Catholics vs Mormons vs Protestants on the "Gates of Hell"

[notsmart]

Tell me exactly when the apostacy took place.
But, since you only use the bible as your guide? With help?
Can you tell me when it occured exactly?

Can you tell me when your ideas were ever a part of christianity before your prophet cooked them up?

 

[Snow]

Tell me exactly when the apostacy took place.

2nd and 3rd centuries.

But, since you only use the bible as your guide?

That’s not a complete sentence. What are you trying to ask?

With help?

With help what?

Can you tell me when it occured exactly?

Didn’t you cover that in your first question?

Can you tell me when your ideas were ever a part of christianity before your prophet cooked them up?

Ah shucks… and you were doing so well. You were polite if somewhat confused but, nice, kinda. Then you resorted to taunting and denigration. That’s never a good sign. Please try again.

 

[Snow]

This is the danger of viewing scripture outside of Sacred Tradtion. The Bible is not meant to “stand alone” or “apart” from tradition. It is meant to be understood and revealed THROUGH tradition.

I think I understand your point but on what authority do you so believe. Does God say that Bible is only meant to be understood through tradition? Or does the Bible say it?

The passage you are referring to only supports the understanding the church has had from its infancy BEFORE the scriptures even existed. There is historical documentation of every pope from Peter to present day.

I don’t think so. I doubt there is real, historical evidence of a true monoepiscopal, theological leader/bishop of Rome that had primacy of the church in Rome until sometime in the much later than Peter. Off hand I’d say something like Anacletus or Clement, possibly Alexander. Even after that I don’t think there is historical evidence that such a person had primacy over the whole church… at least not for a long time after.

Of course, I’d be happy to be corrected. Perhaps you could post some real historical evidence that Linus or Anacletus were, in fact, the monepiscopal bishops of Rome. Primary sources if you have them please.

 

[Snow]

So you believe Christ was limited on the authority he could pass to Peter?

I chime in here if I may.

Of course that is not what mfb meant - or else he/she would have said so. In short - that’s your spin, what you bring to the conversation so don’t pin it on anyone else.

Christ, being God, has all authority and all power.

Or, you believe Peter did not have the authority to establish apostolic succession?

I’m not even sure that makes much sense. Don’t you believe that Christ, not Peter, established apostolic succession?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I think I understand your point but on what authority do you so believe. Does God say that Bible is only meant to be understood through tradition? Or does the Bible say it?

I don’t think so. I doubt there is real, historical evidence of a true monoepiscopal, theological leader/bishop of Rome that had primacy of the church in Rome until sometime in the much later than Peter. Off hand I’d say something like Anacletus or Clement, possibly Alexander. Even after that I don’t think there is historical evidence that such a person had primacy over the whole church… at least not for a long time after.

Of course, I’d be happy to be corrected. Perhaps you could post some real historical evidence that Linus or Anacletus were, in fact, the monepiscopal bishops of Rome. Primary sources if you have them please.

many things have to be defined as questions arise. there were times that people understood and did not need to be written or defined. just like now, we have to define that marriage should be between a man and a woman. i dont think we had to do this before did we? people knew then, there was no question about it. now we have to fight over it. hope you see my point.

Peace.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I chime in here if I may.

Of course that is not what mfb meant - or else he/she would have said so. In short - that’s your spin, what you bring to the conversation so don’t pin it on anyone else.

Christ, being God, has all authority and all power.

I’m not even sure that makes much sense. Don’t you believe that Christ, not Peter, established apostolic succession?

I believe in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church…created by Christ Himself. If you’ve read through, I’m sure you can see the “circles” MF was taking the discussion through.

Yes, the topic is “gates of hell”. No, there is no indication of any “keys to hell”. It’s not as hard to understand what we’re saying about the gates of hell as MF makes out. There’s a difference between not understanding and rejecting.

To summarize, Christ built His Church upon Peter and promised even the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It’s been articulated, without the courtesy of being directly addressed.

When I explained it was authority given to Peter, verified by his re-naming by Christ, the Church being built upon Peter, giving Peter the keys and telling Peter whatsoever he bound and loosed on earth would be so in heaven, I also provided scriptures showing Peter addressing apostolic succession by the appointment of Matthias. MF responded and basically agreed and then stated but that apostolic succession ended with the death of all the Apostles, without offering any source except his own assertion.

While it appears Mormons readily accept 1800 year old writings, they seem to completely ignore writings of the early Church fathers. Some of those early Church fathers received their appointments from living apostles, which also shows an ongoing apostolic succession, in the understanding of Catholics.

I say “appears” above, because I’m not sure all Mormons believe the same thing. For example, MF said the apostolic succession ended at the death of the last Apostle and in one of your responses you state the following:

I don’t think so. I doubt there is real, historical evidence of a true monoepiscopal, theological leader/bishop of Rome that had primacy of the church in Rome until sometime in the much later than Peter. Off hand I’d say something like Anacletus or Clement, possibly Alexander. Even after that I don’t think there is historical evidence that such a person had primacy over the whole church… at least not for a long time after.

While we attempt to have honest discussions, it’s very difficult to do when it seems the theology changes according to who one is currently discussing topics with.

Sources can be provided, that show apostolic succession from Peter to present day. Here’s the problem we’ve come across in past “discussions”. Mormons have disregarded some documentation, because they believe the documentation to be errant for various reasons. What Mormons fail to do, is offer “primary” sources to support their positions. In fact, it seems a primary tactic to make an assertion and then ask for “primary” sources proving the assertion is wrong. That’s not the way it works. Take this “great apostasy” for example. Mormons state, “there was a great apostasy!” “Now prove there wasn’t.”

Another difficult tactic, it appears Mormons like to use, is not answering questions, but putting forth another question in response to our questions. An example would be me asking MF for clarification on why it seems Mormons limit Peter’s authority to setup an apostolic succession and another Mormon, instead of responding to the issues articulated, asked me if I believe that Christ, not Peter established apostolic succession. Yes Christ established apostolic succession, starting with Peter. Christ gave Peter authority to bind and loose on earth and Peter did his job and maintained apostolic succession within the Church. The Church maintained that apostolic succession to present day.

Since you’re relatively new on these forums, I’ll ask you some simple questions about this great apostasy Mormons say happened.

1. 
   *]When, exactly did this great apostasy occur?
   *]Who started the great apostasy?
   *]Where did the great apostasy take place?
   *]Who defended against the great apostasy?
   *]Where is documentation of those who apostasized?
   
   I’m opened minded as the next person, please provide “primary” sources, as you call them, to answer those questions.

 

[Snow]

When I explained it was authority given to Peter, verified by his re-naming by Christ, the Church being built upon Peter, giving Peter the keys and telling Peter whatsoever he bound and loosed on earth would be so in heaven, I also provided scriptures showing Peter addressing apostolic succession by the appointment of Matthias. MF responded and basically agreed and then stated but that apostolic succession ended with the death of all the Apostles, without offering any source except his own assertion.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

It is an “opinion” that Christ built his church upon Peter. Most of the world would disagree… it seeming strange to found your church upon a man, a fallible sinner, one who has recently denied Christ three times. Others think the foundation was prophecy others thing differently.

I don’t think that anyone can definitively say, from a historical evidential viewpoint that apostolic succession ended with the first set of apostles. Paul was not one of the original apostles and he says that he was made one so there seems to have been at least some succession.

While it appears Mormons readily accept 1800 year old writings, they seem to completely ignore writings of the early Church fathers. Some of those early Church fathers received their appointments from living apostles, which also shows an ongoing apostolic succession, in the understanding of Catholics.

I don’t know what you mean that Mormons ignore the Church Fathers. I am no expert but I don’t ignore them. A couple of points:

1. The historical evidence of early succession is very sketchy or non-existent. When Church Fathers chime in on such matters, there accounts are typically not first hand accounts or contemporary… rather they are 2nd, or 3rd hand accounts well after the fact.
2. We don’t view apostolic succession - the valid transfer of authority simply as a matter of here is person A. He, supposedly, gave authority to person B. B, supposedly to C and so on. There is more to it than a simple handing off. If B is an axe murder (for the sake of illustration) then God would withdraw his authority and he wouldn’t have any to pass on to C.

I say “appears” above, because I’m not sure all Mormons believe the same thing. For example, MF said the apostolic succession ended at the death of the last Apostle and in one of your responses you state the following:

There is a doctrinal LDS view that there was an apostasy. The doctrine does not specify exactly what or how. Many of the details are simply a matter of scholarship. One person may see it differently. Scholars inside the Church today have a different understanding (more knowledge and scholarship) than those from 70 years ago.

The apostasy, we believe, happened pretty rapidly… but it was a process, not an incident.

While we attempt to have honest discussions, it’s very difficult to do when it seems the theology changes according to who one is currently discussing topics with.

Sources can be provided, that show apostolic succession from Peter to present day. Here’s the problem we’ve come across in past “discussions”. Mormons have disregarded some documentation, because they believe the documentation to be errant for various reasons. What Mormons fail to do, is offer “primary” sources to support their positions. In fact, it seems a primary tactic to make an assertion and then ask for “primary” sources proving the assertion is wrong. That’s not the way it works. Take this “great apostasy” for example. Mormons state, “there was a great apostasy!” “Now prove there wasn’t.”

I guess, on balance, Mormons are as bad debaters as everyone else.

Another difficult tactic, it appears Mormons like to use, is not answering questions, but putting forth another question in response to our questions.

Hardly a “Mormon” thing.

An example would be me asking MF for clarification on why it seems Mormons limit Peter’s authority to setup an apostolic succession and another Mormon, instead of responding to the issues articulated, asked me if I believe that Christ, not Peter established apostolic succession. Yes Christ established apostolic succession, starting with Peter. Christ gave Peter authority to bind and loose on earth and Peter did his job and maintained apostolic succession within the Church. The Church maintained that apostolic succession to present day.

The apostasy is a huge topic. You can’t prove or disprove it in a dozen posts. It is not something given to clever sound-bites and snappy rejoinders. It’s a tough mountain to climb.

 

[Snow]

ISince you’re relatively new on these forums, I’ll ask you some simple questions about this great apostasy Mormons say happened.

1. 
   *]When, exactly did this great apostasy occur?
   
   Mostly in the first 100 years after Christ’s death. Certainly it was complete by the 4th century.
   
   *]Who started the great apostasy?
   
   It’s not like a basketball game where Carlos Boozer scores the first basket. It, I think, was a series of complex and inter-related events and dynamics.
   
   *]Where did the great apostasy take place?
   
   It wasn’t a geographic event.
   
   *]Who defended against the great apostasy?
   
   You can see Paul defending against it starting in the NT.
   
   *]Where is documentation of those who apostasized?
   
   In speaking of the Great Apostasy, it isn’t a matter of individual apostasy.
   

   I’m opened minded as the next person, please provide “primary” sources, as you call them, to answer those questions.

   Your questions don’t make much sense to me but I think you are sincere and just have never explored the topic. The concept is a well-known and widespread belief, now and historically in Christianity. It is not simply an LDS belief.
   
   I like to argue and debate but generally my intent is not to denigrate anyone’s faith. Trying to “prove” the apostasy, as opposed to merely acknowledging it seems an attempt to attack the RCC. However, if you really want to go over it, I could probably find time to give you are overview. Let me know.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

1. 
   *]When, exactly did this great apostasy occur?
   
   Mostly in the first 100 years after Christ’s death. Certainly it was complete by the 4th century.
   
   *]Who started the great apostasy?
   
   It’s not like a basketball game where Carlos Boozer scores the first basket. It, I think, was a series of complex and inter-related events and dynamics.
   
   *]Where did the great apostasy take place?
   
   It wasn’t a geographic event.
   
   *]Who defended against the great apostasy?
   
   You can see Paul defending against it starting in the NT.
   
   *]Where is documentation of those who apostasized?
   
   In speaking of the Great Apostasy, it isn’t a matter of individual apostasy.
   
   Your questions don’t make much sense to me but I think you are sincere and just have never explored the topic. The concept is a well-known and widespread belief, now and historically in Christianity. It is not simply an LDS belief.
   
   I like to argue and debate but generally my intent is not to denigrate anyone’s faith. Trying to “prove” the apostasy, as opposed to merely acknowledging it seems an attempt to attack the RCC. However, if you really want to go over it, I could probably find time to give you are overview. Let me know.

1. 
   I have explored the topic, with other Mormons. The trouble for me, is I usually receive different responses from each.
   
   I will address my thoughts on the apostasy, so you might understand my belief on the subject.
   
   During the time period the great apostasy was to have taken place, Christians had many persecutors.
   
   The Jews were accused of killing the Messiah and surely would have found vindication in a failed Church from the Messiah. The Jewish people acknowledge the existance Christ, but have never acknowledged a great apostasy.
   
   The Romans tried everything to crush the new found religion. Julian the Apostate misunderstood Christ’s prophesy of the destruction of the Temple to say it would never be rebuilt. Julian tried, unsuccessfully, to rebuild the Temple to prove Christ to be a false prophet. Romans martyred many early Church fathers and other Christians for centuries. Surely a great apostasy would have been a tool they would have used against Christianity. They left no writings about a great apostasy.
   
   Historians find personal recognition in the facts they reveal, yet no historian ever documented something as huge as the great apostasy.
   
   Many people wrote and acknowledged Christ, many times unfavorably. No one writing about a great apostasy becomes suspicious, in my opinion.
   
   It seems all those Christians who supposedly apostasized, would have documented the great apostasy to justify apostasizing from Christ’s Church.
   
   Our Church has recorded heresies and Church actions or defenses. These are evident to this day. Why wouldn’t the Church have recorded any action or defense against the great apostasy? It makes no sense to me.
   
   I saw you answer that St. Paul defended against an apostasy. I will admit, there were apostasies. I do not however, find evidence of a great apostasy, so great as to cause Christ’s Church to lose it’s authority. I think you’ll admit that even the Mormon Church had and still does suffer apostasies to this day. At what point does an apostasy become considered so great that your Church would be considered to lose all authority. I won’t bring them up specifically, unless you ask me to, but we know there have been divisions in the Mormon Church. One even claims an apostasy took place from the restored Gospel.
   
   We, Catholics, do depend on scriptures stating what we believe is Christ passing authority to Peter and promising to be with us, “all days, even unto the consummation of the world.” We see the gates of hell not prevailing as part of His promises that the Church will be everlasting.
   
   I might be mistaken, but I thought I read one of your posts that you believe the Church was built on the “revelation of the rock”. I apologize if I’m mixing you up with someone else. Even though I did not address that particular post, I have addressed the revelation with other Mormons who haven’t responded to a basic question on the subject. How does the revelation of the rock bind and loose on earth with Christ’s promise to bind and loose the same in Heaven?
   
   I apologize for the long posting, but felt it fair to share my opinion of the great apostasy with you before we proceed, whatever direction that maybe.
   
   While it may not be solely an LDS belief, so far I have only heard of the great apostasy from Mormons.
   
   I’d also like to say I appreciate your insight on the apostasy being used for the purposes of attacking the RCC. It is our human nature to go on the defense. I can even admit, that I am one who believes a good defense is a good offense and have vigoriously “attacked” back. I find myself doing better nowadays and only push back when being pushed, I’d much rather discuss these things.
   
   Welcome to the forums by the way.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

1. 
   *]When, exactly did this great apostasy occur?
   
   Mostly in the first 100 years after Christ’s death. Certainly it was complete by the 4th century.

1. 
   Hey Snow,
   
   I had an after thought after posting my last post. I’ve heard explanations from other Mormons, but as I’ve said, they don’t always match up. So, if you don’t mind, I’d like to ask how you reconcile the Bible canon being decided after the apostasy was supposed to have taken place?

 

[Snow]

Hey Snow,

I had an after thought after posting my last post. I’ve heard explanations from other Mormons, but as I’ve said, they don’t always match up.

You’ve said that 3 times now. Why should they match up?

The mechanics of the apostasy is not a doctrinal point or teaching of the Church. What is known about who, when, what, etc is a matter scholarship and history. There is no need for unity.

So, if you don’t mind, I’d like to ask how you reconcile the Bible canon being decided after the apostasy was supposed to have taken place?

It not an issue but there are lots of things to be said on the matter:

1. The majority of the Bible canon was settled on by the Jews, not Christians.
2. I think that the RCC Bible canon is in error which isn’t too surprising if one believes in an apostasy.
3. There is no definitive Bible canon. There are a number of different canons in Christianity,
4. Mormons, I think, do not believe that the Bible canon contains all that it could contain - that God revealed other truths that just never found their way into the Bible.
5. I don’t think that Catholics are in total error. They have lots of beliefs that are true or correct. One needn’t have apostolic succession to be inspired or to correctly assess scripture.
6. If you are familiar with the how the canon came into being, you know that it is not like a prophet kneeled down and God spoke to him about which books to include. Canon lists started in response to a “heretics” Bible canon. From there is a centuries long process of hit and miss, selection and deselection. It was haphazard. It is still not a settled issue as multiple canon’s exist.
7. By and large I think that the canon, the Protestant canon, is probably correct. It wouldn’t surprise me if God disagreed - wanting to exclude something or include something else… but in as much as God hasn’t said whether He agrees, we’ll have to make do.

 

[BDawg]

Just to add to what Snow said:

1. Joseph Smith said that the Song of Solomon was not inspired. I guess he didn’t think that Solomon was “inspired” by the right source when he was rhapsodizing about a woman’s breasts, and such. And he didn’t buy the explanation that it is an allegory of God’s love for the Church.
2. Joseph Smith received a revelation about the Apocrypha that said basically that these books were mainly based on revelations from God, but had been heavily interpolated, so there was no need to include them in our canon.

So honestly, Prodigal, I have never understood why anyone would think that the “Catholic authority determined the canon” argument would have any effect on a Mormon. It’s just sort of a throw-away sound bite.

 

[Snow]

I have explored the topic, with other Mormons. The trouble for me, is I usually receive different responses from each.

I will address my thoughts on the apostasy, so you might understand my belief on the subject.

During the time period the great apostasy was to have taken place, Christians had many persecutors.

The Jews were accused of killing the Messiah and surely would have found vindication in a failed Church from the Messiah. The Jewish people acknowledge the existance Christ, but have never acknowledged a great apostasy.

The Romans tried everything to crush the new found religion. Julian the Apostate misunderstood Christ’s prophesy of the destruction of the Temple to say it would never be rebuilt. Julian tried, unsuccessfully, to rebuild the Temple to prove Christ to be a false prophet. Romans martyred many early Church fathers and other Christians for centuries. Surely a great apostasy would have been a tool they would have used against Christianity. They left no writings about a great apostasy.

The Romans thought all of Christianity was a dangerous cult of lunatics. I do think it is reasonable to maintain that Rome would be interested in proving that some Christians weren’t following the cult’s beliefs as well as they should have, Rome didn’t have a good grasp of Christian beliefs anyway.

Historians find personal recognition in the facts they reveal, yet no historian ever documented something as huge as the great apostasy.

That’s simply not true. Though I am not a great student of the apostasy, I am aware of a numerous historical treatments of the topic. I’m thinking of Will Durant, Gibbons, JWC Wand, etc. There are lots.

Many people wrote and acknowledged Christ, many times unfavorably. No one writing about a great apostasy becomes suspicious, in my opinion.

It seems all those Christians who supposedly apostasized, would have documented the great apostasy to justify apostasizing from Christ’s Church.

That too is untrue. People did write about it, starting in the New Testament itself. The Early Fathers spoke of the apostasy. Clement. Ignatius, Cyril come to mind but there are others.

Our Church has recorded heresies and Church actions or defenses. These are evident to this day. Why wouldn’t the Church have recorded any action or defense against the great apostasy? It makes no sense to me.

I think that you are aware of the information that is available on the topic.

I saw you answer that St. Paul defended against an apostasy. I will admit, there were apostasies. I do not however, find evidence of a great apostasy, so great as to cause Christ’s Church to lose it’s authority. I think you’ll admit that even the Mormon Church had and still does suffer apostasies to this day. At what point does an apostasy become considered so great that your Church would be considered to lose all authority. I won’t bring them up specifically, unless you ask me to, but we know there have been divisions in the Mormon Church. One even claims an apostasy took place from the restored Gospel.

We, Catholics, do depend on scriptures stating what we believe is Christ passing authority to Peter and promising to be with us, “all days, even unto the consummation of the world.” We see the gates of hell not prevailing as part of His promises that the Church will be everlasting.

I respect your opinions and the time you take to explain them. I disagree, but that’s okay I hope.

 

[Snow]

I might be mistaken, but I thought I read one of your posts that you believe the Church was built on the “revelation of the rock”. I apologize if I’m mixing you up with someone else. Even though I did not address that particular post, I have addressed the revelation with other Mormons who haven’t responded to a basic question on the subject. How does the revelation of the rock bind and loose on earth with Christ’s promise to bind and loose the same in Heaven?

That the “rock” was revelation facilitated by priesthood authority is one view. It is not “revelation of the rock” that binds and looses. It is God priesthood authority placed on his chosen servants, for example prophets and revelators to whom he reveals his will.

I apologize for the long posting, but felt it fair to share my opinion of the great apostasy with you before we proceed, whatever direction that maybe.

While it may not be solely an LDS belief, so far I have only heard of the great apostasy from Mormons.

No, it’s not soley a Mormon concern. Most non-RCC, non-Angelican and non-Orthodox denominations have formally taught it at one time or another.

Here are a few quotes for reference:

Roger Williams, pastor of the oldest Baptist Church in America at Providence, Rhode Island, refused to continue as pastor on the grounds that, “There is no regularly-constituted church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any Church ordinance: nor can there be, until new apostles are sent by the great Head of the Church, for whose coming I am seeking.” (Picturesque America, or the Land We Live In, ed. William Cullen Bryant, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1872, vol. 1, p. 502.)

Williams also said, “The apostasy… hath so far corrupted all, that there can be no recovery out of that apostasy until Christ shall send forth new apostles to plant churches anew.” (Underhill, Edward, “Struggles and Triumphs of Religious Liberty”, cited in William F. Anderson, “Apostasy or Succession, Which?”, pp. 238-39)

In a work prepared by seventy-three noted theologians and Bible students, we read: “…we must not expect to see the Church of Holy Scripture actually existing in its perfection on the earth. It is not to be found, thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom, or still less in any one of these fragments. . . .” (Dr. William Smith, Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1896.)

There’s lots more.

I’d also like to say I appreciate your insight on the apostasy being used for the purposes of attacking the RCC. It is our human nature to go on the defense. I can even admit, that I am one who believes a good defense is a good offense and have vigoriously “attacked” back. I find myself doing better nowadays and only push back when being pushed, I’d much rather discuss these things.

Welcome to the forums by the way.

Thank you. Though I disagree with the RCC on many things, it is a great world religion worthy of much respect, awe and appreciation. Without, the world would be a much poorer place.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Just to add to what Snow said:

1. Joseph Smith said that the Song of Solomon was not inspired. I guess he didn’t think that Solomon was “inspired” by the right source when he was rhapsodizing about a woman’s breasts, and such. And he didn’t buy the explanation that it is an allegory of God’s love for the Church.
2. Joseph Smith received a revelation about the Apocrypha that said basically that these books were mainly based on revelations from God, but had been heavily interpolated, so there was no need to include them in our canon.

So honestly, Prodigal, I have never understood why anyone would think that the “Catholic authority determined the canon” argument would have any effect on a Mormon. It’s just sort of a throw-away sound bite.

Hey BDawg, long time.

I notice a difference in Joseph Smith’s “interpretations”, between points 1 and 2. That being that he considered the book of Solomon as not inspired and wasn’t through a revelation? Or was it?

In number 2, you state in your canon. This is new to me, I didn’t realize Mormons had their own canon. I was under the impression that most Mormons used the King James Version.

So, it’s safe to assume that all Mormons don’t think the Bible to be totally inerrant? How do you decide which parts can be trusted and which cannot? Doesn’t this also lead to problems as far as the Bible is considered God breathed, or inspired, by most Christians?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That the “rock” was revelation facilitated by priesthood authority is one view. It is not “revelation of the rock” that binds and looses. It is God priesthood authority placed on his chosen servants, for example prophets and revelators to whom he reveals his will.

Why couldn’t the Apostles have setup apostolic succession, before they all died? And, I almost hate to bring this up from the heated converstations I remember when it was last discussed, but isn’t it a Mormon belief that St. John, the beloved disciple, was “translated” and did not die? This confuses me as to how it is believed that Christ would have removed one of the last Apostles thereby setting His own Church up to fail?

Also, how what is the Mormon interpretation of Christ’s promise to be with us, all days even unto the consummation of the world?

**Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. **

Catholics believe He was speaking to His Apostles, who made up His Church. We also know scriptures tell us Christ told people to take “disputes” to the Church, again signifying Christ’s intentions that the Church would be with us all days.

**Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. **

No, it’s not soley a Mormon concern. Most non-RCC, non-Angelican and non-Orthodox denominations have formally taught it at one time or another.

Here are a few quotes for reference:

Roger Williams, pastor of the oldest Baptist Church in America at Providence, Rhode Island, refused to continue as pastor on the grounds that, “There is no regularly-constituted church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any Church ordinance: nor can there be, until new apostles are sent by the great Head of the Church, for whose coming I am seeking.” (Picturesque America, or the Land We Live In, ed. William Cullen Bryant, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1872, vol. 1, p. 502.)

Williams also said, “The apostasy… hath so far corrupted all, that there can be no recovery out of that apostasy until Christ shall send forth new apostles to plant churches anew.” (Underhill, Edward, “Struggles and Triumphs of Religious Liberty”, cited in William F. Anderson, “Apostasy or Succession, Which?”, pp. 238-39)

In a work prepared by seventy-three noted theologians and Bible students, we read: “…we must not expect to see the Church of Holy Scripture actually existing in its perfection on the earth. It is not to be found, thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom, or still less in any one of these fragments. . . .” (Dr. William Smith, Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1896.)

There’s lots more.

Thanks for the posted information. Is there a website with those in their entirety? I’d like to see what sources they used. To be honest, I’d need something morely timely to the time of the apostasy to give it any consideration.

Thank you. Though I disagree with the RCC on many things, it is a great world religion worthy of much respect, awe and appreciation. Without, the world would be a much poorer place.

Even though I, personally, may not understand the disagreement, I can accept disagreement when there’s no ad hominems, condescending attitudes, or no “your wrong, I’m right” arguments attached, without an honest approach to the discussion. I think that’s human nature and applies to all of us, at least I hope I’m not a loner in that respect. I really think some have lost their temper with me because I do ask alot of questions, and I feel justified in making them as tough as I can. This are important issues we discuss, in my opinion.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Those who have accepted a new gospel about an apostacy of the apostolic church has to contend with denying Jesus conferring a Kingdom upon the apostles. I just dont get how Mormons or apostacy believers can live with themselves calling God a liar, and denying all the statements from Jesus himself, about building his church.
Luke 22:27
For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves.
28
It is you who have stood by me in my trials;
**29
and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me,
30
that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. **

People who accept this apostacy of late invention by man, cannot provide any facts of the name of the people, province, exact date, and why? History proves this invention never happened. The Catholic church and Pagan Rome have a recorded history dating from the first century through the fourth century, no mention of a total apostacy. What inventions the evil one invents in man to tempt him away from the body of Jesus Christ.

To attempt to date an apostacy through 4 centuries, really insults the intelligence of people, without providing facts. Rhetoric does not constitute as proof or fact.

 

[Snow]

Why couldn’t the Apostles have setup apostolic succession, before they all died? And, I almost hate to bring this up from the heated converstations

The argument isn’t that they “couldn’t;” but rather circumstances were that they didn’t.

I remember when it was last discussed, but isn’t it a Mormon belief that St. John, the beloved disciple, was “translated” and did not die? This confuses me as to how it is believed that Christ would have removed one of the last Apostles thereby setting His own Church up to fail?

1. We don’t believe that Christ’s Church has failed. We believe that it is alive and kicking.
2. The same argument can be said for Judaism. The Jews were the Chosen People. Can could God have let them go astray and reject the Savior?

Also, how what is the Mormon interpretation of Christ’s promise to be with us, all days even unto the consummation of the world?

Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Catholics believe He was speaking to His Apostles, who made up His Church. We also know scriptures tell us Christ told people to take “disputes” to the Church, again signifying Christ’s intentions that the Church would be with us all days.

**Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. **

We don’t believe that God abandoned the earth. His influence and some of his truth remained with good and righteous men all though the last 2000 years even though they may not have had all truth and valid authority. The Light of Christ guided them. Undoubtedly some of those were Catholic.

Thanks for the posted information. Is there a website with those in their entirety? I’d like to see what sources they used.

If you are looking for that kind of detail, you’d probably have to get a book length scholarly treatment. I took the quotes from here:

fairlds.org/Apostasy/Apostasy_Recognized_by_Reformationists.html

To be honest, I’d need something morely timely to the time of the apostasy to give it any consideration.

The quotes were posted in response to your assertion that only Mormons believed the apostasy.

Here are a few Early Father quotes that indicate something foul was up:

Clement of Rome:

“that shameful and detestable sedition” by which the: “worthless rose up against the honoured, those of no reputation against such as were renowned, the foolish against the wise, the young against those advanced in years. For this reason righteousness and peace are now far departed from you, inasmuch as every one abandons the fear of God, and is become blind in his faith, neither walks in the ordinances of his appointment, nor acts a part becoming a Christian, but walks after his own wicked lusts." Clement, “Against Heresiess,” (None) Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:462.

“It is right and holy therefore, men and brethren, rather to obey God than to follow those who, through pride and sedition, have become the leaders of a detestable emulation.” Clement, “1 Clement,” (1,3) Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:5–6

Hegesippus:

“the church continued until then as a pure virgin and uncorrupt virgin: whilst if there were any at all attempted to pervert the sound doctrine of the saving gospel, they were yet skulking in dark retreats; but when the sacred choir of apostles became extinct, and the generation of those that had been privileged to hear their inspired wisdom had passed away, then also the combination of impious errors arose by fraud and delusions of false teachers. These also, as there were none of the apostles left, henceforth attempted, without shame to preach their false doctrine against the gospel of truth.” Eusebius Pamphilius of Cæsarea, Ecclesiastical History; available in Philip Schaff (editor), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series 2 (Vol. 1-14) (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890–1899), 1:volume 3, chapter 32

Cyril of Jerusalem:

" thus wrote Paul, and now is the falling away. For men have fallen from the right faith; and some preach the identity of the Son with the Father, and others dare to say that Christ was brought into being out of nothing. And formerly the heretics were manifest openly; but now the church is filled with heretics in disguise. For men have fallen away from the truth, and have itching ears…most have departed from right words, and rather choose the evil, than desire the good. This, therefore, is the falling away." Philip Schaff (editor), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series 2 (Vol. 1-14) (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890–1899), 7:106–107.

Best regards.

 

[Snow]

Those who have accepted a new gospel about an apostacy of the apostolic church has to contend with denying Jesus conferring a Kingdom upon the apostles. I just dont get how Mormons or apostacy believers can live with themselves calling God a liar, and denying all the statements from Jesus himself, about building his church.

Egads - what a simpleton and deceptive tactic… claiming that unless I agree with you about the apostasy/apostolic church, then I believe God is a liar. It is the kind of argument that very young or very uneducated people make.

I don’t think God is a liar.

People who accept this apostacy of late invention by man, cannot provide any facts of the name of the people, province, exact date, and why? History proves this invention never happened. The Catholic church and Pagan Rome have a recorded history dating from the first century through the fourth century, no mention of a total apostacy. What inventions the evil one invents in man to tempt him away from the body of Jesus Christ.

They can’t provide any facts? Really?

What did you think of Durrant’s work on the topic? How about Wand’s scholarship?

Did you not think that Bennett and Bentley, to say nothing of Seidel and Paulsen provided some facts and dates? Seriously, I’d like to know.

To attempt to date an apostacy through 4 centuries, really insults the intelligence of people, without providing facts. Rhetoric does not constitute as proof or fact.

Let’s see if you can man up and provide facts instead of rhetoric like you preach. You made a very positive claim; you asserted it as fact - that those that believe in the apostasy cannot provide any facts or dates. He who makes the claim bears the burden of proof.

Can you prove your claims?

I’ll wait.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The argument isn’t that they “couldn’t;” but rather circumstances were that they didn’t.

I believe you saw the scriptures I posted showing the replacement of Judas, with Matthias. That appears to be the beginning of apostolic succession, so it makes it hard for one to accept that they “didn’t”.

1. We don’t believe that Christ’s Church has failed. We believe that it is alive and kicking.

I understand what you believe now, but had there been an apostasy so great as to cause the Church to lose it’s authority, isn’t it considered by Mormons that there was a lapse where there was no Church?

1. The same argument can be said for Judaism. The Jews were the Chosen People. Can could God have let them go astray and reject the Savior?

That’s a good point. While you may not agree with me, let’s look at the rise of Christianity. Was there a total apostasy of the Jews? No, Jews and gentiles were converted to Christianity, the new convenant with God. So not all Jews were “lost”. Christ Himself was a Jew.

We don’t believe that God abandoned the earth. His influence and some of his truth remained with good and righteous men all though the last 2000 years even though they may not have had all truth and valid authority. The Light of Christ guided them. Undoubtedly some of those were Catholic.

Seems to contradict an apostasy in the respect that even a few men could have maintained the Church Christ created, with the protection of the Holy Spirit, which would have prevented a total apostasy.

If you are looking for that kind of detail, you’d probably have to get a book length scholarly treatment. I took the quotes from here:

The quotes were posted in response to your assertion that only Mormons believed the apostasy.

It was more a question than an assertion. I normally hear reformation used by Protestants. Again, I’d consider evidence from the era we’re discussing. Just so you know, I am in the midst of a project to read the writings of the early Church fathers. As it appears you’re familiar with those writings, I’d assume you realize that could be a long time read.

Here are a few Early Father quotes that indicate something foul was up:

Clement of Rome:

“that shameful and detestable sedition” by which the: “worthless rose up against the honoured, those of no reputation against such as were renowned, the foolish against the wise, the young against those advanced in years. For this reason righteousness and peace are now far departed from you, inasmuch as every one abandons the fear of God, and is become blind in his faith, neither walks in the ordinances of his appointment, nor acts a part becoming a Christian, but walks after his own wicked lusts." Clement, “Against Heresiess,” (None) Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:462.

“It is right and holy therefore, men and brethren, rather to obey God than to follow those who, through pride and sedition, have become the leaders of a detestable emulation.” Clement, “1 Clement,” (1,3) Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:5–6

Hegesippus:

“the church continued until then as a pure virgin and uncorrupt virgin: whilst if there were any at all attempted to pervert the sound doctrine of the saving gospel, they were yet skulking in dark retreats; but when the sacred choir of apostles became extinct, and the generation of those that had been privileged to hear their inspired wisdom had passed away, then also the combination of impious errors arose by fraud and delusions of false teachers. These also, as there were none of the apostles left, henceforth attempted, without shame to preach their false doctrine against the gospel of truth.” Eusebius Pamphilius of Cæsarea, Ecclesiastical History; available in Philip Schaff (editor), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series 2 (Vol. 1-14) (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890–1899), 1:volume 3, chapter 32

Cyril of Jerusalem:

" thus wrote Paul, and now is the falling away. For men have fallen from the right faith; and some preach the identity of the Son with the Father, and others dare to say that Christ was brought into being out of nothing. And formerly the heretics were manifest openly; but now the church is filled with heretics in disguise. For men have fallen away from the truth, and have itching ears…most have departed from right words, and rather choose the evil, than desire the good. This, therefore, is the falling away." Philip Schaff (editor), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series 2 (Vol. 1-14) (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890–1899), 7:106–107.

Best regards.

Again, and I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, those being discussed in the above passages were heretics. Hegesippus for example could have been referring to the Gnostics or those of Marcion. I’ve seen a small bit on some of the heresies, but will readily admit I need to familiarize myself to a greater extent.

Anyways, being heretics or apostates does not make a total apostasy, seemingly apparent by the fact that they were written about as preaching their false doctrine against the gospel of truth, which seems to indicate the gospel of truth still existed at that time.

Hegesippus was known as contributing writings which were considered Church history.

“And the Church of the Corinthians remained in the true word until Primus was bishop in Corinth; I made their acquaintance in my journey to Rome, and remained with the Corinthians many days, in which we were refreshed with the true word. And when I was in Rome, I made a succession up to Pope Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleuterus. And in each succession and in each city all is according to the ordinances of the law and the Prophets and the Lord”

Once more, I want to say I appreciate the tone of our discussion.

God Bless,