The Apostacy

[SearchDog]

Can someone explain to me exactly what year the New Testament Church fell into apostasy. The writings of the Early Church Fathers ( Clement,Ignatius, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr) do not mention an apostasy. Were they part of the false Church? Were their beliefs proof that the Church established by Jesus had become corrupt by the second century?

Faith in Christ and good works never left the church. But did these early church fathers ever claim their writings were the word of God? Have their works been canonized as the God given truth?

The apostles and many lesser saints did produce the word of God, as it is canonized in the NT.

The Catholic church and its subsequent branches in Orthodoxy and Protestantism proclaimed the scriptures closed. So how can the Holy Ghost come to any of these leaderships (priesthoods) with more words from God? Revelation requires faith in revelation.

Therefore, the loss of revelation signals the loss of the Holy Ghost and an apostate church.

[Beck]

name='selek' date='01 May 2010 - 07:19 PM' timestamp='1272766745' post='1208844151']

By 330 AD, this view was 1)traditional and accepted, and 2) Eusebius' own authority relied on such a succession.

He had a vested financial and philosophical interest in the legitimacy of such a succession.

What is your source for that belief?

It does not. Nor does it prove that apostolic succession took place.

It simply records the claims of the Catholic Church.

How is that any different then the claims of Joseph Smith?

This has to be the most wildly optimistic statement I've ever seen on these boards.

Thank you! And I've only been on these boards for a few hours.

History is written by the victors....and for roughly fifteen hundred years, the Catholic Church was the "victor". They wrote the histories, based upon the assumption that they were the "true" Church descended from Paul.

I don't have a problem with that. I respect the Catholic Church for not hiding any of the historical facts that put the Church in a bad light. I need to research the Mormon faith to see if anything has been hidden or changed since its existance.

Do you really expect any history of the period- written by the Catholic Church and its agents- to contradict that assumption?

As I stated, the only reason we know about the immoral Popes and other scandals is because of the historical records kept by the Catholic Church.

We also know that the Bible itself has been tampered with- unauthorized additions and redactions have taken place. For fifteen hundred years, the Catholic Church had sole control over the content....and took advantage of that control to "refine" Scripture to match dogma and support their claims to authority.

How do you come to that assumption.? If the bible has been tampered with Protestants would be saying that. Even Martin Luther said he would not have the scriptures if it were not for the Catholic Church. Sounds like you have a bias against the Catholic Church. I have no bias. I am searching for the truth wherever it leads me.

No serious scholars of either Scripture or antiquity question this basic fact.

All serious scholars disagree with you.

Does it? Seems to me that that's an interpretation read into the statement. Also, if that's the case, then where are the Apostles today? If Christ's Church was built upon a foundation of Apostles, then why did that change?

So how do you interpret this "the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the conrerstone"

Who- precisely- authorized the Apostles to alter the structure of the Church and do away with the apostolic office?

WHen did the apostles alter the structure of the Church and do away with the apostolic office?

Again, these letters do not authorize Bishops to assume charge over the Church as a whole- that's an interpretation written into the Scriptures well after the fact

.

The Bishops were given authority by the laying on of hands. This continued into the next century with the Church Fathers.

In point of fact, there is no explicit, authoritative statement from any of the Apostles that mentions Bishops as anything other than LOCAL authorities

.

Bishops were over the local Church but they answered to the Apostles. Even Paul confered with the apostles to make sure he was teaching correct doctrine. This is why reading the early Church Fathers is important to see how the Church continued into the next century. I'm trying to find when the aspostasy of the Church occured.

Yes- the Bishop of Rome ASSUMED (or arrogated) that authority to himself- but he did so while John the Revelator was still alive. There is no letter, no statement authorizing him to do so. He arrogated that authority to himself in the face of a living apostle.

If that is true why didn't John go to Rome and assume control? Why did the Corinthians write to Clement and not John? I don't believe that every single word or letter is in our hands today. Common sense tells that.

If I produce a will which claims that I'm Howard Hughes' illegitimate son- and thus his heir- do I automagically receive his fortune? Of course not. I'd have to first prove that the will was authentic- and then prove that I was his heir

.

Try that and see how quickly charges are brought against you. I can't find where charges were brought up against Clement of Rome.

And during the course of events, my own financial interest would be a legitimate target for scrutiny.

WHere are the charges against Clement by John?

[DeepThinker]

What God tells me and what history shows me must be the same.

You'll never prove and neither will I , which Church is the true Kingdom of God on earth today.

I'm a very strong LDS member and even I have to rely on faith to help me cope with things I question and don't understand about my own religion. What God tells me should be and what I sometimes see in the Church and read about in it's history are absolutely at odds.

There's enough stuff out there to punch holes in any LDS member's testimony, if they haven't had the testimony building spiritual experiences to fortify their beliefs.

The same for Catholicism. Only it has alot more history to explain.

Deciphering the truth by historical facts is a noble quest, but it'll take the rest of your life to research and answer every questionable bit of history and doctrine, and by the time you do.....you'll probably be dead.

[Beck]

name='selek' date='01 May 2010 - 07:19 PM' timestamp='1272766745' post='1208844151']

Yes- the Catholic Church can produce documents supporting Apostolic succession- but they can't produce any independent, verifiable evidence to support their claim. It's a circular argument.

Where is the independent evidence to dispute their claim.? It's not there.

The Catholic Church is God's Church because it says so and God's Church would never lie. Like a dog chasing its own tail, the argument runs in circles but never accomplishes anything. To a lesser, but nonetheless real extent, the Mormon Church has the same problem.

I am glad that you added that last part. Anyone claiming to be established by God is going to be questioned. The question I have to find is what Church is the True Church established by Christ. I've been given a lot of reading material by those on this board and maybe that will help me find out.

You cannot settle the matter with an appeal to history- for the histories are all tainted by bias and self-interest.

I disagree. I believe you can dig your way through the history and discern what is true and what is false.

Your only recourse is to ask of God.

I have done that and I am being led to discover the truth through honest research.

Yes- you were given an intellect and the ability to reason. You must therefore examine the claims of each, and look at what evidence remains regarding Christ's original Church. But the only way you will be able to SETTLE the matter is to ask of God.

God will not let me down. Ask and you shall receive.

[Beck]

What God tells me and what history shows me must be the same. You'll never prove and neither will I , which Church is the true Kingdom of God on earth today.

I'm a very strong LDS member and even I have to rely on faith to help me cope with things I question and don't understand about my own religion. What God tells me should be and what I sometimes see in the Church and read about in it's history are absolutely at odds.

There's enough stuff out there to punch holes in any LDS member's testimony, if they haven't had the testimony building spiritual experiences to fortify their beliefs.

The same for Catholicism. Only it has alot more history to explain. Deciphering the truth by historical facts is a noble quest, but it'll take the rest of your life to research and answer every questionable bit of history and doctrine, and by the time you do.....you'll probably be dead.

I appreciate your honesty. I read about a Protestant , John Henry Newman,from a couple of hundred years ago that decided to prove, through history, that the Catholic Church was false. After several years of research with help from 20 collegues he said "to go deep into history is to cease to be Protestant". He became a Catholic priest. That proves that history can make a difference. I have read of many Protestant pastors that have become Catholic after reading the Church Fathers. So it can be done.

I would imagine that some have become Mormon after reading about Joseph Smith, Brigham Young etc.

We all reach our faith from different sources. There are thousands of denominations all claiming to have the truth. My question is simple. They can't all be right. All except for one Church is being decieved. I need to find out who is being deceived by men and who is actually the Church founded by Christ.

[SearchDog]

Thank you, this is what I was looking for. It seems to me that either the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church is the True Church. For the Mormon Church to be the one True Church I must find evidence that the early Catholic Church became corrupt and false teachers became Bishops.

One problem I am having is that Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church yet, according to the article, the Church became corrupt only 30 years after the resurrection. I will finish the article and post some more questions. Thanks.

In order to reconcile the "gates of hell" issue I use other verses like "when two or three are gathered in my name, I am with them" or "know ye not that your hearts are the temple of God" (I'm paraphrasing). In other words, the universal church is any-and-all who have faith in Christ. And this faith saves us, even with those in the Jewish community who will come to know their Lord only after their death. Faith was never overcome by the devil. And the church (or community of resurrected saints) in heaven was never overcome.

The Church was in fact restored from heaven, as recorded by Joseph Smith, by these saints in Christ.

Now look at the great shortcoming within the RCC and all of her Christian branches...the road to sainthood has been lost. The Catholic canonization of saints is not biblical, it is man-made, it is a human invention. This is another sign and remnant of the Apostasy.

In the Bible people became members of the Church and saints with a water baptism unto repentance and through the laying on of hands by priesthood authority for the gift of the Holy Ghost. This doctrine was lost and remains lost to the Catholic and Christian churches; it was restored (along with the apostolic priesthood) in the LDS Church.

[DeepThinker]

Thanks.

In the spirit of honesty, since you are questioning both Churches, could you share with us just one Catholic belief or practice that you are currently questioning and trying to find answers to ?

I don't want to build on it, I just want to understand your sincerity. Who knows, maybe we can reinforce your faith ? (I don't know that I'm supposed to do that on this site !)

[Beck]

name='SearchDog' date='01 May 2010 - 07:49 PM' timestamp='1272768563' post='1208844170']

Faith in Christ and good works never left the church. But did these early church fathers ever claim their writings were the word of God? Have their works been canonized as the God given truth?

They never claimed to be inspired but they show what the early Church believed

The apostles and many lesser saints did produce the word of God, as it is canonized in the NT.

Let's give credit where credit is due. The Bishops of the Catholic Church in AD 397 at the Council of Carthage, guided by the Holy Spirit, settled on which books were inspired and which were not. That is how the New Testament came to be. To say otherwise is foolish.

The Catholic church and its subsequent branches in Orthodoxy and Protestantism proclaimed the scriptures closed. So how can the Holy Ghost come to any of these leaderships (priesthoods) with more words from God. Revelation requires faith in revelation

Protestantism isn't a branch of Catholicism only the Orthodox are..

Therefore, the loss of revelation signals the loss of the Holy Ghost and an apostate church.

I am struggling with that one. Why the need for new revelation? The apostle Jude says in Jude 1:3 that the faith "which was once for all delivered to the saints".

That seems to me to be saying that there is no new revelation. I know that the Mormon Church rises or falls on whether or not there can be new revelation. That's going to be a huge hurdle for me.

[volgadon]

Thank you, this is what I was looking for. It seems to me that either the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church is the True Church.

By Catholic do you mean the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox as well as the RCC?

[volgadon]

I am struggling with that one. Why the need for new revelation? The apostle Jude says in Jude 1:3 that the faith "which was once for all delivered to the saints".

That seems to me to be saying that there is no new revelation. I know that the Mormon Church rises or falls on whether or not there can be new revelation. That's going to be a huge hurdle for me.

I suggest you read that verse again and tell me where you find anything against new revelation.

[SearchDog]

Nackhadlow,I read the article you provided and it doesn't provide proof of an apostasy. The letter of Clement clealy shows that gnostics had caused divisions in the Church at Corinth and they were correcting the problem and were seeking advice from Clement. Gnostic beliefs were nothing new. Paul tells Timothy to be aware of the gnostics "Timothy guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (origin of gnostic) for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith" 1 Tim 6:20

Paul was talking about the gnostics who forbade marriage and were strict vegetarians.1 Tim 4:1-5

I have the writings of the Church Fathers and I read Clement in its entirety and I think the writer of that article mis-understands what Clement is saying regarding apostolic succession. He suggests that Clement seemed "pessimistic about how long this succession would last " yet I didn't get that impression from Clement.

Is there anything else on-line from the Mormon Church on the apostasy that I could read? I am searching for absolute proof of a corruption of the New Testament Church.Thanks

If Paul admonished the forbidding of marriage by the gnostics, why did the Catholic church adopt it for its priesthood?

Paul also says, "I have never been a (financial) burden on the church, but have worked as a tent maker."

So why are the children of the church supporting the priesthood fathers of it?

So much of the RCC's doctrine just doesn't match what is taught in the Bible.

[Beck]

name='SearchDog' date='01 May 2010 - 08:19 PM' timestamp='1272770399' post='1208844185']

In order to reconcile the "gates of hell" issue I use other verses like "when two or three are gathered in my name, I am with them" or "know ye not that your hearts are the temple of God" (I'm paraphrasing). In other words, the universal church is any-and-all who have faith in Christ. And this faith saves us, even with those in the Jewish community who will come to know their Lord only after their death. Faith was never overcome by the devil. And the church (or community of resurrected saints) in heaven was never overcome.

If a Catholic, Mormon. Lutheran,Seventh-Day Adventis and a Baptist all gathered together to pray to Jesus, He would be with them but that wouldn't mean that they are the Church. The Church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth"( 1 Tim 3:15 ) not the pillar and foundation of different and conflicting doctrines.

We are Temples of God because the Holy Spirit can dwell within us but that doesn't make me the Church. According to scripture we are baptized into the body of Christ but the visible Church cannot have conflicting teachings.

The Church was in fact restored from heaven, as recorded by Joseph Smith, by these saints in Christ.

That 's why I came to this site. Why did the Church need to be restored?

Now look at the great shortcoming within the RCC and all of her Christian branches...the road to sainthood has been lost. The Catholic canonization of saints is not biblical, it is man-made, it is a human invention. This is another sign and remnant of the Apostasy.

A Catholic would disagree that it is not biblical. If it is the True Church then it has the authority to bind on earth what is bound in heaven.

In the Bible people became members of the Church and saints with a water baptism unto repentance and through the laying on of hands by priesthood authority for the gift of the Holy Ghost. This doctrine was lost and remains lost to the Catholic and Christian churches; it was restored (along with the apostolic priesthood) in the LDS Church.

How was it lost? WHen was it lost? Maybe some of these books that have been recommended will answer many of my questions.

[Beck]

Since when is divine truth defined by majority vote?

Let alone by a vote taken at sword point and under pain of death?

The Council of Jerusalem where all the Bishops agreed that salvation was open to the Gentiles. The Council of Carthage where the books of the bible were determined by majority vote.

[selek]

Uh-huh.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, Beck is trolling.

Review his posts- four pages now and not a single post or thought critical- or even questioning- of the Catholic Church, and an answer/rebuttal to every question raised.

He's not hear to "find" the truth- he's here to share it.

I've wasted enough time with him.

[David T]

Beck,

I look forward to your reactions of reading the referenced website and book once you take the time to do so.

Question: Have you read the Book of Mormon? Great place to begin investigating the Church's claims and doctrine.

[Beck]

name='russianwolfe' date='01 May 2010 - 06:44 PM' timestamp='1272764689' post='1208844136']

So what you are really saying is that God must agree with the historians? Really!??

I thought God's ways were above our own. Can you show me from the scriptures where this has ever happened?

Isn't the Old Testament historical and without error?

Do God and science agree?

Yes, If the scientists are honest.

I think you have backwards. First you must obtain God's witness, and then you will know when men are correct. And by witness I am not talking about your understanding of what the scriptures say. I am talking about a spiritual experience where you learn from God what the truth is.

Millions of Christians claim to have had a spiritual experience and know what the truth is yet they all disagree on what truth really is.

[SearchDog]

Protestantism isn't a branch of Catholicism only the Orthodox are.

Protestantism came out of trying to reform the Catholic church. Weren't the reformers Catholics? Doesn't that make them a product of the Catholic church?

The Protestant reformers and also the Orthodox church leaders 'branched' off from the RCC tree. They saw a problem in their parent church, why can't you? If all was well in the RCC, why set up other churches?

[Beck]

Beck,

I look forward to your reactions of reading the referenced website and book once you take the time to do so.

Question: Have you read the Book of Mormon? Great place to begin investigating the Church's claims and doctrine.

I have the book of Mormon with Abraham, Pearl of Great Price ,Doctrines and Covenants, Joseph Smith's translation of the bible and I have found Gospel Principles on the internet. haven't read all of them

[Beck]

Yet when they promulgated this doctrine and commanded the people to live in these communities, they were sitting in the "seat of authority".

Yet their authoritative teachings about the end of the world did not come to pass- they were not TRUE, despite being given in God's name.

Those teachings were authoritative, and people died because of it- but they were WRONG- even while those putting them forth were speaking in God's name.If that's not fallibility, then what IS?

Not everthing that the apostles said is infallible. Paul said to take wine for stomach troubles.That's good advice but Is that infallible dogma from God? They were only infallible when they wrote about what is necessary for salvation, faith and morals. End-time beliefs were specualtion that has no effect on one's salvation.

[Beck]

Thanks.

In the spirit of honesty, since you are questioning both Churches, could you share with us just one Catholic belief or practice that you are currently questioning and trying to find answers to ?

I don't want to build on it, I just want to understand your sincerity. Who knows, maybe we can reinforce your faith ? (I don't know that I'm supposed to do that on this site !)

Praying to saints is questionable. I've read a lot about why that is done. Purgatory would be another. I have read a lot about Catholicism so I am well versed in their belifs.

On Mormonism, I get to many conflicting answers on what they really believe. The people on the Mormon website never have an answer or it conflicts with another answer. That is why I am here. I will read the material I have been given.

[Beck]

name='SearchDog' date='01 May 2010 - 08:38 PM' timestamp='1272771504' post='1208844195']

If Paul admonished the forbidding of marriage by the gnostics, why did the Catholic church adopt it for its priesthood?

Because Paul was celibate. Jesus even says in Matt 19 that there are men who have made themselves celibate for the kingdom of God. I 've read a lot about this and I went and heard a Catholic apologist talk on this subject. I have no problem with it.

Paul also says, "I have never been a (financial) burden on the church, but have worked as a tent maker."

So why are the children of the church supporting the priesthood fathers of it?

ALl Churches support their pastors so I don't get your point. Aren't Mormons required to give 10% or is that a myth?

So much of the RCC's doctrine just doesn't match what is taught in the Bible.

Depends on interpretation of the bible.

[Beck]

name='SearchDog' date='01 May 2010 - 08:51 PM' timestamp='1272772266' post='1208844204']

Protestantism came out of trying to reform the Catholic church. Weren't the reformers Catholics? Doesn't that make them a product of the Catholic church

?

Luther was a Catholic priest but that was 500 yeas ago. Today's Baptists, fundamentalists, non-denoms have little in common with the Reformers.

The Protestant reformers and also the Orthodox church leaders 'branched' off from the RCC tree. They saw a problem in their parent church, why can't you? If all was well in the RCC, why set up other churches?

I've read a lot about Luther. The called themselves Reformers because they believed they were reforming and not "starting' a new Church. All Churches have problems. The History of the Mormon Church is not free from scandal nor is the Catholic or Protestant.. Jesus said the weeds would grow with the wheat until the harvest and that is what has happened.

[SearchDog]

I am struggling with that one. Why the need for new revelation? The apostle Jude says in Jude 1:3 that the faith "which was once for all delivered to the saints".

That seems to me to be saying that there is no new revelation. I know that the Mormon Church rises or falls on whether or not there can be new revelation. That's going to be a huge hurdle for me.

The Holy Ghost is the witness; revelation is a witness from the Holy Ghost. You cannot separate them.

When the RCC and other Christian church doctrine ended scripture, it separated them from the Holy Ghost. Closing scripture cut off the ears of the church.

Your citation from Jude does not proclaim an end to revelation; it proclaims that all is entrusted to the saints through faith.

Your next inquiry should be, "Who are the saints?" As I said in a previous post, the RCC changed the rules for sainthood. The children of the RCC are not saints; neither are her priests, bishops, cardinals, or even the pope. So, clearly faith in the living word of God could not be entrusted to them that are not saints.

[SearchDog]

Because Paul was celibate. Jesus even says in Matt 19 that there are men who have made themselves celibate for the kingdom of God. I 've read a lot about this and I went and heard a Catholic apologist talk on this subject. I have no problem with it.

ALl Churches support their pastors so I don't get your point. Aren't Mormons required to give 10% or is that a myth?

Depends on interpretation of the bible.

The difference in what is recorded in the Bible and the RCC's celibacy doctrine is that Paul chose to be celibate as Matthew 19 points out...it is a choice, not a requirement of the Priesthood. Peter was a married man and he was placed as presiding head over the apostles.

How is this not a boldfaced change in doctrine from that with is recorded in the Bible?

Btw, our tithe money does not go toward the financial support of priests. We support ourselves, even as Paul did.

Btw, my Catholic mother told me that tithing is part of Catholic doctrine.

[volgadon]

Isn't the Old Testament historical and without error?

Without error? No.

Historical? It is an historical document and contains much history, but how accurate said history is, well, that is an entirely diferent matter.