Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

David Waltz

The Great Apostasy - How, Why, and When?

Recommended Posts

Me: I have read the posts, and they contain some interesting stuff. But, one fact remains, “all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven”. Once again I must ask: Where is the compliance?

I hope it is okay if I offer input here, I don't want to interfere with the discussion going on.

Baptism is for the remission of sins. Yet it only remits past sins, it does nothing for future sins. At baptism, we make a covenant to be obedient to God's commandments, and promise to repent when we sin in the future. If we do not keep the covenant at baptism, the baptism itself will serve us no purpose. So, if a child dies before he is capable of sinning and making such a covenant and therfore having no need to promise to be obedient, there is no need for this compliance. The curse of Adam is wiped clean by the atonement of Christ. This is why LDS see the practice of infant baptism as a coruption since it denies the power of this atonement.

T-Shirt

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Johnny,

You posted:

>>What compliance are you speaking of?>>

Me: It is in reference to the following that Kevin wrote:

>>Is it sensible that salvation can be foisted upon another living creature without his or her compliance? This is essentially what infant baptism does according to the "benefits" you listed above. If this theology contradicts everything we know about the NT notion of free agency

Share this post


Link to post
Guest johnny_cat
Does not the teaching found in D&C 137:10 clearly demonstate that salvation is

Share this post


Link to post
Me: Does not the teaching found in D&C 137:10 clearly demonstate that salvation is “foisted” on infants “without his or her compliance”?

David,

I think there is a clear distinction. According to LDS, God does not require things of those incapable of doing them. According to Catholics, God requires compliance, even by those who are not capable.

So, from an LDS perspective, if there is any "foisting" going on, it is God, not man. However, I would not look at it in that way. Agency will always take precedence.

T-Shirt

Share this post


Link to post

Me: Certainly not the only one; however, it is probably the most black and white. As I mentioned to Programmer, there is no room for legitimate development (i.e. no middle ground), either infant baptism is true, or it is false.

Grace and peace,

David

For me the most certian evidence of apostasy was the immediate rise of contending and varying sect. If evangelicals think that moroms are way off in left field I can tell you that early christianity wsa even more fragmented. There was no orthodox church in 100 AD. Everyone was so mixed up by then. Infant baptism? Big deal. How about the nature of Christ. Doecist, gnostics, marcionites, ebionites and what became orthosdox, though it certianly was not then. Of course as the winners write the history the orthodox like to make it appear that this was the norm and the rest were heritics. Well my take-They all were heritics by the early seond century.

Teancum

Share this post


Link to post

I will agree there was a falling away of the power of God from the earth, at least in great groups, thus a Great Apostasy, and I would agree that the Roman Catholic church has much to do with it, as they translated and removed many precious parts of the bible. But now having said that, I want you to consider another appostasy, in that the people get caught in their pride and fall that way.

This is what 2 Thes 2:3 reads

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Now I know that the LDS church beats this particular scripture to death, showing a falling away. But I want to show you another view on this.

we see here two events:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come (second coming), except there come a falling away first (the Lords people or church), and that man of sin be revealed(antichrist, the secondbeast), the son of perdition;

Now these events all fall in the same verse, refering to just prior to the second coming. So if all these are grouped together, then it would go to reason that they happen near unto each other.

If you will read the rest of the scritpures in that chapter, you will find that there are many many things pointing to this man of sin sitting in the temple. So I have a question, and ask that you think this out before answering. It talks about the man of sin sitting himself in the temple. My question is this, who has access to the temple that he might sit himself down as God?

Now I lead you to ponder because the Lord has shown many things, but it will be hard to accept, I know, I didnt want to either.

Anyway, enough for now, if you have questions please reply.

Terrill

Share this post


Link to post

Terrill,

I don't want to jump to too many conclusions, but I think I have an idea of where this is going. May I suggest that you open a new thread with this so as to not derail the current thread?

Thanks,

T-Shirt

Share this post


Link to post

This is my third favorite topic, David:-)

What apostacy? What did Jesus and His apostles say on the matter? Did they say someone would loose the keyes to Gods ability to save someone who believes in the gospel that Jesus came, lived, died and resurrected according to the prophecies of the Holy Bible?

What 'keyes' are needed for a person to be saved? What did Jesus and Peter say on the subject?

We can all read that the end will not come until the falling away first occurr that the man of sin be revealed - the anti-Christ. Was the anti-Christ revealed in the dispensation during the life of your prophet? Who is he? Just where can we read about his lieing miricles and calling down fire from heaven? I must have missed it:-)

What prophecies of the Book of Mormon did Jesus fulfill that were not given from Adam to Moses to Abraham to Joseph to David and the holy prophets of the Bible?

Did Jesus fulfill more that I might believe in Him more as my Redeemer?

Dr. Reynolds informs his listeners that the when was in the first century, and the how was due to the removal of the

Share this post


Link to post
Baptism is for the remission of sins. Yet it only remits past sins, it does nothing for future sins. At baptism, we make a covenant to be obedient to God's commandments, and promise to repent when we sin in the future. If we do not keep the covenant at baptism, the baptism itself will serve us no purpose. So, if a child dies before he is capable of sinning and making such a covenant and therfore having no need to promise to be obedient, there is no need for this compliance. The curse of Adam is wiped clean by the atonement of Christ. This is why LDS see the practice of infant baptism as a coruption since it denies the power of this atonement.

T-Shirt

Kerry, can you say in all honesty that you are aware of every sin you commit?

What is better with Mormon baptism than to be forgiven as a Jew on the day of atonement? The past sins are forgiven. What makes Mormonism better than being a Jew under the old law?

You might do well to study the promises of God in Christ and come to realize that once you are clothed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ at baptism into His death, burial and resurrection to newness of life and Gods directly giving one the promised Holy Spirit because He said He would - that laying on of hands is as useless as is thinking you are saved because of your own righteousness in knowing and repenting of sins. You might consider to thank God for the forgiveness He already imparted to you by the blood of His Son.

God doesn't leave us orphans, we have to leave Him.

If I were a true Christian and believed a false prophet who told me to believe Jesus said something different than He actually said as recorded by His apostles:

Would I be lost because I didn't believe Jesus?

Share this post


Link to post

Nepheye,

Up to this point this thread has been very friendly and congenial. Can you ratchet down your tone just a bit :P I am happy to discuss this with you, but I don't want to turn it into a mud fight.

Thanks,

T-Shirt

Share this post


Link to post

Hey Nepheye,

You posted:

>>Nepheye: A useless doctrine is idolitry. Infant baptism is no more wrong than baptism for a dead person. If I were you I'd be careful to condemn another person on such shakey doctrinal grounds - those doctrines that are not sound in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Jesus said to baptise disciples. Do you make more disciples of dead people than Catholics do of infants who can't talk yet?:-)>>

Me: Are you saying infant baptism is a

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Tom,

I am finally getting to your post. This thread is moving so fast it is getting hard to keep up with all that is going on (who was the dummy that started this crazy thread??? <grin>)

You wrote:

Tom:>>Hope you had a good run. I am of the opinion that I am part of the 99% Urroner speaks of, but I enjoy discussing things with you too.>>

Me: I did have a good run, sun was out, a slight breeze, and a perfect temp for running (55F). As for Urroner, I think he was exaggerating my abilities big time, and I think you are underestimating yours

Share this post


Link to post

OK, I'll take it down a notch <_<

I think baptism is for the forgiveness of sins and the promised gift of the Holy Spirit - just as Acts 2 and Romans 6 define it -- and also accept that it is the appeal of a good conscience before God as Peter said it was. I think it possible for God to save first and then the saved person is baptized in order to obey and have a good conscience toward God. If you don't believe and are baptised, then how can Jesus be true to His word of saying one must believe that He is who He said He is? Wouldn't that be just dunking in water? If that is the case, I baptise my hands many times a day :P

Rather than trail off on the useless, we'd be better off to seek the useful for the edification and building up of our faith in the Lord Jesus. As such, why not drop the things not of Jesus Christ?

Aaronic Priesthood

Book of Abraham

D&C

Etc...

Or can you prove them of Jesus Christ? If you can, please do set me straight!

Share this post


Link to post
Guest johnny_cat
Or can you prove them of Jesus Christ? If you can, please do set me straight!

Can we prove anything is of Jesus Christ? By that standard we would have to drop things like

The Bible

Baptism

Faith

Repentance

Jesus Christ himself

etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Dr. Reynolds believes that it is the “breaking” (changing) of the covenants established by Jesus Christ and/or His apostles that was THE cause of the “Great Apostasy”, and the reason why God chose to “remove” the keys from the early Church. If infant baptism was a change of the ordinance/covenant of baptism, then we have irrefutable evidence that at least one covenant was “broken”. I chose the issue of infant baptism because it is a black and white issue—no room for legitimate development on this—either infant baptism is true or it is false, no middle ground.

As I understand the presentation of his theory here...I disagree to some extent. In studying early documents I see concern...I see such effort. It was Ignatius who gave me the picture of the struggle to hold on while they were loosing those who had the keys. I thought of a scenerio where LDS lost a bishop...we could survive...we have a higher local leader who could appoint another. But what if we lost the Stake Prez after that? What if a few more bishops dropped out? At some point you have enough holes in your authority line (for LDS) that positions cannot be filled in the prescribed manner. I saw that in Ignatius when he pleads for the prayers of the people he left because now they will only have Christ as their bishop. I found that an extremely odd concern if replacement was possible...he would have been exhorting them to pick so and so to take his place or to appoint someone forthwith.

It is within this chaos that I see the age old problem of power coming to fore. This is expressed in the NT...Paul has problems with it. When the leaders are gone everyone is easy prey for the pretenders. Ignatius tried to deal with this by telling them over and over to stay together as a group...to keep things going as they were. They would have protection that way. Protection from what? Those who did wrest control. The problem was that the people followed them instead of what they knew. I find it a totally understandable situation in that time and under that kind of duress. Within a generation the church and even most of the memory was gone. We can see that in Origen's On First Principles where he begins with "what has been handed down". He then proceeds to attempt to figure it all out and make a case for incorporeality. Notice the lack of any sense of the present. Where are the leaders? Why is some philosopher having to figure it all out through reason?

Share this post


Link to post
When the leaders are gone everyone is easy prey for the pretenders.

Did Jesus appoint and ordain his Apostles knowing that they would fail? Was that His plan to have his Church crumble and not be restored for 1800 years?

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest johnny_cat
Did Jesus appoint and ordain his Apostles knowing that they would fail? Was that His plan to have his Church crumble and not be restored for 1800 years?

I guess it depends on how you define fail. I don't think the early church failed.

Share this post


Link to post
When the leaders are gone everyone is easy prey for the pretenders.

Did Jesus appoint and ordain his Apostles knowing that they would fail? Was that His plan to have his Church crumble and not be restored for 1800 years?

Peace be with you.

I maintain that the Church of Jesus Christ did in fact

Share this post


Link to post
Did Jesus appoint and ordain his Apostles knowing that they would fail? Was that His plan to have his Church crumble and not be restored for 1800 years?

He did knowing they would be persecuted and killed. Did they fail? I agree with johnny cat, depends on what you mean by fail.

Luke 20:12-16

12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and apersecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name

Share this post


Link to post

Oh wow, this is some interesting stuff. I think the years at the time of the apostles and just after are as confusing as any. Juliann mentions Ignatius and how reading his words seems to point to evidence of a failing leadership. I think the same can be said, perhaps to a lesser extent, of the writings of Paul. At times his counsel to the early Christians is desperate, and seems to indicate a tone of hoping people can manage without the likes of him--which seems to go nicely along with the loss of authority as LDS claim. Really not long after this time there arose a few players who tried their best to establish their claims as the ultimate truth. Looking back on it now, it is easy/convenient to assume that those who did win the battle for orthodoxy were inspired to stamp out the heresies, which heresies for the most part now are seen as wrong/heretical to all or most sides of the debate. I have a hard time because who was Ignatius and Polycarp but leaders of local groups? When did the centralized authority of Christianity develop a consistent definition of heresy? I think this era serves to contribute to the words of scripture:

Forasmuch as this people draw• near me with their bmouth•, and with their lips do honour• me, but have removed• their heart far from me, and their fear• toward me is taught by the precept of men: (isaiah 29:13)

The denouncing of heresy, the establishment of the definition of heresy, and the eventual arrival on certain precepts of truth excluding heresy seemingly was taught by the "precept of men". I have a hard time not seeing this era as the start of an apostacy.

grace and peace,

chump

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Juliann,

Good to see you participating in this crazy thread I started. You wrote:

>>As I understand the presentation of his theory here...I disagree to some extent. In studying early documents I see concern...I see such effort. It was Ignatius who gave me the picture of the struggle to hold on while they were loosing those who had the keys. I thought of a scenerio where LDS lost a bishop...we could survive...we have a higher local leader who could appoint another. But what if we lost the Stake Prez after that? What if a few more bishops dropped out? At some point you have enough holes in your authority line (for LDS) that positions cannot be filled in the prescribed manner.>>

Me: Good questions. First some thoughts from a Catholic perspective: a mere generation later, Irenaeus and Tertullian are providing bishopric succession lists from the major apostolic sees (churches founded by apostles and whose first bishops were ordained by an apostle) to demonstrate continuity in the face of the claims of the Gnostics. Though I would not claim infallibility for such lists, neither would I claim that they are in any sense contrived; rather, that they were reliable.

And now some thoughts from an LDS perspective: was not the apostle John still alive? Could he not have ordained more apostles and/or bishops? And take note of the words of former President Joseph F. Smith:

If it were necessary, the seventy, holding the Melchizedek Priesthood, as he does, I say if it were necessary, he could ordain a high priest; and if it were necessary for a high priest to ordain a seventy, he could do that? Why?  Because both of them hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. Then again, if it were necessary, though I do not expect the necessity will ever arise, and there was no man left on earth holding the Melchizedek Priesthood, except an elder

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Darth Bill,

Thanks much for the link to a most interesting thread! (I totally

Share this post


Link to post
I guess it depends on how you define fail. I don't think the early church failed.

I agree that "failure" is based in large part on how one would define it.

Johnny_cat, obviously we will disagree on the "Great Apostasy" actually happening as defined by the LDS Church. However, I would have to respectfully ask how a complete and total apostasy of Christ's Church so soon after his ascension can be viewed as anything but a failure?

TOmNossor says:

I maintain that the Church of Jesus Christ did in fact

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...