Biblical Keys For Discerning True And False Prophets

[danielwoods]

You claimed the apostasy won't happen until after the Church is caught up.  I claim it has already happened.

 

I'm simply going by what the scripture states. The Apostasy (as in the last one, the one that happens just before the lawless one is revealed) happens after the church is taken off the earth. 

 

I will agree at least partially with you, that there are many times when people and/or groups of people fall away which could be termed an apostasy. But there is one great one, the last one that is predicted to happen just after the church is taken from the Earth. This hasn't happened yet because the church is still here. 

[danielwoods]

Maybe JLHPROF meant 2 Thess. 2:3?

 

Very possible. 

[bluebell]

I'm simply going by what the scripture states. The Apostasy (as in the last one, the one that happens just before the lawless one is revealed) happens after the church is taken off the earth. 

 

I will agree at least partially with you, that there are many times when people and/or groups of people fall away which could be termed an apostasy. But there is one great one, the last one that is predicted to happen just after the church is taken from the Earth. This hasn't happened yet because the church is still here. 

 

I realize i'm jumping into this discussion in the middle so maybe this has already been hashed out, but what verse are you referring to when you say that the scriptures state the apostasy will happen after the church is removed from the earth?

[danielwoods]

I realize i'm jumping into this discussion in the middle so maybe this has already been hashed out, but what verse are you referring to when you say that the scriptures state the apostasy will happen after the church is removed from the earth?

 

Well I was jumping in where they were referencing some things in Revelation. I was pointing out that the Church isn't mentioned after chapter 4. So the preaching by the angel in Rev. 14:6 is because the church isn't on the earth anymore. 

 

The sequence of events in Revelation lines up with other places such as 1 Thess. 4 and 2 Thess. 2. And where Jesus said in Luke 21:36 "Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man."

[bluebell]

 

Well I was jumping in where they were referencing some things in Revelation. I was pointing out that the Church isn't mentioned after chapter 4. So the preaching by the angel in Rev. 14:6 is because the church isn't on the earth anymore. 

 

The sequence of events in Revelation lines up with other places such as 1 Thess. 4 and 2 Thess. 2. And where Jesus said in Luke 21:36 "Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man."

 

I've never heard that interpretation of Rev. 14 before.  How are you matching up the idea that the apostasy would happen after the Savior's 2nd coming with the verse in 2 thes. that says it will happen before the 2nd coming?

[danielwoods]

I've never heard that interpretation of Rev. 14 before.  How are you matching up the idea that the apostasy would happen after the Savior's 2nd coming with the verse in 2 thes. that says it will happen before the 2nd coming?

 

It does happen before the 2nd coming of Christ. The church meets him in the air where we are "gathered to him." He doesn't come to the Earth, yet. Notice the same thing in Chapter 4 of Rev. John hears a voice that says, "come up here!" And the Church is taken off the Earth.

[bluebell]

It does happen before the 2nd coming of Christ. The church meets him in the air where we are "gathered to him." He doesn't come to the Earth, yet. Notice the same thing in Chapter 4 of Rev. John hears a voice that says, "come up here!" And the Church is taken off the Earth.

 

I'm only seeing the verse in chapter 4 where John is told to come up here and then he is shown the throne of God, etc.  I'm not seeing where it is talking about the church anywhere.

 

Which verses are you talking about?

[bluebell]

It does happen before the 2nd coming of Christ. The church meets him in the air where we are "gathered to him." He doesn't come to the Earth, yet. Notice the same thing in Chapter 4 of Rev. John hears a voice that says, "come up here!" And the Church is taken off the Earth.

 

Also, Paul specifically tells the church in 2 thes. that if anyone tells them that the 2nd coming is about to happen that they know they are trying to deceive them because it won't happen before there is an apostasy.

 

If the apostasy happens a few minutes before the 2nd coming and is when the church is removed from the earth, then how do Paul's words make sense?  How could any church members be deceived about the timing of the 2nd coming, and how can church members use the lack of an apostasy to help them gauge the timing of the second coming, if they are meeting Christ in the air when the 2nd coming occurs? 

[danielwoods]

I'm only seeing the verse in chapter 4 where John is told to come up here and then he is shown the throne of God, etc.  I'm not seeing where it is talking about the church anywhere.

 

Which verses are you talking about?

 

The first three chapters talk about the church and life on earth for the church. In chapter four, John is taken up, as the church will be. The rest of the book is from the perspective of heaven or above, which is John's perspective, and the church's. So, yes, that is the reference I am talking about.

 

 

Also, Paul specifically tells the church in 2 thes. that if anyone tells them that the 2nd coming is about to happen that they know they are trying to deceive them because it won't happen before there is an apostasy.

 

If the apostasy happens a few minutes before the 2nd coming and is when the church is removed from the earth, then how do Paul's words make sense?  How could any church members be deceived about the timing of the 2nd coming, and how can church members use the lack of an apostasy to help them gauge the timing of the second coming, if they are meeting Christ in the air when the 2nd coming occurs? 

 

The timing is 3.5 years. The teaching of Paul's was used, the same way that legalists use Jesus' teaching today. "You're not good enough..." etc... etc... therefore you missed the 2nd coming. With enough legalism spilling over from the Pharisees teaching into christianity at the time, and Paul's radical departure from those teachings, the play on their confusion and fear was easy. Thus Paul's explanation. 

 

When the church is taken off the earth is a matter of debate. I hold the view that it will happen before the tribulation based on the verses I've already referenced, where it states that the man of lawlessness will be revealed when the one who is holding him back is removed. Which seems to be an indicator that the church and the influence of the Holy Spirit will be removed from the Earth at the same time. At which time he will be revealed, and deceive many leading to the great apostasy, where a great delusion will lead many astray, who already didn't love the truth. 

 

The first 3.5 years of tribulation won't be too bad, though there's a great apostasy happening, the last 3.5 years are detailed in Revelation, and it get's pretty bad. And then after that the second coming occurs. 

Edited March 12, 2015 by danielwoods

[bluebell]

The first three chapters talk about the church and life on earth for the church. In chapter four, John is taken up, as the church will be.

 

Where does the book of revelation say this and connect the church being take up in chapter 4?

 

The teaching of Paul's was used, the same way that legalists use Jesus' teaching today. "You're not good enough..." etc... etc... therefore you missed the 2nd coming. With enough legalism spilling over from the Pharisees teaching into christianity at the time, and Paul's radical departure from those teachings, the play on their confusion and fear was easy. Thus Paul's explanation. 

 

 Interesting perspective.

 

[danielwoods]

Where does the book of revelation say this and connect the church being take up in chapter 4?

 

 Interesting perspective.

 

It's an inference based on the fact that the church isn't mentioned again as a church. There are many references to the Earth and the judgement on the people, but not the church. There are people who are saved after the church is taken up, and these are referenced as those about who "endured" to the end under large amounts of persecution. 

And, the second coming is described as Jesus coming from an open Heaven with, "14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean." (Rev. 19:14)

 

These armies of heaven with this particular description can only be the Church. Why? Because, as it states - "(Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God’s holy people.)" (Rev. 19:8 ) and "white and clean" is a reference to those previously not white and clean. And as it states in vs 8, this is the bride of Christ, which is the church. So, the Church isn't mentioned from chapter 4 on, and then it's seen as coming back with Jesus in chapter 19. So, the logical inference is that the church somehow made it's way to heaven before the second coming, because it's seen as coming back with Jesus. 

Edited March 12, 2015 by danielwoods

[carbon dioxide]

I realize i'm jumping into this discussion in the middle so maybe this has already been hashed out, but what verse are you referring to when you say that the scriptures state the apostasy will happen after the church is removed from the earth?

I wonder how can an apostasy occur after the Church is removed?  Once the church is removed, there is no chance of an apostasy occurring since its not possible for a person to fall away from nothing.

[danielwoods]

I wonder how can an apostasy occur after the Church is removed?  Once the church is removed, there is no chance of an apostasy occurring since its not possible for a person to fall away from nothing.

 

Apostasy or Rebellion or forsake (all translations of "apostasia") is a reference to their actions toward God. The reference is to a world wide rebellion against God.

[carbon dioxide]

 

Apostasy or Rebellion or forsake (all translations of "apostasia") is a reference to their actions toward God. The reference is to a world wide rebellion against God.

If simply rebellion against God himself constitutes an apostasy, then it started by the time Cain was around has continued to this day.  For one to fall away, they must be able to fall away from something.  Only members of the Church can really fall away or be in apostasy.   One can't fall away if they are in a false church or be an atheist.  Anyway the whole notion that God is going to rapture the Church to spare it from something I find to be quite lacking.  The Church is made stronger by going through trials, not be taken away from trials so they can avoid them.   Those who hope that God will rapture them to avoid some great earthly trial are lacking in faith and pretty pathetic.  How can we expect to stand with many of the righteous of the past who gave their lives for the truth if we are not willing to also sacrifice the same as they did if required. 

[williamsmith]

Yes, I've seen the verses that warn about about false teachers and predict that 'some' or 'many' people will follow them. But I don't understand why we should see 'some' or 'many' and read it as 'the whole church.' None of the verses say the whole church would follow those false teachers, so why should we believe the whole church fell away?

 

I've also heard the verses that predict a 'restoration,' but they don't specify that the gospel would need to be restored. Why should we read the concept of a restoration of the gospel into those passages when they don't mention it?

 

The issue of the apostasy was one of the first topics that came up in our meetings and I don't see it. God obviously had the power to preserve the church and the gospel. People were willing to die for their faith in Christ. So what was missing? Why didn't God preserve the church?

 

Obviously, we have to look at the NT as a whole, but why is that the first response to these verses? Why is the key to understanding verses about false prophets to look at a bunch of verses that don't mention false prophets at all?

 

So what were Paul and John talking about? How can we apply the principles in these verses to modern questions about truth?

 

1. Let me ask you, if you lose even one truth, is it any longer the "same" church?  No it's not.

The Restoration didn't mean there weren't "believers" any longer, it meant there was no "authoritative who can speak for God AND lead His people Church" anymore.

It meant some important and necessary truths, authority, and spirit was lost.

 

Why shouldn't you believe the Church couldn't fall away?

What was the state of the Church when Christ came 2000 years ago?  It was in Apostasy.

There were still Jews (the believers), but Christ came and restored/established the Church.

He even said, can't put new wine into old jars.  Yet today, Jews don't accept Christ's Church.

Likewise, existing Christians don't accept the Restored Church of Christ, they accept their traditions.

 

2. Before the last 60 years or so, most in the Christian world (save the Catholics etc.) fully accepted that there was no "Church" any more, that there were simply believers, and everyone created their own religions per their own best judgment etc.  Today however, is a new phenomenum.  Christians are assuming full authority upon themselves, by just being Christian.  It's a new interpretation from the Bible, just like Protestant interpretations and rejection of the Holy Catholic Church were new.

 

3. If a person study's history, study's religions, study's the Bible, frankly I don't see how anyone could not see an Apostasy.  Everyone creating their own religions, their own interpretations from the same so-called "infallible" book, the Bible.  Many things held in common, but many things vastly different.  That's not "truth".... especially God's Truth's.  God is not tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.  God's CHURCH is not tossed to and fro by every doctrine.  This is why God has always called his annoited to lead the Church, be they Prophets, Apostles, and other offices thereby.  And they were called by those who had the authority to give that calling.  ZERO Prophet or Apostle or otherwise gave themselves authority to speak for God.  Someone else gave it.  In the case of the Apostles, it was Christ.  In the case of others, it was Angels, God himself, other Prophets, etc.  No man can be called of God save as Aaron (like the Bible states).  How was Aaron called?  By Moses.  How did Moses get his authority?  Directly from God when he visited him.  I don't know of near ANY of your religions that their leaders actually had God, Christ, the Apostles, Angels etc. call them?

 

Mormonism follow the Biblical precidence.

Further, Christ established an authoritative Church.  But these clues and scriptures are ignored, not by the more authoritative churches like the Catholic Church (which btw is one of the remnants of Christ's original Church), but they are ignored by especially the Evangelical Church's.  Believers can do miracles, can heal, etc., but it takes God's Annointed to lead the Church.  Those who assume this authority unto themselves are the true definition of "False Prophets" and "False Teachers".  It's fine to believe, but the moment you start teaching, leading, etc. in the name of God, unless God himself or one of his servants heavenly's or earthly called you, then you are the very definition of a false prophet.

 

There is one famous example of the necessity of TRUE Authority in just the New Testament alone.  And that is some saints at Corinth were baptised by those in authority, yet they had not the authority to bestow the Holy Ghost, so Apostles were called to come and lay their hands on them to bestow that Gift.  Almost no other religion does this, that understands and practices the differences between the Spirit/aka Holy Ghost, and the giving of the "Gift" of the Holy Ghost, and done so by authority.

 

Anyway, if you don't see an Apostasy, then he that can hear let him hear, and many are called but few are chosen.

If you really are wanting to know and understand, then seek.....  the truth is there.

I'm a Latter-day Saint because I know the Church is the True and Living Church on the earth, and not another man-made religion.  I have no interest in false prophets, and being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.

I was born a Catholic, but was a part of many religions and non at all, and I read the Bible for myself, and easily saw how all these religions did not fit what the Book in full actually said.  Only when I came upon the LDS Church did a religion actually fit the book.  There were things to still work out over time, challenges in it's history, but they were, and I thank God every day.

Edited March 13, 2015 by williamsmith

[danielwoods]

If simply rebellion against God himself constitutes an apostasy, then it started by the time Cain was around has continued to this day.  For one to fall away, they must be able to fall away from something.  Only members of the Church can really fall away or be in apostasy.   One can't fall away if they are in a false church or be an atheist.  Anyway the whole notion that God is going to rapture the Church to spare it from something I find to be quite lacking.  The Church is made stronger by going through trials, not be taken away from trials so they can avoid them.   Those who hope that God will rapture them to avoid some great earthly trial are lacking in faith and pretty pathetic.  How can we expect to stand with many of the righteous of the past who gave their lives for the truth if we are not willing to also sacrifice the same as they did if required. 

 

What "apostasy" means and how it's defined is different for the LDS church and the bible. I am interested in understanding how the biblical text uses the word. It appears that the LDS church uses it differently. As I have mentioned, the word means to rebel from God. And as such all those who have rebelled from God are in apostasy. The apostasy referred to in the NT will come after the church is taken off the earth. It will be a falling away or rebellion like no other (well maybe similar to what Noah experienced, I don't know). It's my feeling that part of the magnitude of the apostasy has to do with the Church being off the earth. 

 

As for your statement that one can't fall away if they are in a false church or an atheist. I can't defend that statement because it's not what the biblical text teaches. As far as whether or not the church will be taken off the earth or not, that is not really a point of disagreement, because I'm pretty sure the LDS teach that this event will happen at the second coming. The point of disagreement then becomes when this particular event will occur. And as far as I can tell, the idea that the "catching away" occurs at the second coming, while Jesus is coming back, doesn't fit with what is described as the sequence of events. Because, the lawless one won't be revealed until after the Church is taken away, and then the rebellion occurs… which seems like a lot to happen in a few milli-seconds, if Jesus' second coming is at the same time. 

 

The other problems include the fact that Jesus said to pray that you are worthy to escape these times (indicating that some will obviously escape them based solely on their faith), and he told parables talking about the day of the lord coming like a thief in the night, so always be prepared. 

[mass168]

This is backing up a little, apologies. What is the best LDS source for understanding how to discern what constitutes a prophecy? Is there a concise essay (or similar) written on how LDS are supposed to approach the topic? 

Edited March 15, 2015 by mass168

[mfbukowski]

I realize i'm jumping into this discussion in the middle so maybe this has already been hashed out, but what verse are you referring to when you say that the scriptures state the apostasy will happen after the church is removed from the earth?

it seems to be a logic problem.

 

OF COURSE the apostasy will happen after the church is removed from the earth!

 

The definition of "apostasy" is that the church is removed from the earth.   If the church is still on the earth, there is no apostasy!!

[mfbukowski]

This is backing up a little, apologies. What is the best LDS source for understanding how to discern what constitutes a prophecy? Is there a concise essay (or similar) written on how LDS are supposed to approach the topic? 

Spiritual confirmation.

 

We are encouraged to gain testimonies of each doctrine.  We believe in orthopraxis, not orthodoxy.

[carbon dioxide]

 

The gospel taught in the BoM and D&C is not the same Gospel taught in Galatians and Romans, so why should I consider them scripture at all?

First one has to accurately define what the Gospel is in the New Testament.  Not just Romans and Galatians.  Then one has to accurately define what the Gospel is taught in the BOM and D&C and it is only at that point can one determine if they are the same or different.  Simply declaring them to be different does not prove they are different.

[NotaMormon]

Amd speaking of the test in Galatians 1, Paul's admonition to the Galatians to stick close to the teachings of the

original apostles is a test to make, not a position to uncritically assume. And the 28 Biblical tests for discerning

true and false prophets are part of that test, as are the scriptures describing what a person ought to do in order to see truth.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I've been thinking about what you guys have said and I can see I have a lot to study about the Septuagint and other related issues, but for now, the question of Paul's test in Galatians is still nagging in my mind. Yes, like you say, verses 8-9 are a test Paul wants us to use, or at least part of the test. So what does that part of the test look like? Can you give an example of how it's applied? What would it look like for a teacher or doctrine to fail that part of the test?

 

If what you're saying is true and the New Testament doesn't give us a clear picture of the Gospel Paul taught, then Paul's test in Gal 1:8-9 is useless. If the Gospel in the Bible is that corrupted and incomplete, then those verses do more harm then good. Why would Paul put such a strong emphasis on a test that he knew would soon become useless? Do those verses really sound like they're written by someone who knew the full gospel would be lost in a matter of years. He would have to be pretty reckless to put so much emphasis on something so unreliable. Or is that passage another example of corrupt or incomplete verses?

 

Do you see the irony in the idea that God's true church would defend itself by using the same types of arguments against the Bible that atheists use against it? It feels so odd to think that having faith in God's true church means having so little faith in the reliability of the Bible.

[Vance]

I've been thinking about what you guys have said and I can see I have a lot to study about the Septuagint and other related issues, but for now, the question of Paul's test in Galatians is still nagging in my mind. Yes, like you say, verses 8-9 are a test Paul wants us to use, or at least part of the test. So what does that part of the test look like? Can you give an example of how it's applied? What would it look like for a teacher or doctrine to fail that part of the test?

Gal 1:2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

 

Only members of the congregations in Galatia would know what had been preached before and this letter from Paul was written to them. So there is no way for us to know for sure what had been preached to them and only the people involved could make the test.  It is presumptuous for anyone else to make judgement.

 

If what you're saying is true and the New Testament doesn't give us a clear picture of the Gospel Paul taught, then Paul's test in Gal 1:8-9 is useless.

Not to the people to which he was writing.  But to all others, especially two millenia latter, it is useless. 

 

Too bad that less than honest persons won't admit it.

 

If the Gospel in the Bible is that corrupted and incomplete, then those verses do more harm then good.

Only if faulty presumptions are made.

 

Why would Paul put such a strong emphasis on a test that he knew would soon become useless?

Do you think Paul was omniscient?  He was writing a letter to the people in Galatia, is he responsible for the misuse of his word by others?

 

Do those verses really sound like they're written by someone who knew the full gospel would be lost in a matter of years.

Why would a knowledge of an impending apostasy restrict Paul from warning the people of Galatia about their own tenuous situation? 

 

He would have to be pretty reckless to put so much emphasis on something so unreliable.

It would be more reckless NOT warn the people of Galatia?

 

Do you see the irony in the idea that God's true church would defend itself by using the same types of arguments against the Bible that atheists use against it?

I find it more ironic that people who claim to believe in the Bible to misrepresent what it truly is.

 

It feels so odd to think that having faith in God's true church means having so little faith in the reliability of the Bible.

That is a strawman.  Flog away.

 

What is not reliable is the misinterpretation/misrepresentation of what the Bible really is.  People falsely assume that the letters Paul wrote to specific group at specific times to address specific issues can be used in some sort of general application.

 

That being said, what I think you fail to understand that, at least for me, when I study the New Testament I find that it is permeated with LDS Christianity.  So your claim that our augments are against "the reliability of the Bible" are meaningless to us.

[NotaMormon]

Gal 1:2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

 

Only members of the congregations in Galatia would know what had been preached before and this letter from Paul was written to them. So there is no way for us to know for sure what had been preached to them and only the people involved could make the test.  It is presumptuous for anyone else to make judgement.

Do you believe the tradition that says the early churches quickly started circulating copies of the epistles among themselves? What could they have gotten from the epistles that weren't written to them?

 

If we don't know what Gospel Paul preached to the Galatian church, then what Gospel was he talking about in Galatians 2-4? Since Paul was so adamant about believing in and following one, true Gospel, why would the Gospel he explains in chapters 2-4 be any different than the Gospel he first preached to them?

[Vance]

Do you believe the tradition that says the early churches quickly started circulating copies of the epistles among themselves?

I imagine that it is possible.  I suspect that you are going to use this tradition to support a presumption.

 

What could they have gotten from the epistles that weren't written to them?

 

They could have gotten some value out of them IF they had heard the same gospel preached by Paul.  Why would they even been interested in them if they had NOT heard the same gospel?  Why would you assume otherwise?

If we don't know what Gospel Paul preached to the Galatian church, then what Gospel was he talking about in Galatians 2-4?

The one that he had preached to them.

 

Since Paul was so adamant about believing in and following one, true Gospel, why would the Gospel he explains in chapters 2-4 be any different than the Gospel he first preached to them?

Who is claiming it is different?

[Kevin Christensen]

NotaMormon asks:

I've been thinking about what you guys have said and I can see I have a lot to study about the Septuagint and other related issues, but for now, the question of Paul's test in Galatians is still nagging in my mind. Yes, like you say, verses 8-9 are a test Paul wants us to use, or at least part of the test. So what does that part of the test look like? Can you give an example of how it's applied? What would it look like for a teacher or doctrine to fail that part of the test?

The point of Paul writing to the Galatians about the test is that at that point in time, the Apostles and the original organizations structure of the church is intact.  He's simply telling them not to follow outside teachers who coming along preaching something else.  So if someone like Simon Magus comes along, asking to buy his way in, or someone else tries to talk his way in, who was not a part of the known organization, that is how that test could have been applied.

 

The problem we have in doing this today is Paul and the Apostles are long gone  And we have multiple competing interpretations of the New Testament.  Lots of churches.  And a range of approaches to the New Testament.  So presupposing that your or my starting point is the correct one, and anyone else must be wrong, is simply a demonstration of Position 2 of the Perry Scheme, rather than a viable application of the test.  

 

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate.  (Resisting snake)

 

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds.  They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong.  They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.