejected by the Catholic Church. It is therefore not internally consistent. And there is nothing new or original about it, although they say it is a restoration of what that only existed in early Christianity. In a way, it is, but Christianity rejected Gnosticism.

John Henry Cardinal Newman's "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine."

Getting it.

[_Nightlion]

But I still think Mormonism is missing a key dimension of biblical prophecy, where prophets come to critique the hierarchy from outside. We see this in Joseph Smith, but within a few years he has all but foreclosed the possibility of others doing the same. He had restored the one, true, incorruptible hierarchy that would never need critique. Not very realistic, from either a biblical or a secular perspective.

Foreclosed you say? I say not!

TPJS page 327 bottom of the page, October 15, 1843 Joseph Smith:
If any man will prove to me, by one passage of Holy Writ, one item I believe to be false, I will renounce and disclaim it as far as I promulgated it.

[_Tobin]

Mormonism is a hodgepodge of heresies that have been previously rejected by the Catholic Church. It is therefore not internally consistent. And there is nothing new or original about it, although they say it is a restoration of what that only existed in early Christianity. In a way, it is, but Christianity rejected Gnosticism.

I can see why the Catholic Church would consider that any person can speak with God and that God will answer them as a heresy that must be rejected. And of course it isn't new, Mormonism is restoring what was lost which is direct inspiration and discourse with God himself. All Churches that teach against speaking directly with God, yet claim they are God's Churches, are false Churches - no matter whatever else they may claim.