Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[owl]

Then, maybe you or someone else could explain somthing to me. The way your church organization is set up, it is self-perpetuating. The presidency is replaced from the quorum of 12, the 12 are replaced from the quorum of 70. One of you has told me that the church today, models the church in the first century. So, why didn't the Apostles in the first century, get replaced by members of the 70, as the 12 were killed off? What I'm hearing you all say (in my own words) is that the church priesthood is self-perpetuating as the priesthood authority and keys are passed on, which is supposed to be the way Christ set up His church. But, apparently that didn't happen 1,900 years ago, since after the last Apostle died, that ended the church organization, and priesthood authority and keys were taken from the earth (as I've been told). Why didn't the early church self-perpetuate as yours does today, since your church today is supposed to be like the first century church?

First the Apostles today are not neccessarily replaced from the Quorum of Seventy. They often are, but they are replaced by whichever worthy priesthood bearer the Prophet is inspired to call.

Now as to what happened anciently, we don't know in detail, we can only speculate. Today, communication and travel are easier. Anciently, the Apostles used to meet in Jerusalem periodically, at great personal sacrifice. However, when the apostles were carrying out their mission to preach the gospel to every nation and were travelling to far flung nations to do so, it was difficult to meet regularly.

Probably during the period between meetings, some were killed and some were imprisoned, and there eventually came a time when it was no longer possible to assemble a majority of the twelve to choose replacements.

Also as later dissension and incorrect doctrines crept into the Church, it may have become impossible to find worthy members well founded in the correct doctrine to choose as replacements.

In any case we know that not too much after the death of Peter, the bishops were running the Church, and the doctrines were beginning to change to the point that the true nature of God was no longer taught.

[Hammer]

A common EV mistake is to take verses that refer to the law of Moses and apply them to all deeds and works.

Several verses DO refer to either good works or the law.

Grace is in contrast with works:

Grace is also in contrast with the law:

No one is justified by good works OR the law.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Rom. 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Eph. 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

2 Tim. 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Nnnno, you only assert that I've made a conflict, because you have cherry-picked 2:24 out of context, trying to force your LDS doctrine into where it cannot and will not fit. You've neglected James' explanation in verses 22-23, which causes verse 24 to make perfect sense, and not in contradiction to anything Paul said. I've already explained it to you once. If you don't get it, even though you think you do, then there's no sense going over it again.

Also, I said more than to just deny your interpretation of Matt. 25:31-46. You should stop making wild and untrue assertions about me and what I have or have not said.

"By grace you have been saved" (Eph. 2:5, 8}

2 Tim. 1:9 "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,"

And, I asked and explained, "Who do you think His sheep are? Jesus said, John 10:27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;""

They're not just wild sheep out somewhere doing good works to earn their sheephood. They're followers of their Shepherd. They're believers in their Shepherd. Please listen to Paul explain to the Church at Ephesus, the believer's salvation in the present tense:

The only "future" talk is in verse 10, where he talks about gathering together all things that are in Christ, at the end of this dispensation, when the time is full. That's when those of us who have been saved by His blood and death on the cross, will recieve the promised inheritance which is already sealed by the Holy Spirit. Done deal.

Believers have salvation, being sealed, being adopted and having a sure inheritance.

Was there something wrong with this explanation? Do think sheep are unbelievers and unsaved by the Shepherd, until they prove themselves worthy to be called sheep? He's their Shepherd. He lays (laid) His life down for them. They're not His sheep because they earned it. That's non-sense.

In John 10, Jesus said, "14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep." To know and be known by the Shepherd, is to be in right relationship with Him. They're believers. Believers are saved people, sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, inheritors of all things in Christ, adopted by Christ, and predestined to be so. They're not non-sheep trying to earn sheephood, nor are they goats trying to be worthy of being transformed into sheep. Sheep are sheep. And, Christ's sheep are His sheep from the beginning.

BTW, do you see anywhere in the NT where Jesus laid down His life for the goats?

So, let's look at it again. In which verse does Christ say anything like "works are required for salvation"?

You've falsely interpreted Christ to be saying that the sheep are sheep because they earned the privilege of becoming sheep, by their good works. But, they were already His sheep.

You need to read John 10 and learn more about sheep. You've got an entirely wrong idea about them. In the analogy about salvation, you actually believe that sheep are not sheep until they prove they are sheep by their works. Think about how that sounds. Does that sound logical to you?

You left out half the teaachings of the NT. Good job.

[Dale]

I find Evangelicals don't feel anything in the New Testament regards to works contradicts the grace alone idea. I doubt Bob feels he has left anything out that agrees with us who reject grace alone.

In regards to Ephesians 2:8-9 it does teach we are not saved via man's effort. I don't see it as saying that some of those things are thing's we don't have to do upon pain of damnation if we don't do them. I see it as merely stating those things whether essential to salvation, or not salvation is still a gift. I read 1 Timothy 1:9 the same way. Some of our works our things we have to do upon pain of possible damnation if we don't do them.

[Zemah]

Are you still talking about the Apostasy?

Is Bob Betts still arguing against the reality of the first church being lost?

On a less cluttered thread about the apostasy being foretold in the word of God, the following was posted:

Here's a nice treatise on Apostasy!!!

The list of Bible references for each of the forty topics pointing to the apostasy is very helpful in demonstrating the truth of it.

Zemah

[Dale]

My understanding is that the early church was supposed to have survived through a faithful remnant. That the reformation was that remnant who reformed the church. Grace alone was one doctrine they felt they got the church back to.

[owl]

Sorry I'm obtuse, but what is OSAS?

[owl]

Post #839 by Bob complains about the 'LDS idea' of Three degrees of glory and having to earn celestial degree. In spite of 1 Corinthians 15 Bob claims this is not taught in the Bible. I happened upon this quote that shows the early Christians had a strikingly 'LDS belief'.

It happens that this was a very popular early Christian doctrine, taught by such luminaries as Origen70, Irenaeus, Papias71, Clement of Alexandria, and others. For example, Clement of Alexandria expressed belief in the three degrees, and echoed the Lord's revelation to Joseph Smith that those in the highest degree "are gods, even the sons of God." (D&C 76:58) He also preached that the three gradations of glory are procured by virtue of three types of actions:

"Conformably, therefore, there are various abodes, according to the worth of those who have believed.... These chosen abodes, which are three, are indicated by the numbers in the Gospel--the thirty, the sixty, the hundred. And the perfect inheritance belongs to those who attain to "a perfect man," according to the image of the Lord.... To the likeness of God, then, he that is introduced into adoption and the friendship of God, to the just inheritance of the lords and gods is brought; if he be perfected, according to the Gospel, as the Lord Himself taught." 72

"[Clement of Alexandria] reckons three kinds of actions, the first of which is... right or perfect action, which is characteristic of the perfect man.... The second is the class of... medium, or intermediate actions, which are done by less perfect believers, and procure a lower grade of glory. In the third place he reckons sinful actions, which are done by those who fall away from salvation." 73

In addition, Clement (following Hermas) taught that those righteous souls who had not had the chance to accept the Gospel in this life would be preached to and redeemed in Hades (i.e. the spirit world).

"And it has been shown also..., that the apostles, following the Lord, preached the Gospel to those in Hades.... For it was suitable to the divine administration, that those possessed of greater worth in righteousness, and whose life had been pre-eminent, on repenting of their transgressions, though found in another place, yet being confessedly of the number of the people of God Almighty, should be saved, each one according to his individual knowledge.... If, then, the Lord descended to Hades for no other end but to preach the Gospel, as He did descend; it was either to preach the Gospel to all or to the Hebrews only. If, accordingly, to all, then all who believe shall be saved, although they may be of the Gentiles, on making their profession there...." 74 (cf. 1 Peter 3:18-20; 4:6)

When Irenaeus (quoting Papias) described the three degrees, he associated them with the Father, Son, and Spirit, respectively. "The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, affirm that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature; also that they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father...."75

Where did this doctrine come from? Cardinal Danielou shows that the three heavens scheme originated in the oldest form of Jewish apocalyptic, and was a standard feature of Jewish Christianity. Other schemes, such as that of seven heavens, derived from "oriental, Irano-Babylonian influences", and were originally spin-offs of the three heavens arrangement.76 As Christianity fell away from its Jewish roots, however, the original doctrine was lost.

I found it here

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/...dex.html?200727

I have tried twice and can't get this url to work by clicking on it. It works on Dales post 126 on the 'Okay - God Was Once A Man...let's Start There' thread.

[owl]

Still occasionally trying to catch up.

I won't remove this but Bernard Gui already said much the same thing and better than me.

Now, you ask how they can have the keys if they’re not given. This is simple: They have been. Every hierarchy of the church has been given the keys to reorganize the hierarchy directly above it if it needs be done.

Most of what PacMan said in this post was right up to this. It is true that the 12 hold in abeyance the keys of the presidency and that they as a group are authorized to call a new Prophet when the office is vacant. How far it goes beyond that is questionable. It is certainly not true that deacons or teachers could reorganize a quorum above them. They can't even ordain or set apart at their own level.

[Paul Ray]

Still back here catching up.

Need I remind you that not every post on this board is authoritative?

If we could simply teach Bob, and all other people, who to learn from to learn all the right answers all our problems would be solved, totally.

For some reason some people don't see the need to learn from some of our Lord's apostles, though.

I often wonder what we can do to help people know what we have learned from our Lord's apostles, without letting our own personal misunderstandings corrupt the process.

[urroner]

Sorry I'm obtuse, but what is OSAS?

ONce Saved Always Saved

[Dale]

Post #839 by Bob complains about the 'LDS idea' of Three degrees of glory and having to earn celestial degree. In spite of 1 Corinthians 15 Bob claims this is not taught in the Bible. I happened upon this quote that shows the early Christian's had a strikingly 'LDS belief'.

I found it here

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/...dex.html?200727

I have tried twice and can't get this url to work by clicking on it. It works on Dales post 126 on the 'Okay - God Was Once A Man...let's Start There' thread.

If i recall right they interpret Paul as teaching bodies not kingdom's. That Paul was only contrasting bodies to prove God could create a Celestial immortal body for one place heaven. That Celestial means heavenly, and terrestrial earthly. They see 1 Cor. 15 as being misunderstood by LDS to say something Paul never said.

[Lightbearer]

Lightbearer: Actually the Bible says otherwise:

Lightbearer: And also this:

Lightbearer: And yet another:

Lightbearer: So here are three quotes from the Apostle Paul that disputes what you said about following prophets. So I do not think you can deny the fact that at least Paul admonishes the Saints to follow him as he follows Christ. That is the duty of all true prophets, to be an example to those whom they are called to minister to. Joseph Smith did the same, and we do not worship him as you know full well.1) Show me where Paul refers to himself as a prophet, or where he is called a prophet.

2) To the Philippians and the Thessalonians, Paul clearly refers to himself as an ensample (example). To the Thessalonians, he talks about his behavior among them before admonishing them to follow his example. To the Philippians he admonishes them to walk in the manner of his example. To the Corinthians Paul spoke allegorically about being a father to them, having begotten them through the gospel. And, although there are thousands of instructors, he wants them to follow him like a father.

We're never instructed to follow prophets or Apostles in the LDS sense of the word "follow," as spelled out in The Fourteen Fundamental of Following the Prophets. Never and not even close. Not Moses, not anybody.

I waited this long for this!

Nice try...but I believe that the Apostle Paul fills the bill as a Prophet at least according to the Apostle John:

(Revelation 19:10) "And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

Also what about this verse in Acts, is not Saul AKA Paul numbered as a Prophet?

(Acts 13:1-2) "Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them."

Both of these taken together I believe establishes the Apostle Paul as a Prophet and thus my quotes about following him as a Prophet is valid. Don't bother to answer this rebuttal, it really is not that important, for I am sure you will find some excuse so you can "claim victory" on the point.

[owl]

Still catching up.

Bob,

As PacMan finally stated there are no emergency keys. Bernard is most correct of the prolific posters.

Now, about the apostacy being the most merciful and loving thing God could have done. I don't believe there are any references for this idea. None the less it is probably true.

There is no reference for this either, but I am confident that when we appear at the final judgement bar, we will not be able to say to God, "If you had given me better circumstance, less temptation, more righteous parents, less calamities, war, and turmoil in the world, I would have been better and would have deserved a greater reward." I think If we tried to say anything like that God would have replied, 'Where I placed you was where you could make the maximum progress. Any other circumstance would have been harder for you."

Bob, can you see that this is completely reasonable. I'm sure you agree that, to allow agency, God has to allow sin. Thus, we, all God's Children, have to be placed in an imperfect world.

God loves us, so would he place us where it would be more difficult for us to succeed? No!

By extension then, the people at the time of the apostacy won't be able to say, "If you had allowed the Church to remain on the earth, I would have done better." No references, but entirely reasonable.

[Zemah]

And the winner is...

Owl with number 888!

[owl]

OSAS

thanks urroner

Now I'm adding a comment to a former post.

As I look back at the succession of my posts that follows this, I apologize for monopolizeng the thread. Especially when much of this may have been said before. It is just that I am trying to catch up, and I care that Bob does not always seem to be understanding our point of view. I want to be sure these ideas have been expressed, but if I skip past them, I know I will forget them later.

[owl]

Bob,

I finally got to the point where you answered some of my posts.

I said the Church was not just a community of believers. You replied,

Actually that's precisely what the Church is.

And I said it is, but not just that. You agree that the early Church had ordained leaders, leaders who were needed until "we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." (Eph. 4: 13) Since we have not reached that point, they are obviouly still needed. You claim that the existence of Apostles in heaven is sufficient. How has the world been doing on reaching a unity of the faith?

When I got a few pages further, I noticed that PacMan in the latter part of post #473 made an extended argument to this effect.

[owl said] "The Gospel requires a living faith in Christ coupled with repentance and obedience to his commandments." I would put this in slightly different terms: He expects us to be water baptized, and He gives us His HG.

I had continued, "Two items he requires of those who come unto him are baptism and the reception of the Holy Ghost." You said baptism is expected. I said required. Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3: 5) You recognize that the water birth is baptism. Do you admit that a valid baptism should be administered by one who is called of God and ordained?

You are right that the Holy Ghost often fell upon believers before their baptism. This kind of conversion experience was common, but they were subsequently baptised and recieved the Gift of the Holy Ghost which was the right to His companionship. "...through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given..." (Acts 8:18)

Some of this is speculation on your part, based on what your church believes and practices today. You'd be hard pressed to biblically support some of what you're saying.

I believe what you were refering to is this

The reason a formal Church organization was necessary to have these ordinances is that they had to be done by revelation to those having authority. This revelation came to the apostles and prophets and to the bishops whom they called to administer locally. They also, by revelation, corrected errors of doctrine.

The original New Testament prophets and apostles were called and ordained by Christ. They formed the foundation of the Church. After Christ’s death, they, by revelation, called others. The apostles as a group could call successors and an apostle as an individual could by revelation call a bishop. Bishops could by revelation call deacons, teachers and priests. A bishop could not call another bishop, and even an apostle acting alone could not call another apostle. Certainly if an apostle acting alone could not call another apostle, a bishop could not.

You may be right that a little of this is inference from practices of the restored Church. However most of it can be supported by quotes from the NT. I was going to provide evidence in the new thread, but will give a little here. We know that authority was needed to baptise because when Paul found disciples in Ephesus who claimed to be baptised by John but had not heard of the Holy Ghost, Paul told them that John teatified that one would come after him, Christ [who would confer the Holy Ghost]. Knowing therefore that they had not been baptised by John, Paul baptised them and layed hands on them, and the Holy Ghost came on them. (Acts 19) Instances of revelation to church leaders are numerous.

Regarding calling of Officers: We know that the apostles as a group called Matthias. (Acts 1) We do not know how the other subsequent apostles were called, but we do know they met with the brethren [infer other apostles] at intervals. Paul met with them several times and was sent out on missions.

Paul was not referred to as an apostle until some time after James was killed. In Acts 6 when they called the seven, they prayed and layed their hands on them.

Maybe I'll go back and read it. I was too far behind and busy to read that tome at the time.

Please do. The tome was the NRA posts #71, #73, #76, #78, #79.

Re: If there was such and apostacy, there needs to be a restoration, Peter did say there was to be a restitution of all things before Christ would return. Acts1 I believe. Are you looking for the restitution of all things? There isn't much time left.

As to Joseph Smith. He was not perfect. However, although he was vilified by his enemies, his friends loved and respected him.

[owl]

I'm still back here catching up so I apologize if I duplicate someone else's Ideas.

I'll bet you anything that those wicked people did NOT want their agency cut off. But, they had no choice in the matter. They had no power behind their agency to prevent God from destroying them. HIS agency trumped their's. God's deliberate action of causing a flood, with the express and deliberate purpose of destroying those wicked inhabitants, for the way they were using their agancy, was God's way of showing who's the boss of agency, in consequence of their wicked use of their agency. God effectively took away their agency, by effectively destroying their humanity. And, there was nothing they could do about it with their agency. God imposed HIS agency on them.

You are right that man's agency is limited. You are right also that God deliberately caused the flood and the accompanying destruction, and even that those who died in the flood had their earthly agency cut off.

It is incorrect though to say that there was nothing they could do. Before it started raining, any individual could have accepted Noah's preaching. If anyone had, God would have arranged for that individual to be saved. Thus, except for the little children, their fate IS the result of their own individual use of agency and was not imposed by God arbitrarily.

[owl]

Bob, I had a hard time following post 487 because it was so long and because the [] triggers were off somehow, so the quotes did not show up in boxes. I think I correctly identified this as your idea.

Based on what the Apostle Peter (the one holding the keys) told the believers in his letter, all believers are of a holy and royal priesthood, by virtue of their being believers (1 Peter 2:5-9). So, actually, yeah, all new converts WERE automatically ordained Priests as they are today.

I think you are absolutely right. The believers (male at least) were all ordained. They could not have been part of the royal priesthood just by believing.

[owl]

But, according to your belief, the Church did NOT run the way it does today, because the cessation of the succession of Apostles resulted in an apostasy of priesthood keys and authority, and that couldn't happen today (barring something catastrophic, as I understand).

The apostacy was the turning away of the members, not the loss of priesthood authority and keys. The loss of keys was the result of the apostacy, not the apostacy itself.

The succession IS the same today as in the time of the original apostles. It takes the prophet or a quorum of the 12 (I suppose that would be 7) to replace a missing member. Don't ask me for a reference since the only example where the calling of an apostle is dedsribed is Matthias and 11 of the 12 were involved.

Theoretically, the leadership ould be wiped out today. However modern communication and transportation would make it much more difficult for a succession of individual deaths or even a catastrophy to wipe out so much of the leadership that the presidency and the 12 could not be reconstituted. That was not the case anciently.

Furthermore, Daniel's interpretation of the dream says that when God's Kingdom was set up in the days of the 10 kings, It would roll forth to fill the whole earth, so it appears that such a catastrophy is not going to happen.

I know I may be still beating on the horse the group has already killed, but I can't find that icon.

Found it. Thanks Charity!

[owl]

ALL the main perpetuators were NOT killed off.

No individual except Peter was, by himself, a perpetuator. By himself an Apostle could not reconstitute the leadership.

I know.

[owl]

If God picks times of unrighteousness to withdraw His gospel, then we would rarely, if ever, have the gospel on the earth. When was there any time of a lengthy, sustained righteousness in the world.

It is not unrighteous in the world that causes the Gospel to be withdrawn. It is unrighteousness in the Church.

Bob I know these ideas may have been expressed many times already, but do you now understand our view of Apostacy?

God does not will it. It is the unrighteousness of men that causes it.

It is the turning away of Church members that prevents the leadership from perpetuating. The leaders can't call men who are unworthy. Those who won't accept and follow the revelation they have could not receive revelation in their calling if they were called.

This is not to say that leaders are perfect, but they have to be seeking the will of the Lord and not imposing their own.

[owl]

Then, by that standard, you should view the fourth century, when Constantinople made Christianity the religion of his empire, ending persecution and bringing peace to the beleagered Christians, as a time of righteousness.

Religion imposed by the state is not righteousness.

Besides righteousness of the believers is much more important than righteousness of the world.

[Zemah]

Is it ironic or hypocritical (or both) that a Protestant would so ardently deny the apostasy when Protestant Reformers themselves left the Catholic Church for that same reason?

Or is it just bull-headedness?

Zemah

[Dale]

They actually don't deny the partial apostasy of the church. They do however feel enough faithful person's in the church remained, so as to prevent a total apostasy. So the church instead of needing a restoration only needed a reformation.

[Zemah]

They actually don't deny the partial apostasy of the church. They do however feel enough faithful person's in the church remained, so as to prevent a total apostasy. So the church instead of needing a restoration only needed a reformation.

Thank you for that clarification. Perhaps you can help me further in my understanding.

What do Protestants believe of the authority of the priesthood that the Catholic Church claims to this day?

Zemah