J
JMM1957
Guest
I don’t care how much of a reprobate man could be, it still doesn’t nullify the Word of God, and what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 is fulfilled in the CC.
- Status
W
Wannano
Guest
Probably both.
A
adf417
Guest
V
vsedriver
Guest
Never heard this before… can you give an historical example of how the Church founded by Jesus Christ was not functioning as intended?
can you tell me when these early Christians lost their authorization ( AKA Apostolic authority?) Who decided this? Or did God just leave all his children blind in their faith for hundreds of years? Essentially you are saying God abandoned his people, yet scripture says he would not do that.
Beyond Smith’s account do you have any other evidence of this? Either there existed a Church founded by Jesus Christ when Joseph Smith lived or there was no church founded by Jesus Christ at that time, which seems to go against scripture.
And didn’t Joseph Smith teach commandments of men? And did Joseph Smith believe that every one who followed him would never sin or only give lip service to the Lord? So basically Joseph Smith judged the hearts of other men. Something that is reserved for the Lord alone.
There is no evidence of an apostasy. And if the apostasy actually happened then there is no guarantee that it won’t happen again and that means sooner or later the LDS will apostasize too. And which LDS is the true LDS again? Is the the group that followed Young or the group that followed Smith’s son?
And yet that is exactly what he did. So how do you know he even went into the woods?
that only applies to those who split when they knew the true church. Those who are not in perfect union with the Church through no fault of there own are not held to the same standard. But if anyone wants to go looking for the Church founded by Jesus Christ you can find it easily but looking at history, early Christian writers, and using the scriptures. That’s how I found the One True Church. The Holy Spirit confirmed my discovery.
What part was corrupt? The people, the theology? All of it? Who had the authority to determine what was corruption and what was truth?
and I say the same about the Catholic Church.
So how do we determine the truth? I say we look to sacred scripture. Scripture tells us that Jesus chose men, he gave authority to those men who passed their authority on to their successors. No where in scripture does it say anything about this succession failing or listing what would constitute an ‘apostasy’.
The Book of Mormon is not sacred scripture. The clearest evidence of that is the use of the pseudo Elizabethan language for the text. Why would a 19th century man translate plates into 15th century English instead of into his own 19th century English? The only motive I can see would be to scam people.
J
JMM1957
Guest
Because Joseph Smith said so.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Precisely.Because Joseph Smith said so.
And getting back to the original paradox, that how can an apostate, false church canonize scripture–the practical reason Mormons accept the apostate church’s scripture is because Joseph Smith did so. And Joseph Smith is a prophet, so that’s that. They probably don’t think much beyond that.
(And it’s not only Mormons who accept a false church’s scripture.)
M
Melchior_1
Guest
I think everyone, regardless if they feel if there’s a Great Apostasy or not, believes that the twelve Apostles had the proper authority.
My question lies on their successors, specifically in Acts 1:26, where we see the Apostles select a successor for Judas. The question I have for those who subscribe to a “Great Apostasy” at this point is if Matthias had the same authority as the original Apostles?
If the answer is “yes, Matthias had the same authority”, it presents a quandary. We clearly see that the Apostles had a mechanism in place for replacing one whom passes away. This mechanism would be repeated every time one of them died. So, at which point did the mechanism no longer work? At what point did the replacements for the original twelve no longer have the same authority? Is it after John died, the next series of replacements would no longer have the authority?
If the answer is “no, Matthias did not have the same authority”, it calls into question the methods and methodologies of the original Apostles, especially those they added to their ranks and chose to be their proteges.
My question lies on their successors, specifically in Acts 1:26, where we see the Apostles select a successor for Judas. The question I have for those who subscribe to a “Great Apostasy” at this point is if Matthias had the same authority as the original Apostles?
If the answer is “yes, Matthias had the same authority”, it presents a quandary. We clearly see that the Apostles had a mechanism in place for replacing one whom passes away. This mechanism would be repeated every time one of them died. So, at which point did the mechanism no longer work? At what point did the replacements for the original twelve no longer have the same authority? Is it after John died, the next series of replacements would no longer have the authority?
If the answer is “no, Matthias did not have the same authority”, it calls into question the methods and methodologies of the original Apostles, especially those they added to their ranks and chose to be their proteges.
T
Tarquin
Guest
He was told join none of them. So why, then, did he join the Methodist Church?
What do you mean by “authorized servants”? What are those? What is needed for a church to function as it had been created to do?
G
gazelam
Guest
You make a darn good point. If Apostolic succession indeed did continue unabated since the days of Christ, why doesn’t the Catholic Church have twelve apostles at its head directing its efforts today?
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Several reasons, the least of which is the logistics of only having twelve leaders for a Church that spans the globe. Further, the LDS church if it’s “restoring” things should also only have twelve if you use the same criteria.
You didn’t answer my post at all, instead choosing to deflect. Please provide a LDS explanation to my post.
W
Wannano
Guest
Would you care to share what the other reasons are?
M
Melchior_1
Guest
My turn to deflect, since I already answered one deflection already; I’ll give a couple of more reasons after yourself or anyone who believes in the Great Apostasy responds to my post.
W
Wannano
Guest
Show me were I stated I believe in the Great Apostasy. Frankly, I don’t understand your post. I was just interested in the other reasons and hoping for intelligent reponse.
G
gazelam
Guest
Here’s an answer suitable for Catholics and Latter-day Saints!! It’s hard to know exactly when this succession stopped, but we do not have any written record of subsequent bishops claiming to be successors to the apostles.
In the book “From Apostles to Bishops” by a Catholic author, it is stated…
“No doubt proving that bishops were the successors of the apostles by divine institution would be easier if the New Testament clearly stated that before they died the apostles had appointed a single bishop to lead each of the churches they had founded. Likewise, it would have been very helpful had Clement, in writing to the Corinthians, said that the apostles had put one bishop in charge of each church and had arranged for a regular succession in that office. We would also be grateful to Ignatius of Antioch if he had spoken of himself not only as bishop, but as a successor to the apostles, and had explained how he understood that succession. Unfortunately, the documents available to us do not provide such help.” (Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, pg 223)
I hope this helps…
J
JMM1957
Guest
You are using this quote to help defend your belief in a Great Apostasy? There are a lot of things we wish we had spelled out better in ancient records, not just early church information. The fact is, when the successors to the first Apostles lived, probably the last thing they were thinking of is making sure us here in the year 2017 had a complete written record of Apostolic succession connected to every one of the twelve Apostles. But we do have the list of Popes going back to Peter, how do you think we got that? Or, maybe you question that too.
A
adf417
Guest
Would you care to put this in context for us who do not have this source? I wanting to read the rest of this as there seems to be a “but…” coming next.
Peace!!!
G
gazelam
Guest
I’m specifically addressing Melchior_'s comment #66 where it’s stated “This mechanism would be repeated every time one of them died.” There isn’t a historical record indicating that this occurred. Neither Ignatius nor Clement stated that they were a successor. I guess you can say, “Well, we know they were successors anyway.”, and if you want to, you can. But you won’t have a historical record backing you up.You are using this quote to help defend your belief in a Great Apostasy? There are a lot of things we wish we had spelled out better in ancient records, not just early church information. The fact is, when the successors to the first Apostles lived, probably the last thing they were thinking of is making sure us here in the year 2017 had a complete written record of Apostolic succession connected to every one of the twelve Apostles. But we do have the list of Popes going back to Peter, how do you think we got that? Or, maybe you question that too.
G
gazelam
Guest
Well, what can we gather from the historical record? Robert Eno (professor of history at Catholic University of America) states:But we do have the list of Popes going back to Peter, how do you think we got that? Or, maybe you question that too.
If Rome’s position is closely tied to the importance of its bishop, what would be the result of the discovery that there was a time when it did not have a bishop? I do not refer to some “sede vacante” period between the death of one bishop and the election of a new one but to the possibility that in the late first and early second century the ministerial offices of the local church Rome had not yet attained the distinction and clarity seen in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. In other words, the leadership role in the local church of Rome was still being exercised collectively before the emergence of a monarchical bishop in Rome.
Such a view is becoming increasingly widespread. The evidence here, as with most subjects of this period, is fragmentary and the issue can be debated in both ways. But the evidence available seems to point predominately if not decisively in the direction of the collective leadership. Dogmatic a priori theses should not force us into presuming or requiring something that the evidence leans against.
What then is the evidence from those writings or authors known as the Apostolic Fathers? Two are of Roman origin, the Shepherd of Hermas and the letter of Clement, one of non-Roman origin, the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to Rome. Ignatius wrote his letters ostensibly to thank the local communities in Asia Minor for their kind assistance to him as a prisoner for Christ but more precisely to warn them against dangers to unity and, as we have seen, to urgent the importance of a single strong authoritative leader of the local community. Throughout these six letters, he broadcasts his theological views of the central importance of the bishop. But he also wrote one letter ahead, to a place which he has never visited personally but where he was to end his life as a martyr - Rome. His purpose here was quite different–to ask the Roman Christians not to interfere on his behalf to try to stop his trial and suffering. The letter is interesting because, unlike all the other letters, it contains no ecclesiological doctrine about the importance of the bishop. Of course, as he himself says, he did not presume to give the Roman Christians instructions as the Apostles had. Nevertheless it is strange that while other letters all make frequent mention of the bishop of the community being addressed, he does not greet a bishop in Rome nor does he ever mention such a person in this letter. One might object that since Ignatius had never been in Rome, he did not know the bishop’s name. He could have spoken to or of a bishop even if he had not known his name. More importantly, if one should presume from his other letters that a strong individual bishop-leader existed everywhere in the Church of his time, then he would have known that there was such a leader in the Roman community. But we have only silence, which leads to many to conclude that Ignatius did not address such a person because the Roman community of the time had no such leader. (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy, pp 26, 27)
A
adf417
Guest
(Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy, pp 26, 27)
That is a reasonable conclusion but it is also reasonable that its not the only conclusion. For the correct conclusion consult the pillar and foundation of truth.
Peace!!!
J
JMM1957
Guest
Clement did say this:
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
There are more statements like this from other ECF’s, do you need me to post more? Really, the Bible itself shows Apostolic Succession pretty clearly even without statements from the ECF’s.
- Status