Is there evidence of the Apostasy?

[rhinomelon]

If Jesus is the vine, there is no getting sick and dying. You would have to remove yourself from the vine to die. If jesus is the sustaining vine, unless you are pulled away from the vine, you will not decay and die.

Exactly. Though the flaws of the early church are quite obvious and unhidden, one thing that stands clear is that these early Christians never let go of Christ. The writings of the early church fathers almost drip with a faith that puts all of us in modern times (including Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and LDS) to shame. This is perhaps the biggest single difficulty I have with the doctrine of the Great Apostasy. As it is clear that people have always sought and followed after Christ, if they were apostate, then God clearly rejected their faith or ignored their love. Which is one thing He said He would never do.

He said he would build MY CHURCH not churhces. There was one true church. Did that change? Which one is the true church Jesus built?

Good question. Could you pick the one true church out of the following list for me?

The church of the Thessalonians

The church in Ephesus

The church in Smyrna

The church in Pergamum

The church in Thyatira

The church in Sardis

The church in Philadelphia

The churches of Judea

The churches in Galatia

etc.

The apostles did not have a problem speaking of multiple churches, apparently. And when they spoke of one church, it was not simply an ecclesiastical organization, but the gathering of all believers.

What was Jesus's definition of church?

The church, in Jesus' teachings, is the new Israel, a gathering of the faithful from all peoples and nations. The Greek term translated "church" does not mean a highly organized religious organization. Rather, it refers to something like a club or gathering. Other groups are referred to as "churches" in ancient literature.

Do you know which one it is? What church do you go to? Do you go to a church that you believe to be true? If you believe it to be true, would you go join another church? Do you believe all churches to be true?

The truth of a church does not depend on the name on the building, but the teachings that it proclaims. Currently I am a youth pastor in an evangelical denomination, but I've actively attended and served with over a dozen different denominations. All taught the basic principles of the gospel, and served as places of fellowship and encouragement for believers at all stages of their spiritual lives.

Jesus never said, "Believe in my church", as if that was the end goal or the truth in and of itself. Jesus directed all belief at himself. He is the way, the truth, and the life. Not a human church. A church is true only so far as it follows Christ and lives by his teachings and preaches his truth.

You must be where you are because you believe it has more truth than another.

Actually, I go there because I was called there to serve in an area in which God has graciously gifted me.

Why do people get so bent out of shape for the LDS church to claim it has the only true church?

Because it sets up the organization as equal to Christ, and does not come close to encompassing all the beauty and diversity that God has created in the world. No one church organization does.

How many churches did Jesus create? There has to be one. Ther can only be one.

In one sense, he only created one, the gathering of believers. In another sense, he created many, because whereever believers are gathered around the truth, it is a church in the classic sense of the word.

Perhaps a better question would be: what is the evidence that there was no general apostacy?

Anyone care to take that one on?

Isn't that like trying to prove a negative?

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Good summary statement, Steubie. I'm on board with it!

EDIT: A small point that I forgot to address earlier:

Secondly, if it is His church, wouldn't it be called by His name?

Not necessarily. If that were the case, then the LDS church was in apostasy between 1834 and 1838, when the church was officially named "The Church of Latter Day Saints." Slapping the name of Christ on something doesn't make it true or holy (as I try to keep telling those wacky televangelists ).

Now, back to the discussion.

[SteubieU]

Also, I was hoping to get a tally here of the distinctively LDS doctrines that the LDS are claiming that the early Church goers held.

Here are the distinctively LDS ones that I have heard so far:

That God has a body in Himself

Baptism for the Dead

Multitheism

Also the understanding of the relationship between Father and Son. I don't want to write down how I understand it, because I am probably wrong. I think it is accurate to say that the doctrine is that the Father is somehow "more Godlike" than the Son, but if I am wrong, I will certainly allow myself to be corrected.

Deification: for this one, I think we can only accept it if it is clear that the Church goer was talking about a deification in which

a. there is a marriage in this deification

OR

b. a mainstream Christian (such as Rhino or I) can say that there is no way that an mainstream Christian can agree with it.

[rhinomelon]

To add to the list, I would also be interested in the LDS concept of eternal progression. This touches on several of the issues Steubie listed, but also stands alone, as it refers to God the Father once being a man, and now continually progressing in perfection.

Take care, everyone

[BCSpace]

Tsk, tsk. Since my last post, Neither Steubie nor rhino have provided a single verse or ECF quote to back up their claims.

On the otherhand, Flavo is erroneously using Matthew 16 to show that the earthly Church would never be taken from the earth....

If the scripture in Matt. 16 is correct, how can there be any corruption in the church that Christ built? The gates of hell would not prevail against it right. If corruption entered in then hell was prevailing against the church Christ built.

Even some Catholic scholars reject this notion. For example...

"although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survivial of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil." Winter, Saint Peter and the Popes, 17

Winter is right. The Matt 16 promise is actually seems to be a promise of protection from the powers of sin and death for Christ's assembly (ekklesia).

[BCSpace]

I would also be interested in the LDS concept of eternal progression

I am still waiting for an answer as to where the trinity hypothesis is found in the Bible or in early Christianity. Doctrinal development is out of the question as the resulting trinity contradicts earlier scriptures and ECF beliefs.

[BCSpace]

Yet another verse on the totality of the Apostasy is Amos 8:11-12.....

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.

Some critics might be tempted to think that this refers to an earlier time. Unfortunately for them, the NT proves this is not the case.

For example, the case of Zacharias show that the Aaronic preisthood was still in operation (Luke 1).

Jesus' declaration to the Samaritan woman shows that the Jewish laws and ordinaces still had efficacy (John 4:22).

Luke 2:36. The word of the Lord could still be found.

etc. etc.

[BCSpace]

Perhaps a better question would be: what is the evidence that there was no general apostacy?

Anyone care to take that one on?

Isn't that like trying to prove a negative?

No, since the Bible and ECF teachings show the universal apostasy was expected, it is incumbent on you to prove otherwise.

[SteubieU]

Tsk, tsk.

Alright, well, I'm bowing out now. Peace.

[flavo]

Good question. Could you pick the one true church out of the following list for me?

The church of the Thessalonians

The church in Ephesus

The church in Smyrna

The church in Pergamum

The church in Thyatira

The church in Sardis

The church in Philadelphia

The churches of Judea

The churches in Galatia

etc.

Sure, they were all true because they were all of the church that Christ had built.

As you said

The Greek term translated "church" does not mean a highly organized religious organization. Rather, it refers to something like a club or gathering.

The new testament epistles were to the "saints" gathered at these places. Saint being the term used by Christ and the Apostles to describe the followers of Jesus.

And on a side note, some of these letters contained warnings and corrections that some wrong teachings were being absorbed into there doctrine. How can that be though, "the gate of hell" thing wouldn't let that happen right?

Though the flaws of the early church are quite obvious and unhidden, one thing that stands clear is that these early Christians never let go of Christ.

No one ever said they did. Here is the great misunderstanding about the apostacy. It wasn't that the world fell away from Jesus Christ. It was that the world lost the authority to act in his name, as the Apostles had. We must be perfectly clear here. Not only was authority lost, but some of the origional teachings had become perverted. Just as the apostles had warned in their epistles.

The truth of a church does not depend on the name on the building, but the teachings that it proclaims.

So all churches teach the same thing? They are all absolutely and possitively true without one teaching out of line with Gods word?

All taught the basic principles of the gospel, and served as places of fellowship and encouragement for believers at all stages of their spiritual lives.

So what are thes basic principles? Becasue the LDS church teaches a lot of the same things others do, yet we are branded a cult.

Jesus directed all belief at himself. He is the way, the truth, and the life. Not a human church.

I'm not asking about a church built by humans. Let me quote again "Upon this rock will I (Jesus Christ) build (to construct or put together) my (belonging and built by Jesus Christ himself, not man) church (group of believers).

If Jesus directed all belief to himself, and he built up a group of followers (church) where is that group today. Surely they all teach, preach and believe exactly as Jesus taught them because He built it. Not a group that are similar to each other. One faith, (not many), one Lord (one law giver with one set of teachings), one baptism (baptism representing entrance into the body or group of Christ. Not many but one. One body).

Because it sets up the organization as equal to Christ, and does not come close to encompassing all the beauty and diversity that God has created in the world. No one church organization does.

Christ is at the center of LDS doctrine. The whole religion is based on Jesus Christ. If we feel that Christ is at the head of our church, then it is His church. God is a God of order not confusion. What do you mean by diversity? Many are confused as to which church is true. I don't think God would allow it to be that way and see it as beauty.

In one sense, he only created one, the gathering of believers. In another sense, he created many, because whereever believers are gathered around the truth, it is a church in the classic sense of the word.

So if He created only one, the gathering of believers, then the location doesn't matter, its the belief system. So no matter where the people are gathered together, it all has to do with are they doing as Jesus taught. If they are not all in complete harmony then one group is out of line and therefore are not true believers. They have changed or perverted or done away with a teaching or ordinance and therefor are apostate. They may still believe in Jesus and even teach his truth. But the minuet man takes it upon himself to teach that other than what Jesus built, he no longer has authortiy.

So once again, which group of believers are following what Jesus built completely as He established it?

[rhinomelon]

Tsk, tsk. Since my last post, Neither Steubie nor rhino have provided a single verse or ECF quote to back up their claims.

There is such a wealth of information I could cite, it's just difficult knowing where to start I'll have some verses for you (again!) after lunch.

I am still waiting for an answer as to where the trinity hypothesis is found in the Bible or in early Christianity.

You've conveniently ignored the many times such references have been cited. Pearls before swine, perhaps?

For a little light reading on the biblical question (which just sums up what many people have posted on these boards, but are just too tired to do right now), just look here: Biblical Basis for the Trinity

For a look at the Trinity in early Christianity, try this link, although it is not exhaustive by any means. I could post it all, but that would be quite annoying for all concerned Here you go: The Trinity in Early Christianity

You might want to email these links to yourself or something. Then you'll be able to look at them for yourself instead of depending on internet posters with small amounts of computer time.

Dontcha ever say I never did nuthin' fer ya

[BCSpace]

Tsk, tsk. 

Alright, well, I'm bowing out now. Peace.

No need. I can't be everywhere at once.

Also, I was hoping to get a tally here of the distinctively LDS doctrines that the LDS are claiming that the early Church goers held.

I would have to say all of them were there but of course we don't have all the writings. There are many that are explicit and some that are implicit.

I don;t know if you are Catholic or not, but some LDS and Catholic doctrines dovetail so the following list is distinctly LDS with respect to nonCatholics.

But you can start with:

1. The corruption of scripture.

2. The Universal Apostasy foretold.

3. Virtually all aspects of the LDS Godhead including anthropomorphism.

4. The LDS concept of Deification.

5. The Pre-mortal existence.

6. The preaching of the gospel to the dead and the vicarious baptism of the same.

7. The necessity of Baptism and works for salvation

8. The esoteric rites

9. The ressurection (some nonLDS Christians are confused about aspects of it)

10. Three degrees of salvation.

etc. etc.

[flavo]

On the otherhand, Flavo is erroneously using Matthew 16 to show that the earthly Church would never be taken from the earth....

My purpose in using the scripture in this manner is to show that those that do not believe in an apostacy use this scripture to say that hell would not prevail against the church.

In actuality, it is the gates of hell, as I have said before, gates only pravail against an attack, they are a defensive weapon. Revelation is the rock that broke the gates that hell had placed around man to hold back the light. Revelation was the ram that the gates of hell could not prevail against.

[BCSpace]

Tsk, tsk. Since my last post, Neither Steubie nor rhino have provided a single verse or ECF quote to back up their claims.

There is such a wealth of information I could cite, it's just difficult knowing where to start  I'll have some verses for you (again!) after lunch.

Stick with one aspect at a time like I do and you won't have to worry about so many quotes at a time....

It will be a fruitless effort on your part to prove your case, but have at it...

You've conveniently ignored the many times such references have been cited. Pearls before swine, perhaps?

Nope. I've answered every kind of attempt to show the trinity in either the Bible or with the ECF. It all comes down to the fact that LDS doctrine can account for every verse on the subject and trinitarians just end of making the Bible conflict with itself. Every single time without exception!

You might want to email these links to yourself or something. Then you'll be able to look at them for yourself instead of depending on internet posters with small amounts of computer time.

Been there, done that. No change in the fact that the trinity is contraBiblical and not found among the ECF.

[BCSpace]

On the otherhand, Flavo is erroneously using Matthew 16 to show that the earthly Church would never be taken from the earth....

My purpose in using the scripture in this manner is to show that those that do not believe in an apostacy use this scripture to say that hell would not prevail against the church.

In actuality, it is the gates of hell, as I have said before, gates only pravail against an attack, they are a defensive weapon. Revelation is the rock that broke the gates that hell had placed around man to hold back the light. Revelation was the ram that the gates of hell could not prevail against.

Then please accept my apologies Flavo.

Another interesting thing is that the verse actually could imply that the Church might be behind the gates for a while (until they prevail). Yet another reference to the Universal Apostasy.

[BCSpace]

Yet another verse set showing the Universiality of the Apostasy....

NOW we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

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;

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4

Now here is some interesting imagery. Not only is the apostasy inevitable, but the son of perdition will sit as God in the temple of God shewing himself that he is God.

Hard to imagine this prophecy being fulfilled if the Church remained!

[rhinomelon]

Now here is some interesting imagery. Not only is the apostasy inevitable, but the son of perdition will sit as God in the temple of God shewing himself that he is God.

Hard to imagine this prophecy being fulfilled if the Church remained!

[William the Conqueror]

  If all was well within Ignatius' churches...he should not have been pleading with them over and over to be unified under authority...and to pray for his flock because they would be without a bishop.  Why would that be?  Why not just tell somebody to be the bishop?  Most likely Ignatius was the last with the priesthood authority in that area to do so.    There is one reference to appointments but it does not resolve his frantic calls to unity and following the order of things.  A person leaving a well structured situation would only be saying his goodbyes with some good encouraging sermons....not this kind of begging.

Acts20: parting message to the elders at Ephesus:

24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.

26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.

27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Do you think that Paul was begging? Maybe the church at Ephesus was not well structured. However they did have elders (bishops).

[rhinomelon]

Stick with one aspect at a time like I do and you won't have to worry about so many quotes at a time....  

Actually, that's a great idea! It seems that the subject(s) get quite broad rather quickly, which is overwhelming for the person who doesn't have handy links for everything

So let's narrow it down a bit. How about I look at how the Bible and ECF viewed the future fate of the church, specifically looking at apostasy vs. preservation? Sound good to you?

Sounds interesting to me, and much less overwhelming.

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Sure, they were all true because they were all of the church that Christ had built.

Many (if not the vast majority) of Christian denominations see themselves the same way, as one part of the body of Christ.

And on a side note, some of these letters contained warnings and corrections that some wrong teachings were being absorbed into there doctrine. How can that be though, "the gate of hell" thing wouldn't let that happen right?

I think you might be misunderstanding the whole "prevail" thing. Hell will never defeat the Church. But there will be some mighty big fights!

Not only was authority lost, but some of the origional teachings had become perverted. Just as the apostles had warned in their epistles.

Where do the apostles warn about the loss of authority? And does the corruption of "some of the original teachings" mean "complete apostasy"?

So all churches teach the same thing? They are all absolutely and possitively true without one teaching out of line with Gods word?

Of course not, and neither is the LDS church. Be careful that you don't set the bar so high that nothing can get over it. As long as imperfect human beings make up the church, there will be error.

So what are thes basic principles? Becasue the LDS church teaches a lot of the same things others do, yet we are branded a cult.

In terms of moral teaching, the LDS church is basically Christian. But in terms of underlying theology and practice, there are huge differences.

One faith, (not many), one Lord (one law giver with one set of teachings), one baptism (baptism representing entrance into the body or group of Christ. Not many but one. One body).

Christian denomination do share the same faith in the same Christ, and all Christian denominations practice baptism.

Christ is at the center of LDS doctrine. The whole religion is based on Jesus Christ. If we feel that Christ is at the head of our church, then it is His church. God is a God of order not confusion. What do you mean by diversity? Many are confused as to which church is true. I don't think God would allow it to be that way and see it as beauty.

The LDS church is true because you feel that it is? Kind of a shaky foundation, as there are billions of people who feel that their church/religion is also the true one.

As far as diversity goes, there is a common core of faith shared by all Christians, but it is expressed in many different ways. This can depend on culture, personality, or geographical location or tradition. For instance, I truly believe that worshipping God with guitars and drums is a beautiful and meaningful thing. I also believe that the beauty and symbolism of Orthodox services are quite moving and spiritual. Likewise, the high view of God seen in Catholic services and architecture, etc., is a wonderful thing. The LDS church, because of its rigid structure and top-down ecclesial system often squelches these kinds of individual differences. LDS churches in Africa don't use native instruments, for example.

Unity does not equal uniformity, is the bottom line.

So if He created only one, the gathering of believers, then the location doesn't matter, its the belief system. So no matter where the people are gathered together, it all has to do with are they doing as Jesus taught. If they are not all in complete harmony then one group is out of line and therefore are not true believers. They have changed or perverted or done away with a teaching or ordinance and therefor are apostate. They may still believe in Jesus and even teach his truth. But the minuet man takes it upon himself to teach that other than what Jesus built, he no longer has authortiy.

It depends on what you mean by "complete harmony". If you mean that everyone believes and does exactly the same thing, then you have set the bar way too high again, because LDS church members have a great diversity of religious beliefs among them, even on key issues.

Also, there is a difference between central, core issues, and peripheral issues. The nature of God is a core issue. How one carries out God's command to love thy neighbor is not. The death of Christ and his resurrection is a key issue. What instruments one uses to worship God is not. I hope you can see the difference.

Anyway, good conversation everyone. I'll see you all after the weekend, hopefully. Just don't get too far ahead in the thread, or I'll never catch up!

Take care, one and all.

[juliann]

2. The LDS, "apostasy" group that says that the early Christians were getting farther and farther away from revealed truth as time went on. Things got out of hand quicly, and soon there was no legitimate authority.

FOr this group, the early Church fathers were by and large off as far as true doctrine, though there are still some elements of true LDS theology among them; that they are scattered merely shows the extent of the apostasy.

You need to stop seeing this as "LDS" vs "conventional Christianity". Neither one of us believes everything has to stay the same. I don't know any LDS scholars who expect to look back in history and find an LDS chapel.

I still don't have an answer to this and it sums up the problem from the LDS perspective...

1.Where was the supreme head of the church after the last apostle died?

2. Why were theologians (Origen not even being ordained) having to figure out doctrine themselves?

[juliann]

And on a side note, some of these letters contained warnings and corrections that some wrong teachings were being absorbed into there doctrine. How can that be though, "the gate of hell" thing wouldn't let that happen right?

I think you might be misunderstanding the whole "prevail" thing. Hell will never defeat the Church. But there will be some mighty big fights!

For gates to "prevail" you would have to be behind them....locked in. This was the understanding of hades. What that verse is literally saying is that the church will spend time behind the gates (as will every person) but those gates will not remain shut. The church has to be resurrected as well. Even more telling is the concept of "shades"...the state of the dead. I also think that the Lazarus story is a good metaphor for apostasy.... Christ raising a beloved but quite dead friend.

There is too much arguing over trivia, guys. We aren't going to agree on this...but that does not negate the fact that LDS do have an impressive case that "the church" underwent major changes after virtual silence in the first and early second centuries. The argument is not over that happening...it is really over whether it matters. The problem conventional Christians have is that they need the appeal to apostolic authority through lineage...but the lineage disappears. The advantage LDS will always have is that we have no need to preserve anything through this period of invisibility.

[1dc]

Non-LDS scholarship can point to the evolution of doctrine and organization, maybe asserting that it isn't what Jesus and the apostles started out with, but they don't draw absurd conclusions like a complete apostasy from the truth.

If the doctrine "evolves" from men, then it is no longer Christ's doctrine.

PS - Truth in scholarship is scholarship regardless of source. Setting up a false standard of Non-LDS scholarship separates oneself from potential truths.

[juliann]

Do you think that Paul was begging? Maybe the church at Ephesus was not well structured. However they did have elders (bishops).

Paul begged quite a bit, actually. But surely you do not think this was comparable to Ignatius' frantic instructions. You don't find anything like this at all from Paul....

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE SMYRAEANS

CHAPTER VIII.--LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Note the distinction here....the universal church is where the bishop is...not just a bunch of people. Authority, authority, authority. Without it...nothing will be "valid". He never stops talking about it. He never stops pleading.

[1dc]

Multitheism

http://scriptures.lds.org/john/20/17#17

Also the understanding of the relationship between Father and Son. I don't want to write down how I understand it, because I am probably wrong. I think it is accurate  to say that the doctrine is that the Father is somehow "more Godlike" than the Son, but if I am wrong, I will certainly allow myself to be corrected.

Are you less human than your parents though you give them their due respect and honor?