Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[Paul Ray]

... everyone knows that the foundation of a building needs more than just a cornerstone. So, don't you all believe that the foundation of the Church was completely eliminated, by way of the deaths of all the prophets and Apostles?

Yes, as it pertains to the Church that was left here on the Earth among us mortals.

We're not saying the Church didn't exist in heaven when the apostles died and went to heaven.

We're just saying that without apostles in the organization of the Church on Earth, the Church was not fully organized as it was meant to be.

So, the fact that there were a few replacements along the way in Acts, is really superfluous, since what's really important to your complete apostasy theory is what allegedly occurred when all Apostles, including the replacements, were dead. Right?

Yes, the fact that there were a few replacements along the way is pretty much superfluous to the point concerning the fact that the Church later became apostate anyway when there came a point that the apostles were no longer being replaced in the organization of the Church here on Earth among us mortals.

Without apostles, who are authorized by our Lord to guide us, the true church of Christ is gone, regardless of the fact that it may still be in heaven where those people are or in the spirit world where those people are.

We have been referring to the true church of Jesus Christ among us mortals, not the extension of his church in heaven or in the spirit world.

[Zemah]

I just asked God and he answered me personally. He told me that the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Jesus Christ. If some god told you differently then you have the wrong god.

Mormon logic is basically relativistic.

Not if it really happens. Not if the Holy Ghost truly manifests the truth to you.

And I don't believe Mormons say you are worshipping the wrong God, only teaching, preaching, and practicing many false doctrines.

Zemah

[Zemah]

Paul,

God told me something different and he specifically said the Mormons were wrong. You see the problem. Feelings not faith rule in Mormonism. There is no room for objectivity. So I can say that you are being deceived and that it is Satan who is telling you these lies. Whereas the real God is speaking to me. Where does that leave us?

Either someone is a liar, or someone has been fooled by the master of lies.

But don't remove objectivity from the equation. I can objectively look at the Catholic Church and see without any difficulty that it is a false church because it practices false doctrine. There is nothing subjective about evaluating the doctrine of enfant baptism as practiced in many Christian denominations, and then looking into the Bible to reveal that no such doctrine ever existed. With only the most basic of common sense we can judge this to be wrong doctrine.

Now I know God did not speak to you and you are only using your statements as an example of what you feel the LDS Church is doing. So, â??where does this leave us?â?

I suppose it leaves us with the option of seeking answers from the Holy Ghost. Since I and many other Mormons have done this and received the answer that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is His restored Church, that just leaves you out.

Likewise, I am out of the Catholic church. So tell me again why I should be in the Catholic church. Really, Iâ??m askingâ?¦

Is it so that I will be gathered up into Israel?

Is it so that I will live eternally with God and Christ in Zion?

Is it so that I can knee before a priest who I am suppose to call â??Fatherâ??

Is it so that I can buy indulgences to avoid punishment on the other side of the veil?

Is it so that I may live in hope of being proclaimed a Saint in the RCC after my death?

Is it so that I can eat the morsel of Christâ??s actual flesh dipped in the actual blood of Jesus converted at the altar by a miracle at the hands of a Catholic priest?

Should I return to the Catholic church so that my children will be damned before they are of age even too sin?

Convince me that I should leave the LDS Church and you still have to overcome the testimony that I have from the living Spirit of Christ.

How can you ever convince me that what changed my life for the good was not of God? Does the devil convert someone to goodness? Does Satan preach the word of God toward repentance?

Zemah

[owl]

No, I hope I NEVER claim that you or any other individual is saved or not saved.

You might be interested in some of the posts on the Grace or Works thread started by Mola Ram.

[owl]

My comments in bold

"Grace" cannot be earned by "total effort on the part of the recipient," "after all we can do" or "if we [first] deny ourselves of all ungodliness." That's flat out not the Greek definition of "grace." True, nothing we can do will earn grace, but the grace of God unto salvation is accessed by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost. It is the repentance part that for most of us is all we can do.

I would think that if Alma 34 was relevant only to the Zoramites, there would be a mention of them somewhere in the chapter. It was the Zoramites to whom Amulek was speaking. However, every scripture is relevant to every reader. We are to liken them unto ourselves.

Paul's message was then and is now, that today is the day of Salvation. I don't know how you can construe that to mean that salvation is NOT for today, but in the future, if and when we prove ourselves worthy. The reason today is the day of our salvation is that we cannot put off our part till tomorrow. Alma 34:33...do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.

[owl]

The writings from the apostles in their day weren't even available to everybody, personally.

How could you possibly know this?

Bob, How could you possibly not know this.

Letters and scrolls had to be hand copied, so a limited number of copies were available. Not everyone could read, so for many, even if a copy became available locally, the non-readers had to have someone to read it to them.

I extract census data, and I have done genealogical reseach in old church records. The reason so many people's names are spelled differently from record to record is that they could not read and write and the scribe wrote what he heard. John Jones, his mark X.

Of course, the availablility of the writings of the apostles was limited.

[owl]

The local members of the Church basically relied on what their local leaders were teaching, and not all that they taught was correct.

Where are you getting this from. I've not heard so much detailed information about the daily lives of the Christians in the immediate post-Apostolic age.

We know not all they were taught was correct for two reasons: As long as the apostles were there, they were writing to the local churches trying to correct the errors that they knew about. And we know that the anthropomorphic God of Christ, the Apostles and of the Hebrews in general, was replaced begining around 100 AD by the incorporeal God of the Greek Philosophers.

[owl]

Show me a single scripture passage in the Bible on salvation, where your "rope" analogy fits. Show me how it fits Eph. 2:1-7

Here are two.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,

and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost

John 3:5 Jesus answered, 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.

By repentance, baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost we take hold of the rope, then God, through his grace, pulls us up.

It fits Ephesians because Paul was talking to members who had already accomplished these steps.

I'm still 2 pages from being caught up. I see that on page 38 Mola listed a lot of baptism scriptures. There is plenty of evidence something more is required to access grace than just a profession of faith. Paul seldom mentions those precursor steps because the members of the church have already taken them.

Bob, now I am caught up, let me try to restate this to fit your misconceptions.

It is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ that saves us through the Grace of God and Christ. God through sending his Son to atone. Christ through living a perfect, sin free life and being willing to suffer, bleed and die for our sins.

Making salvation available was a free gift. All we have to do is believe (have faith). However, that belief must lead to action. Otherwise it is not faith. How could we say we believe if we are unwilling to do the works. Therefore if we truely believe we will feel Godly sorrow for our former sins and pray for God's help in forsaking them. Then we will seek out his authorized servants and request baptism from one who has the authority to perform ordinances recognized in heaven. When we have been baptised we will, by the laying on of hands, be given the right to receive the Holy Ghost as a constant companion.

We sill still have to frequently partake of the bread and liquid and rededicate ourselves to modeling our behavior after Christ.

[Bob Betts]

T-Shirt

Thank you for your patience. Since this is short, I'll respond to it at this time.

First, I don't find where John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost.

According to Luke 1:15:

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

Thank you. Wow, I don't know how my eyes missed that one in my word-search, but they sure did.

However, John the Baptist fits the same pattern as the others. . . prophesying: Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. The common thread running through those four is prophecy, making them special and unique. Obviously, John and the other three examples you raise, are exceptions to the rule. Obviously, if everyone was filled with the Spirit, then those four would not have been singled out, being identified that they were filled with the Spirit.

Do you think that there were no others to have had messages revealed to them by the Holy Ghost, before Pentecost? Do you think the Holy Ghost was involved at all when Peter had the divinity of Christ revealed to him?

I can only go by what I read in the NT:

Matt. 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Jesus doesn't identifiy the HS as the one who revealed who Jesus was to Peter, but He identifies the Father.

Third, yes, Elisabeth and Zacharias were indeed filled with the Holy Ghost. In both cases, a prophecy followed. These would be unique and special fillings, since Christ had not yet been born, and the Spirit would not be poured out until pentecost, as a fulfillment of Christ's promise that he would send the Spirit after He returned to the Father.

So you would agree that there were at least four occasions when the Holy Ghost interacted with humans before Pentecost?

In the unique situations of the four which you identified, yes.

When taken in context, the LDS understanding that there is a difference between being influenced by the Holy Ghost and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, becomes evident throughout the New Testament.

Only before pentecost, not throughout the NT. After pentecost, all believers were filled with the Godhead, according to the verses I referenced, which are in the next quote.

I see the point you're attempting to make with these exceptions, but they are nevertheless exceptions. The permanent indwelling of the Godhead in all believers (Romans 8:9, 11; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 3:17; 2 Tim. 1:14; 1 John 4:12-16) was definitely subsequent to pentecost (John 14:17 - "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you").

The difference between us, here, is that for us there is no need to explain this away by calling it an exception.

I understand. But, if not exceptions, then why would the scriptures even mention that John, Elisabeth, Simeon and Zacharias were filled with the Spirit? If being filled with the Spirit was common among believers prior to pentecost, then mentioning it would be redundant. However, the mention of their being filled with the Spirit, in each case, is directly related to their prophesying, John being the only one of the four who is said to be filled with the Spirit throughout His life. But, then, He was the last prophet of prophets of the OT line, transitioning to Jesus Christ, according to Luke 16:16. And, after that, pentecost, when all believers would be filled with the Godhead.

[freakin a man]

Wondering if anyone has gone through and read every post in this record setting thread?

[Bob Betts]

... everyone knows that the foundation of a building needs more than just a cornerstone. So, don't you all believe that the foundation of the Church was completely eliminated, by way of the deaths of all the prophets and Apostles?

Yes, as it pertains to the Church that was left here on the Earth among us mortals.

We're not saying the Church didn't exist in heaven when the apostles died and went to heaven.

I am unfamiliar with the LDS belief that there is a Church in heaven. I know of no NT reference to a Church in heaven. Christ established His Church on earth for the believers on earth. That's all I know about.

We're just saying that without apostles in the organization of the Church on Earth, the Church was not fully organized as it was meant to be.

The One who was and is the living Head and Chief Cornerstone of His Church, is the one who maintains the the full organization, no matter who falls or what office they held. His Church was built upon the prophets and early Church Apostles, and nothing has changed that. Your church is the group who decided that Christ's church had to be built on living prophets and Apostles. The Bible never says any such thing. What Christ built on the testimonies and teachings of His OT prophets and early Church Apostles did not die or cease, due to their mortal lives coming to an end. There is no biblical basis for such a belief.

So, the fact that there were a few replacements along the way in Acts, is really superfluous, since what's really important to your complete apostasy theory is what allegedly occurred when all Apostles, including the replacements, were dead. Right?

Yes, the fact that there were a few replacements along the way is pretty much superfluous to the point concerning the fact that the Church later became apostate anyway when there came a point that the apostles were no longer being replaced in the organization of the Church here on Earth among us mortals.

And, I submit to you that there is no biblical basis for there being an apostasy of necessity, because of their deaths. As I said, the early Church was not the Church of the prophets and Apostles. It was and still is the Church of the living Jesus Christ, Who is here today as He was then, according to His promise to be with the disciples until the end of the world. I have no reason to believe, biblically, that the Church of Jesus Christ collapsed when the Apostles were all dead. What was built on them, remains built on them, because the Church was not built on their mortal existence, but on the truths of their Christ-inspired teachings and doctrines, which remain today.

Without apostles, who are authorized by our Lord to guide us, the true church of Christ is gone, regardless of the fact that it may still be in heaven where those people are or in the spirit world where those people are.

Again, I know nothing of any Church in heaven.

The Apostles DID guide the Church with their teachings and sound doctrines, which didn't die with their mortal bodies. Their teachings and doctrines, which were the foundation of the Church are still guiding Christ's followers today. The truths of their doctrines being the foundation of the Church, don't require that they be living at all. Do you think that Joseph Smith is no longer guiding the LDS church today, with his restoration teachings and doctrines being the foundation of your church?

We have been referring to the true church of Jesus Christ among us mortals, not the extension of his church in heaven or in the spirit world.

Again, I know nothing about any alleged Church in heaven. But the true Church of Jesus Christ today is still being led by Him, He being immortal and the Head of His Church from start to finish. Mortal Apostles and prophets are not required today, since the Church foundation was, and still is, built upon the OT prophets and early Church Apostles.

[Bob Betts]

My comments in bold

"Grace" cannot be earned by "total effort on the part of the recipient," "after all we can do" or "if we [first] deny ourselves of all ungodliness." That's flat out not the Greek definition of "grace." True, nothing we can do will earn grace, but the grace of God unto salvation is accessed by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost. It is the repentance part that for most of us is all we can do.

Is this your opinion? Or, is this taught in your scriptures, or by somebody with LDS authority to do so? If this is NOT your opinion, then I respectfully CFR.

I would think that if Alma 34 was relevant only to the Zoramites, there would be a mention of them somewhere in the chapter. It was the Zoramites to whom Amulek was speaking. However, every scripture is relevant to every reader. We are to liken them unto ourselves.

Then whichever LDS poster tried to make the point to me, way back when, that Alma 34:31-35 was only relevant to the Zoramites, and not to LDS or anyone else today, misled me and contradicted you.

Paul's message was then and is now, that today is the day of Salvation. I don't know how you can construe that to mean that salvation is NOT for today, but in the future, if and when we prove ourselves worthy. The reason today is the day of our salvation is that we cannot put off our part till tomorrow. Alma 34:33...do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.

Yes, I know, I've read it dozens of times. But, according to the NT, eternal life is an immediate result of believing (John 3:16; John 10:27-29; Acts 13:28; Rom. 6:23; Eph. 1:13-14; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 John 5:11-13, 19-20).

[erichard]

Noted, thank you. I'll respond at a later date.

Bob,

Think on this one also:

Acts 17, that you use in your signature, verifies that the Bible was "added to" incorrectly by the Greek philosophy creeds and doctrines-- such as the Trinity-- that later were taught in the church-- and which now are deemed unquestionable doctrine by the majority of Bible believing churches.

Clearly an evidence of the great apostasy.

Notice:

Acts 17

22

[Bob Betts]

The writings from the apostles in their day weren't even available to everybody, personally.

How could you possibly know this?

Bob, How could you possibly not know this.

Letters and scrolls had to be hand copied, so a limited number of copies were available.

Who said? How do you know how few faithful, literate followers of Christ were acting as scribes, making copies? Please don't pull these early Church history speculations out of the air. For all you know there were plenty of very capable scribes making copies of Apostolic letters.

Not everyone could read, so for many, even if a copy became available locally, the non-readers had to have someone to read it to them.

Owl, this is sheer speculation. From what source are you getting such specific details of the day-to-day life of believers, in the first couple of hundred years of the Church?

I extract census data, and I have done genealogical reseach in old church records.

You've got Church records going back to the first and second centuries

The reason so many people's names are spelled differently from record to record is that they could not read and write and the scribe wrote what he heard. John Jones, his mark X.

Exactly what century are you referring to, with this "record to record" stuff you're alleging?

Of course, the availablility of the writings of the apostles was limited.

CFR, Owl. This is some pretty amazing information that you have your hands on. Forgive me is I require more than just your word about your substantial claims in this post.

[Bob Betts]

Bob,

Think on this one also:

Acts 17

22

[Paul Ray]

I am unfamiliar with the LDS belief that there is a Church in heaven. I know of no NT reference to a Church in heaven. Christ established His Church on earth for the believers on earth. That's all I know about.

I'm perfectly fine with the idea of limiting the context of our discussion of the church of Christ to the organization of God's chosen people who are now living as mortals on this Earth... without going into a discussion of whether or not some of God's chosen people are also in heaven and the spirit world.

I just wanted to clarify that when I refer to how important it is to have leaders appointed by God in an organized church of Christ on this Earth, I am usually referring to the organized body of God's chosen people on this Earth among us mortals rather than among those people who are in heaven or the spirit world with Christ.

The One who was and is the living Head and Chief Cornerstone of His Church, is the one who maintains the the full organization, no matter who falls or what office they held.

Yes, I know Jesus Christ is the head of his church and that he maintains the full organization that is known as his church, no matter who falls or what office they held. The issue we've been discussing concerns what happened to his church after the death of his first apostles.

You have your ideas while God has told me something different.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were some authority figures we could appeal to to find out what is true?

His Church was built upon the prophets and early Church Apostles, and nothing has changed that.

Let me see if I can clarify the basis of our disagreement.

Your position is that the written records left behind by our Lord's prophets and apostles are enough to bring all true believers of God into unity with each other. All we need are the old records, basically, because as long as each person correctly understands the old records, each person who correctly understands the old records is somehow automatically imbued with God's authority to establish an organization of God's true believers. I don't know where or why you came up with that idea, but it definitely isn't something that is written in the scriptures, either explicitly or implicity, IMO.

My position is that while the written records left behind by our Lord's prophets and apostles can help us to see some of what was taught and how things were done in the past, the old records left behind by God's chosen people of the past are NOT enough to teach us EVERYTHING that was taught in the early church or to bring today's true believers of God into unity or agreement with each other, as evident by many people who have broken away from the one true church to set up their own church or body of believers with their own doctrine(s) that oppose at least some doctrine(s) of the first organization or another group that also broke away from that organization. I see evidence from the scriptures that each body of true believers had their own people in their own day whom God had appointed to be their leaders, with only one group of God's chosen people in each day or period of time that consisted of God's true believers.

I'm not interested in trying to convert you to my group, necessarily. I just want to let you know what I and other LDS believe. You can then make up your own mind from that point, hopefully with personal inspiration from God.

Your church is the group who decided that Christ's church had to be built on living prophets and Apostles. The Bible never says any such thing.

Pretty much, yes, based on personal inspiration from God, while your church is the group who decided that the old records left behind by living prophets and apostles of Christ's church are enough to bring all true believers into unity or agreement, and neither the Bible nor actual history for over 2000 years says any such thing.

What Christ built on the testimonies and teachings of His OT prophets and early Church Apostles did not die or cease, due to their mortal lives coming to an end. There is no biblical basis for such a belief.

God has told me that some of your beliefs concerning what Christ built are not what Christ actually built, instead being what men believe Christ built and are trying to build up and/or build up again without having God's authority, personally.

God has also told me that some of your beliefs concerning what the Bible teaches are not in harmony with God's true teachings, but I don't really expect you to know about that since you don't claim to be hearing from God, personally.

I submit to you that there is no biblical basis for there being an apostasy of necessity, because of their deaths.

I believe one of the reasons you see no Biblical basis for the apostasy stems from the fact that when the church became apostate the Bible ceased to be written.

It's not as if someone would have written something like:

Now that the Church is apostate, we will no longer be adding any more revelations to the Bible. We believe the first apostles have written enough and you can now read about what we are teaching concerning what they taught in our letters and other writings that we are writing.

Hmm. Or do you think there would be some people who would say something like that?

As I said, the early Church was not the Church of the prophets and Apostles. It was and still is the Church of the living Jesus Christ, Who is here today as He was then, according to His promise to be with the disciples until the end of the world.

God has told me that the church set up by Jesus Christ was set up with apostles in key positions in his church to help bring all the other true believers into unity, and that as long as all believers are not united we will continue to have a need to learn from our Lord through his chosen disciples who God appoints to be our leaders... if we hope to truly learn from our Lord, that is.

If you believe all true believers of God are doing fine without hearing from God or God's appointed leaders today, then just accept the fact that I disagree with your idea on that issue.

I have no reason to believe, biblically, that the Church of Jesus Christ collapsed when the Apostles were all dead.

What exactly would you expect the people who wrote the Bible to say about an apostasy?

If you're expecting to read something like:

After we die, God will no longer have any need for his church to be guided by living apostles.

You're right, that's not in the Bible.

That's pretty much what you are saying without any Biblical support.

What was built on them, remains built on them, because the Church was not built on their mortal existence, but on the truths of their Christ-inspired teachings and doctrines, which remain today.

Again, I believe we disagree on what was built by our Lord and his apostles and how much of it remained in the days between their days and the days of Joseph Smith.

The Apostles DID guide the Church with their teachings and sound doctrines, which didn't die with their mortal bodies. Their teachings and doctrines, which were the foundation of the Church are still guiding Christ's followers today. The truths of their doctrines being the foundation of the Church, don't require that they be living at all. Do you think that Joseph Smith is no longer guiding the LDS church today, with his restoration teachings and doctrines being the foundation of your church?

I'm not arguing against the idea that our (LDS) church is guided by our Lord through his first apostles who taught what is written in the Holy Bible, and that what they taught serves as a foundation for our (LDS) church. We (LDS) are simply taking that and adding what God has given to us in these latter days, instead of rejecting all of that as you are.

Try thinking of our (LDS) church as a restoration of the building that was once established by our Lord both personally and through his first apostles, just as pristine as it once was, with the addition of a new wing here and a new wing there, while other Christian churches are completely satisfied with fragments from the original building and rejecting the idea of adding anything to it.

Our building is basically more developed than your/their building.

... the true Church of Jesus Christ today is still being led by Him, He being immortal and the Head of His Church from start to finish.

Yes, I know that. We simply disagree about which church is his church.

Mortal Apostles and prophets are not required today, since the Church foundation was, and still is, built upon the OT prophets and early Church Apostles.

I agree with about half of what you just said, and I would call what you said a half-truth.

I know the foundation of the true church of Jesus Christ was laid by apostles and prophets of our Lord Jesus Christ, but since I believe the church fell or became apostate it needed to be restored through those God appointed to restore it.

I do not agree that mortal apostles and prophets of our Lord are not needed today.

I believe they are needed today just as much if not more than ever to teach us the truth rather than various conflicting philosophies of mere men.

[owl]

Owl "Letters and scrolls had to be hand copied, so a limited number of copies were available."

How do you know how few faithful, literate followers of Christ were acting as scribes, making copies? Please don't pull these early Church history speculations out of the air. For all you know there were plenty of very capable scribes making copies of Apostolic letters.

Owl "Not everyone could read, so for many, even if a copy became available locally, the non-readers had to have someone to read it to them."

Owl, this is sheer speculation. From what source are you getting such specific details of the day-to-day life of believers, in the first couple of hundred years of the Church? CFR, Owl. This is some pretty amazing information that you have your hands on. Forgive me is I require more than just your word about your substantial claims in this post.

I admit, I just assumed the level of literacy was low because during the dark ages so many of the kings could not read or write. Their ability with the sword was much more important that their ability with the pen. However my assumptions about inability to read and few books were valid.

When you questioned my assumptions, I went on line and at first just found general references to the fact that the level of literacy was low.

Then I found a reference in ‘A History of Early Christian Texts’ by Harry Y. Gamble to William V. Harris’s book ‘Ancient Literacy’, I believe ‘Ancient Literacy’ is published by Harvard University Press. I’ll give a synopsis of the most relevant parts of the two books.

William Harris made the most comprehensive study of literacy in the society in general in early Christian times and found that the level was about 10%. (never exceeding 15% to 20%) The social structure among the believers was pyramidal but with the highest and lowest classes under represented.

Gamble goes on to comment that if anything literacy was more limited among Christians than society at large. Many Christians were suspicious of the “wisdom of the world”. The education available relied on pagan texts infused with moral and religious ideas of which Christians disapproved. The ancient Church never undertook an alternative system of education for the faithful. Christian writers of the first five centuries acknowledge a distinction between a small number of literate intellectually active Christians and the majority whom Tertullian calls “the simple not to say unwise and unlearned..” (In my limited understanding of Latin it seemed more like unwise and stupid.) Not only the writing of Christian literature but the ability to read, criticize, and interpret it belonged to fewer than 10 % and likely significantly less in the typical small provincial congregations of the time.

It is no wonder that there were few readers. Texts were written in continuous script with no division between words, sentences, or paragraphs and no punctuation. Here is an example starting from a middle sentence of the previous paragraph.

christianwritersofthefirstfivecenturiesacknowledgeadistinctionbetweenasmallnumberofliterateintellectuallyactivechristiansandthemajoritywhomtertulliancallsthesimplenottosayunwiseandunlearnedinmylimitedunderstandingoflatinitseemedmorelikeunwiseandstupidnotonlythewritingofchristianliteraturebuttheabilitytoreadcriticizeandinterpretitbelongedtofewerthantenpercentandlikelysignificantlylessinthetypicalsmallprovincialcongregationsofthetimeitisnowonderthattherewerefewreaderstextswerewrittenincontinuousscriptwithnodivisionbetweenwordssentencesorparagraphsandnopunctuation

As to the numbers of ‘books’ available, in the beginning of the fourth century A.D. there was an edict to collect and burn Christian books. A document from that period lists thirty-seven volumes collected from one congregation, mostly single books, but some larger works, possibly collections such as the four gospels or the Pauline letters to the seven churches. There were seven readers in the congregation so about five books per reader. At best each of the readers might have had as much as a third of the New Testament. (Some may have been Old Testament.) The congregation would have been perhaps two hundred. One and two-thirds New testaments for two hundred people seems like limited availability to me.

[Dale]

The Lord didn't trust the copyists of the Book of Revelations. (Rev. 22:18,19) Why warn of punishment for tampering if the scribes were so honest? Was there a pattern of serious tampering in between some originals of Bible books and the earliest known copies?

A change unless it effects doctrine is about as dumb as counting 3000 plus Book of Mormon changes. Variants in between copies are common in Bible manuscipts. A more series change was where things were added to make a text agree with some factions ideas. In John 2 Jesus was in charge of the wine which was the duty of the bridegroom. Somebody who did not like the idea of a married Jesus could have changed the early part of the text to make him an invited guest. Not saying that happened, but copyists could add to the text in that manner.

[PacMan]

I just wanted post 1086.

Or whatever number we're on.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Yes, I know, I've read it dozens of times. But, according to the NT, eternal life is an immediate result of believing (John 3:16;...

John 3:16? uh....ok...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, I know, I've read it dozens of times. But, according to the NT, eternal life is an immediate result of believing (John 3:16;...

Huh? It is? Were does it say that it is an immediate result of believing? I must have missed it. Care to point it out exactly were it says that it is immediate?

[consiglieri]

Huh? It is? Were does it say that it is an immediate result of believing? I must have missed it. Care to point it out exactly were it says that it is immediate?

Actually, the Oxford Bible Commentary notes that, in the Greek, Paul never actually says that people are "saved" by faith, or grace or what-have-you.

Rather, he consistently says that people are "being saved."

The only exception, interestingly enough, is with regards to "hope," in which one time he does seem to say that we are "saved" by hope.

Here's hoping Paul is right.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mark Beesley]

Actually, the Oxford Bible Commentary notes that, in the Greek, Paul never actually says that people are "saved" by faith, or grace or what-have-you.

Rather, he consistently says that people are "being saved."

The only exception, interestingly enough, is with regards to "hope," in which one time he does seem to say that we are "saved" by hope.

Here's hoping Paul is right.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Actually, Paul never said squat about being saved, or hope, or anything like that. Paul didn't speak, read or write English. Alls we have are our pathetic attempts to render into the English language concepts that Paul was trying to explain in ancient Greek, something that will prevent the inerrant biblicists from ever truly grasping what Paul was teaching. (A certain evengelical anti-Mormon poster who is very active in this thread is most guilty of failing to grasp the nuances of the language, to the point where he'll simply ignore them, such as the multiple Greek words that get translated as gift in English.)

[Bob Betts]

Owl "Letters and scrolls had to be hand copied, so a limited number of copies were available."

How do you know how few faithful, literate followers of Christ were acting as scribes, making copies?

Bob Please don't pull these early Church history speculations out of the air. For all you know there were plenty of very capable scribes making copies of Apostolic letters.

Owl "Not everyone could read, so for many, even if a copy became available locally, the non-readers had to have someone to read it to them."

Bob Owl, this is sheer speculation. From what source are you getting such specific details of the day-to-day life of believers, in the first couple of hundred years of the Church? CFR, Owl. This is some pretty amazing information that you have your hands on. Forgive me is I require more than just your word about your substantial claims in this post.

I admit, I just assumed the level of literacy was low because during the dark ages so many of the kings could not read or write. Their ability with the sword was much more important that their ability with the pen. However my assumptions about inability to read and few books were valid.

But, Owl, the so-called "dark ages" started in the fifth century. I specifically was talking to you about the alleged apostasy which started in late first or early second century, according to your church. I specifically said, "Please don't pull these early Church history speculations out of the air. For all you know there were plenty of very capable scribes making copies of Apostolic letters." I specifically asked you, "From what source are you getting such specific details of the day-to-day life of believers, in the first couple of hundred years of the Church"? You and I are not conversing about the same period of time, and I don't understand why. The alleged apostasy didn't start during the dark ages, according to your church.

When you questioned my assumptions, I went on line and at first just found general references to the fact that the level of literacy was low.

Then I found a reference in â??A History of Early Christian Textsâ?? by Harry Y. Gamble to William V. Harrisâ??s book â??Ancient Literacyâ??, I believe â??Ancient Literacyâ?? is published by Harvard University Press. Iâ??ll give a synopsis of the most relevant parts of the two books.

William Harris made the most comprehensive study of literacy in the society in general in early Christian times and found that the level was about 10%. (never exceeding 15% to 20%) The social structure among the believers was pyramidal but with the highest and lowest classes under represented.

Gamble goes on to comment that if anything literacy was more limited among Christians than society at large. Many Christians were suspicious of the â??wisdom of the worldâ?. The education available relied on pagan texts infused with moral and religious ideas of which Christians disapproved. The ancient Church never undertook an alternative system of education for the faithful. Christian writers of the first five centuries acknowledge a distinction between a small number of literate intellectually active Christians and the majority whom Tertullian calls â??the simple not to say unwise and unlearned..â? (In my limited understanding of Latin it seemed more like unwise and stupid.) Not only the writing of Christian literature but the ability to read, criticize, and interpret it belonged to fewer than 10 % and likely significantly less in the typical small provincial congregations of the time.

It is no wonder that there were few readers. Texts were written in continuous script with no division between words, sentences, or paragraphs and no punctuation. Here is an example starting from a middle sentence of the previous paragraph.

christianwritersofthefirstfivecenturiesacknowledgeadistinctionbetweenasmallnumbe

rofliterateintellectuallyactivechristiansandthemajoritywhomtertulliancallsthesim

plenottosayunwiseandunlearnedinmylimitedunderstandingoflatinitseemedmorelikeunwi

seandstupidnotonlythewritingofchristianliteraturebuttheabilitytoreadcriticizeand

interpretitbelongedtofewerthantenpercentandlikelysignificantlylessinthetypicalsm

allprovincialcongregationsofthetimeitisnowonderthattherewerefewreaderstextswerew

rittenincontinuousscriotwithnodivisionbetweenwordssentencesorparagraphsandnopunc

tuation

Though I can't possibly know from your post, how reliable and accurate your on-line source is, for the sake of argument, let's use Gamble's number of "10% literacy." What do you think the 10% of loving, Christ-like, literate Christians would do for their 90% illiterate brethren? I think they would make copies of the letters of the Apostles, and circulate them around the known world where Christianity had sprouted. Then I think the 10% of loving, Christ-like, literate Christians would also read those letters to their illiterate brethren wherever Christians were. I have NO reason to believe that the illiterate were all ignorant of the Apostle's teachings and the true doctrines of God. Just because they couldn't read, doesn't mean they couldn't know.

So, if you're going to use the argument that the alleged apostasy makes sense because of the alleged 90% illiteracy of the Church of the first couple of centuries, I'm not accepting that either.

As far as the above paragraph is concerned, those of the early Church who could read Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, didn't need punctuation. The prefixes and suffixes to words, along with context, were how they could know how to define any particular term. Neither was the lack of spaces between words an issue for capable readers of those languages.

Owl As to the numbers of â??booksâ?? available, in the beginning of the fourth century A.D. there was an edict to collect and burn Christian books. A document from that period lists thirty-seven volumes collected from one congregation, mostly single books, but some larger works, possibly collections such as the four gospels or the Pauline letters to the seven churches. There were seven readers in the congregation so about five books per reader. At best each of the readers might have had as much as a third of the New Testament. (Some may have been Old Testament.) The congregation would have been perhaps two hundred. One and two-thirds New testaments for two hundred people seems like limited availability to me.

What happened to talking about the alleged apostasy within the first couple of centuries. All of the above is more speculation. If these were known facts, you wouldn't be using the terms, "possibly, might, may, perhaps, seems like."

I specifically asked you to CFR, "such specific details of the day-to-day life of believers, in the first couple of hundred years of the Church." Instead, you gave general information about literacy, which hardly lets us know what the day-to-day life of believers in the first couple of hundred years of the Church, was really like.

I don't determine truth or early Church history by means of speculation.

I have a much more positive outlook on Christ's Church than you and your church do, because I believe Christ has always been in control, whereas you believe (for the most part) that man has been in control. So, no matter how many false beliefs and doctrines have been around throughout the past 2,000 years, no matter how many tares and wolves have been in the Church along side the wheat and sheep, I trust Christ that the truth and the remnant have prevailed. And, I trust God, through Christ, that the biblical canon is the inerrant Word of God, and no complete apostasy of authority ever took place. Certain things stated in the Bible about God and His Word, are my authority and basis for such trust.

If we've discovered anything throughout this thread, it's that you (LDS) and I have fundamental disagreements about virtually everything relevant to spiritual beliefs and doctrines. From the nature and function of God to the nature and function of man. From the Church to salvation. The more we converse, the more we will continue to discover how far apart we really are.

[Bernard Gui]

If we've discovered anything throughout this thread, it's that you (LDS) and I have fundamental disagreements about virtually everything relevant to spiritual beliefs and doctrines. From the nature and function of God to the nature and function of man. From the Church to salvation. The more we converse, the more we will continue to discover how far apart we really are.

We all know, of course, that this is unique to the LDS church. There is no disagreement among any other Christians about the nature of God and the trinity, salvation, baptism, the church, the nature of the priesthood, the rolls of grace and works, the inerrancy of scripture, the veneration of saints, the apostolic succession, the resurrection of the body, the final judgment, the state of the soul before resurrection, the nature of heaven, angels, security of the saved, spiritual gifts, etc., etc. ad infinitum. In all those things there is nothing but perfect unity in all of Christiandom.

On the other hand, Mormons disagree so much among themselves that there are literally hundreds of splinter groups formed every year. Whenever a High Priest group gets involved in a discussion, you can count on at least two or three of them to walk out in a huff and form a new Mormon church. Why just

last month we saw the creation of the First Mormon Church, The Second Mormon Church, The First Mormon Church Reformed, The Church of the Mormons Idaho Synod, The Church of the Aged Mormon Brethren, and

St. Brigham's Church of the Holy Sunstone.

Those wacky Mormons!!!!

Bernard