Do LDS Believe A Premillenial Rapture Occurred Prior to the Great Apostasy?

[amgid]

Robert in SD:

The issue comes down to one of authority. The Church is the institution with authority.

You hit the nail on the head with this one. Thank you for bringing it up. I don’t really need to discuss anything else in your post apart from that, because it is the crux of the whole issue, as you have quite rightly pointed out. The truth is that the Christian church did not, and does not, and never has had that “authority” ever since the Apostles died. As long as they lived, the authority was vested in them. When they died, that authority disappeared from the face of the earth, and the church was left without any authority. That is what is meant by the “Apostasy” of the early church.

In the fourth century, when a serious theological controversy arose in the church, Constantine called a council of the bishops in his empire to come together to resolve the controversy. In other words, there was no “authority” in the church itself to act as such, to call such a council (assuming such a council was required in the first place). There was not even a Pope! It was left to Constantine, a Roman emperor, to do it. That makes Constantine the de-facto “authority” of the church. Now I know that that is an uncomfortable fact for our Christian friends to contemplate; but that is the reality we face. Now how much real ecclesiastical “authority” did Constantine have in the Church? The answer is none! And that is where the case for the “authority” of the early Christian church closes.

Now contrast this with how things were done when the Apostles were still alive. In those days too a serious theological controversy arose in the church. Certain Jewish converts to Christianity started teaching that the Gentile converts had to be circumcised when they converted to the gospel, otherwise they could not be called real as Christians! This controversy eventually became so serious that it had to be authoritatively resolved. Well, how did they resolve it? Not by taking the matter to the Roman emperor! It was taken before the Apostles at Jerusalem to decide upon. The Apostles met in council, and a decision was reached by apostolic authority and by divine inspiration to which the Apostles were entitled, and the decision was communicated to the church by an authoritative letter from them. You will find the full account in Acts 15. I quote below an extract from that letter:

Acts 15:

23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: {this is the “authority” making itself manifest!}

25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, …
That is how the church of God was meant to be governed from the beginning, by revelation, and by prophetic and apostolic authority, and not by the lack of it. That authority was lost to the church early on, hence all the doctrinal, theological, procedural, and other difficulties that arose in the Church later on, and to all practical purposes destroyed it.

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgid:

The truth is that the Christian church did not, and does not, and never has had that “authority” ever since the Apostles died. As long as they lived, the authority was vested in them. When they died, that authority disappeared from the face of the earth, and the church was left without any authority. That is what is meant by the “Apostasy” of the early church.

This denies the logical and biblical account of the apostles stewardship of the church. We know that they called bishops, priests and deacons and gave them priesthood authority. If you believe that the Apostles truly had the proper authority to lead the church then you must accept that the callings they issued and ordinances they performed were valid. That provides for a whole new group of “authorized” leaders. No account even in LDS scripture exists of their priesthood authority being revoked. No apostasy there.

amgid:

In the fourth century, when a serious theological controversy arose in the church, Constantine called a council of the bishops in his empire to come together to resolve the controversy. In other words, there was no “authority” in the church itself to act as such, to call such a council (assuming such a council was required in the first place). There was not even a Pope! It was left to Constantine, a Roman emperor, to do it. That makes Constantine the de-facto “authority” of the church.

sounds pretty arbitrary. for years the church had to hide from persecution. When it was finally allowed to exist openly it should not surprise anyone that the temporal ruler who enabled that would ask for spiritual guidance. Obviously he did not claim leadership of the church for himself or he wouldn’t have asked for this council. He would have directed the results he wanted to become law. Absolutely no basis for declaring him the “defacto” ruler of the church. The pope is the bishop of Rome. That position existed then and it’s primacy is established before then by the ECFs. The bishops had proper priesthood authority from an unbroken apostolic lineage. Once again there is no account of any of these having their priesthood authority revoked. No apostasy there either.

amgid:

Now contrast this with how things were done when the Apostles were still alive. In those days too a serious theological controversy arose in the church. Certain Jewish converts to Christianity started teaching that the Gentile converts had to be circumcised when they converted to the gospel, otherwise they could not be called real as Christians! This controversy eventually became so serious that it had to be authoritatively resolved. Well, how did they resolve it? Not by taking the matter to the Roman emperor! It was taken before the Apostles at Jerusalem to decide upon. The Apostles met in council, and a decision was reached by apostolic authority and by divine inspiration to which the Apostles were entitled, and the decision was communicated to the church by an authoritative letter from them. You will find the full account in Acts 15.

Yes the council of Jerusalem the template for future councils of the church. The emperor at that time was pagan and hostile to christianity so of course he isn’t involved. The bishops didn’t take any matters to constantine either. He asked for guidance, they met in council and while there determined the issues just like the Apostles did in your referenced scripture. Once again no apostasy.

amgid:

That is how the church of God was meant to be governed from the beginning, by revelation, and by prophetic and apostolic authority, and not by the lack of it. That authority was lost to the church early on, hence all the doctrinal, theological, procedural, and other difficulties that arose in the Church later on, and to all practical purposes destroyed it.

amgid

Which one of these apostles in acts claims to be the prophet? What did they declare fron this council to be “revelation”? notice they specifically differentiate the prophets from themselves in this chapter when they were reconciling their council with scripture. They tell us of the guidance of the Holy Spirit which the RCC has always claimed. They do NOT speak of the revelatory process for church leadership that JS used. apostolic authority exists today in the RCC. The Bible never tells us that a prophet must or even should lead the church. The apostles teach us in the letter to the hebrews that it was under the OLD covenant that God spoke through prophets. The new covenant has the complete message through Jesus Christ. Still no apostasy. The RCC still does things just like in Acts.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Dear amgid;

You said:

amgid:

The truth is that the Christian church did not, and does not, and never has had that “authority” ever since the Apostles died.

To believe this, one must contradict clear scripture passages that show it was Jesus’ intention to leave a Church with authority. Mt. 7:24-27 - Is Jesus the foolish man who built his house on sand, or did he build his house on rock? Mt. 16:13-18 (Jesus built his Church on the Rock - Peter.) Jesus also instructed His disciples to go to the Church to settle disputes, which presumes a Church with authority. Mt. 18:15-18. He did not say that this Church authority would leave with the Apostles. To the contrary, he told his followers that he would be with them until the end of the age. Mt. 28:20. St. Paul calls the Church the “pillar and ground of the truth.” 1 Tim 3:15 (KJV). Why would he call it that if it was soon to vanish from the Earth?

amgid:

In the fourth century, when a serious theological controversy arose in the church, Constantine called a council of the bishops in his empire to come together to resolve the controversy. In other words, there was no “authority” in the church itself to act as such, to call such a council (assuming such a council was required in the first place). There was not even a Pope! It was left to Constantine, a Roman emperor, to do it. That makes Constantine the de-facto “authority” of the church.

Where is your historical authority for the statement that there was no pope? Where is your historical authority for the statement that Constantine was the “de facto” pope? Both conclusions are simply unwarranted by the facts.

The emperor was not a bishop. He did not have the religious authority to participate in a church council. Instead, he “begged” the bishops to come together to address the religious strife in the empire that was caused by the Arian heresy. The council was apparently convened by agreement with Pope St. Sylvester I, but even if the emperor had “ordered” the bishops to meet regarding the heresy, he had no authority over their decisions. The authority resided in the bishops - the successors to the Apostles - and Constantine recognized this or else he simply would have resolved the Arian controversy by emperial edict.

Contrary to your unsupported statement, amgid, there *was * a pope in Rome during Nicea I, and yes, he did send his representatives to the Council and they did ratify the Council’s conclusions. Although Constantine did speak to the Council, he did not preside over the meeting of bishops, nor did he have order the outcome of the proceedings, or even participate in the deliberations. Your assumption that Constantine was de facto “pope” because he convened a council by begging the bishops to come together is simply not supported by history or common sense. The argument is, however, quite a popular myth among some of the more rabid anti-catholics.

The authority of the Church lay where it always has, in the bishops - the successors of the Apostles - led by the bishop of Rome. It was as true in the early 300s as it is today. So, it is not I that must feel uncomfortable about history, or the lack of Constantine’s ecclesial authority. I never claimed that the Church’s authority relied upon Constantine, although the Church does have him to thank for acting with the Pope to convene the council of bishops in Nicea, who under the guidance of the Holy See, resolved the Arian heresy.

Here’s the link to the First Council of Nicea:

Council of Nicea

Here’s the link to Pope St. Sylvester I:

Pope St. Sylvester I

 

[amgid]

majick275:

This denies the logical and biblical account of the apostles stewardship of the church. We know that they called bishops, priests and deacons and gave them priesthood authority. If you believe that the Apostles truly had the proper authority to lead the church then you must accept that the callings they issued and ordinances they performed were valid. That provides for a whole new group of “authorized” leaders. No account even in LDS scripture exists of their priesthood authority being revoked.

Bishops, priests, and deacons only have local jurisdiction over the locality over which they were called to preside, or in which they were called to function. They did not have the authority over the whole church decide matters church wide. If that was the case, the issue over the circumcision of the Gentiles would have been resolved by themselves, instead of sending it over to Jerusalem for the Apostles to decide upon.

No apostasy there.

Plenty of apostasy there, plenty!

sounds pretty arbitrary. for years the church had to hide from persecution. When it was finally allowed to exist openly it should not surprise anyone that the temporal ruler who enabled that would ask for spiritual guidance. Obviously he did not claim leadership of the church for himself or he wouldn’t have asked for this council. He would have directed the results he wanted to become law. Absolutely no basis for declaring him the “defacto” ruler of the church.

You can say what you like; but the church did not have a head, either individually (like a Pope) or collectively, like the quorum of the Twelve Apostles. There were plenty of bishops, priests, deacons, but no general church leadership; and it didn’t claim to have one. That is why Constantine moved in to fill the vacuum, effectively acting as a figurehead.

The pope is the bishop of Rome. That position existed then and it’s primacy is established before then by the ECFs.

The bishop of Rome is just the bishop of Rom. He has no more jurisdiction or ecclesiastical authority over the whole church than any other bishop does. The bishop is a localized authority. It was never part of the original ecclesiastical hierarchy of the church that one bishop should rule over another bishop, or preside over the whole church. Only the Apostles had that authority. When they died that authority ceased to function in the church. The bishop of Rome only had jurisdiction over Rome; the bishop of Antioch over Antioch; and the bishop of Jerusalem over Jerusalem. The bishop of Antioch couldn’t go to Jerusalem and tell the bishop of Jerusalem what to do, or run his dieses for him. Neither could the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop.

The bishops had proper priesthood authority from an unbroken apostolic lineage. Once again there is no account of any of these having their priesthood authority revoked.

They had priesthood authority only over their own ecclesiastical jurisdiction, not over the whole church. Only the Apostles had that authority. When they died, that authority disappeared with them.

No apostasy there either.

Plenty of apostasy there too, plenty!

Yes the council of Jerusalem the template for future councils of the church. The emperor at that time was pagan and hostile to christianity so of course he isn’t involved.

The council of Jerusalem consisted of the Twelve Apostles who had universal jurisdiction over the whole church. The bishops did not.

The bishops didn’t take any matters to constantine either. He asked for guidance, they met in council and while there determined the issues just like the Apostles did in your referenced scripture.

Constantine not summoned the council of Nicaea. He also presided over it, and chaired the meetings, and participated in the debates. He even used his imperial authority to influence the outcome. By his actions he became the de-facto head of the church.

Once again no apostasy.

Once again, plenty of apostasy!

Which one of these apostles in acts claims to be the prophet?

All of them did! The office of an Apostle is greater than that of a prophet, and includes that function within it.

What did they declare fron this council to be “revelation”?

Their decision was made under true Apostolic authority which the Lord had given them, and by the power of the Holy Ghost, and it was made by divine inspiration revelation.

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

notice they specifically differentiate the prophets from themselves in this chapter when they were reconciling their council with scripture.

The office of an Apostle is different from that of a prophet. The office of Apostle is greater than that of prophet, and incorporates that office and gift within it.

They tell us of the guidance of the Holy Spirit which the RCC has always claimed. They do NOT speak of the revelatory process for church leadership that JS used.

They governed the Church under precisely the same revelatory process that Joseph Smith claimed.

apostolic authority exists today in the RCC.

It does not. The Apostles, when acting as the governing body of the church, form a quorum, and their number stays fixed at twelve. That institution and authority disappeared form the earth when the Apostles died.

The Bible never tells us that a prophet must or even should lead the church.

The Bible tells us that God’s church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph. 2:20). The Bible tells us that God “hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues” (1 Cor. 12:28). The office of Apostles and prophets were never meant to be done away in the true church of God; any more than the offices of “teachers,” “miracles,” “helps,” and “governments” were meant to be done away. The Bible also tells us:

Ephesians 4:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
The offices of “Apostle” and “prophet” was never meant to be done away, any more than the offices of “evangelists,” “pastors,” and “teachers” were meant to be dine away. Further more, all these offices were necessary for the church “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, …;” and interestingly, that “we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, …” Have we already come to the “unity of faith” that these offices should be done away? The latter quote is particularly significant in the light of all the “winds of doctrine” that has “carried about” the Christian church, and “tossed it to and fro” during the past 2000 years. That is precisely why prophets and Apostles, along with all the other offices of the priesthood, are required in the true Church of God at all generation of time, not just in ancient times, so that we may come to the “unity of faith,” and avoid being “tossed to and fro” and “carried about with every wind of doctrine,” as the Christian world has been ever since the Apostles dies.

The apostles teach us in the letter to the hebrews that it was under the OLD covenant that God spoke through prophets. The new covenant has the complete message through Jesus Christ.

You are misreading, misquoting, and misunderstanding the scriptures. The scripture you are referring to is as follows:

Hebrews 1:

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
This does not mean that there should be no more prophets. God never intended that institution to be done away in His church. If that were the case, how do you explain all the prophets and prophesyings in NT times? See discussion above.

Still no apostasy.

Still plenty of apostasy!

The RCC still does things just like in Acts.

Far from it. In the Acts decisions were made by divine authority by true prophets and Apostles. The RCC has none such authority to make such decisions.

amgid

 

[catholic-rcia]

Amgid

The Church is led not by men but rather the Holy Spirit, the love between the Father and the Son. Do you not know that the Pope is the lowest of them all on earth in serving? Did not Jesus show us this when he washed the disciple’s feet. Jesus placed Himself in the lowest position on earth, but the world repulsed Him just as those repulse His Church, they look to the sin and say “see” …No surprise to us fallen Catholics with Jesus in our lives.

We then look to Jesus and say “see”… in all this we still have Him. Pride with Jesus was the issue that he came to resolve, but Jesus did not have this demise as we do. We all have pride, loose it if only for a moment and you will find the peace you are searching for in Christ. Find a Chapel and spend some time there, contemplate the Sacrifice, this sacrifice is for you Amgid.

Jesus must become all to you, he is your Creator seen and heard. He has all the love of eternity to offer you, nothing more and nothing less. Can you see yourself as being created by a Creator out of nothing just to be loved? Thinks of this in terms of a gift. This gift can get you excited towards Him.

Here is our Leader, all others follow (all others)

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c3a8.htm#687

Here is the beginning of our Mission as a Church, the body of Christ in the world. This is why you have come to know His name, now maybe it is time to come to know your God.

http://catholic-rcia.com/pages/Holy_Spirit.html

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c3a8.htm#727

God Bless

Peace In Christ Jesus

 

[majick275]

amgid,
you need to read your D&C. You don’t seem to get the LDS concept of priesthood authority. What does the D&C say if there is an absence of higher preisthood? it goes all the way down to deacons being in charge if there are no higher priesthood holders present.

You can say that’s local only but where does it say that in the scriptures? Is an elder only an elder in his home ward? Of course not. When JS and OC got the priesthood what were their callings? First and second elder. No apostles… so how does that fit in with your absolute necessity of twelve apostles being called? you don’t have that now. You have 15.

The office of apostle is higher than prophet? wow, I wonder if GBH knows that. Show me that in scripture. Maybe LDS have changed their doctrine again.

In any case you never show am single example in scripture or history of those whom the apostles called and ordained having their priesthood revoked. You do not show scriptural examples of the church being unable to function without Apostles. You simply have not shown any apostasy. We know how the apostles conducted the church and we see that consistently in the early christian church and the current RCC.

We do NOT see the LDS being run the same as it was in the beginning of itself much less the biblical christian church. You give no evidence nor even analysis to suport your claim. there was no great apostasy. Jesus came at the right time, didn’t mess up, didn’t abandon the entire world for 1800 years and we still have his church today.

Repent and be baptized.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

you need to read your D&C. You don’t seem to get the LDS concept of priesthood authority. What does the D&C say if there is an absence of higher preisthood? it goes all the way down to deacons being in charge if there are no higher priesthood holders present.

First of all, thank you for the complement of trying to support the Catholic position by appealing to the D&C! But unfortunately you did not understand the D&C correctly. That principle only applies to a temporary occurrence. If the entire bishopric of my ward for example were off sick one day, then a high priest in the ward could take charge of the meeting as a temporary measure. If all the high priests were off sick as well (must be bird flu I am sure!) then the elders could take charge as a temporary measure. But it does not mean that the entire church could be permanently governed that way.

You can say that’s local only but where does it say that in the scriptures?

Common sense tells us that. If that wasn’t the case, there would be chaos. Nobody would know who was in charge of what. The bishop of Antioch could interfere with the decisions of the bishop of Jerusalem and the bishop of Jerusalem could interfere with the decisions of the bishop of Rome. The house of God is a house of order, not a house of confusion

Is an elder only an elder in his home ward? Of course not.

Yes, he is! He only holds the keys of the priesthood to function in his own ward and stake. He cannot go to another ward or stake and function as an elder without authorization from the leadership of that ward or stake, or unless his record is transferred to that ward and stake. I can’t just go to another ward, and baptize or ordain someone, or even do home teaching there, without proper authorization of the leadership of that ward or stake. I only hold the keys to function in my own ward and stake, not in another.

When JS and OC got the priesthood what were their callings? First and second elder. No apostles… so how does that fit in with your absolute necessity of twelve apostles being called? you don’t have that now. You have 15.

That is because at that time the Church had not yet been organized. The Lord had just begun and was in the process of organizing it. There was no First Presidency or Twelve Apostles as yet. The whole structure had to be built up from ground up, one step at a time.

The office of apostle is higher than prophet? wow, I wonder if GBH knows that. Show me that in scripture. Maybe LDS have changed their doctrine again.

An Apostle is a seer and revelator as well as a prophet, and possesses the keys of building the kingdom of God in all the world. He is also an especial witness of Jesus Christ. There can only be twelve Apostles at any one time, but there can be any number of prophets at any one time.

The President of the Church too has a far higher calling than that of a mere prophet. He is often addressed as “prophet” by popular culture. But that is not his official title. His official title is “Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church”. He is a High Priest who has been elected to preside over the high priesthood, hence the whole Church, and holds the keys of presidency, priesthood, and revelation over the Church. He acts in concert with his two counselors who share jointly those keys with him. He is also designated “Prophet, Seer and Revelator”. But he is often called the “Prophet” because in popular culture that is the term that is given to someone engaged in that kind of activity.

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

In any case you never show am single example in scripture or history of those whom the apostles called and ordained having their priesthood revoked.

Two problems with that. Firstly, the Church of God must be led by revelation from God. If the head of the church is cut off, so that it can no longer communicate directly with God, the church dies. Secondly, it is true that those ordained to the priesthood did not have their priesthood revoked; but once the head of the church is cut off, the keys of the priesthood over the whole church is lost. If you know anything about LDS theology, you know that a distinction is made the priesthood and the keys of the priesthood. I am an elder, and hold the priesthood; but I hold the keys of exercising that priesthood within the Church by authorization of the leadership of my ward and stake, who in turn possess them by authorization from the Presidency of the Church. They could revoke those keys from me any time they want, and I could not longer exercise my priesthood in the Church until they were restored. If the head and leadership of the Church were to be cut off, the keys of the priesthood over the whole Church would be lost, and the entire priesthood of the Church would become dysfunctional.

You do not show scriptural examples of the church being unable to function without Apostles.

I did. I gave you plenty of scriptural quotes showing that the Twelve Apostles constitute the governing council and “foundation” of the Church, without which the church could not function as a true church of God.

You simply have not shown any apostasy.

I think I have!

We know how the apostles conducted the church and we see that consistently in the early christian church and the current RCC.

Not true. The early Church was led by revelation from God, through Apostles and prophets. The RCC and the rest of Christendom have not been and are not.

We do NOT see the LDS being run the same as it was in the beginning of itself much less the biblical christian church.

The LDS Church had to be built up from scratch. A house doesn’t look the same when the foundation is being laid and after it is finished. First Joseph was called to translate the Book of Mormon, by the gift and the power of God. Then the Aaronic Priesthood was restored. Then the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored. Then the offices in these priesthoods were organized, including the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles. It had to be done on step at a time. Of course it didn’t look the same when it was just started, compared to when it was finished.

You give no evidence nor even analysis to suport your claim.

I believe I have.

there was no great apostasy.

There was!

Jesus came at the right time,

I am sure He did!

didn’t mess up,

I am sure He didn’t!

didn’t abandon the entire world for 1800 years

I am sure He didn’t do that either. There were (and still are) many good and virtuous people in the Christian world who acted in good faith and out of genuine faith and belief in Jesus Christ, and no doubt they had His divine approval and will be saved.

and we still have his church today.

Yes, it is called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!

Repent and be baptized.

Give me a break.

amgid

 

[JohnnyR]

amgid,

The house of God is a house of order with the Bishop of Rome, Peter’s successor. The Bishop of Rome holds the apostolic keys. The Catholic Church receives divine assistance. The Catholic Church has the living Magisterium. After the apostles died the Church established by Christ did not die. The ‘keys’ of the apostles were transferred to the bishops, the apostles successors.

The twelve apostles are the foundation of the Church. With the deaths of the Twelve Apostles the essential activity of the Twelve Apostles in building up and extending the Church did not entirely disappear and the Apostolic Primacy of Peter did not completely vanish. This foundation created for the Church by its Founder did not disappear with the person of Peter, but continued (as actual history shows) in the primacy of the Roman Church and its bishops.

The apostasy described in the Bible best fits Mormonism. Mormonism is an example of apostasy from the truth. The Bible reveals that their will be false prophets and religious deception.

The LDS Church fabricated their 'keys" because the apostolic keys were passed from Peter to the bishops who are the apostles successors.

JohnnyR

 

[amgid]

JohnnyR:

The house of God is a house of order with the Bishop of Rome, Peter’s successor. The Bishop of Rome holds the apostolic keys. The Catholic Church receives divine assistance. The Catholic Church has the living Magisterium. After the apostles died the Church established by Christ did not die. The ‘keys’ of the apostles were transferred to the bishops, the apostles successors.

The twelve apostles are the foundation of the Church. With the deaths of the Twelve Apostles the essential activity of the Twelve Apostles in building up and extending the Church did not entirely disappear and the Apostolic Primacy of Peter did not completely vanish. This foundation created for the Church by its Founder did not disappear with the person of Peter, but continued (as actual history shows) in the primacy of the Roman Church and its bishops.

We disagree.

The apostasy described in the Bible best fits Mormonism.

The Apostasy described in the Bible is a perfect fit for modern Christendom, including Catholicism. Paul has described it best, as follows:

2 Tim 3:

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, …

---

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
This is a perfect description of the corrupt and apostate condition of present day Christendom. They have “a form of godliness, but deny the poser thereof”. “The power thereof” is the ability to be led and directed by revelation from God, as God’s true Church has always been through all generations of time, and always should be.

Mormonism is an example of apostasy from the truth.

Mormonism is a restoration of God’s true Church on earth—after a long night of apostasy.

The Bible reveals that their will be false prophets and religious deception.

Yes, it does. And it fits perfectly the apostate priests and ministers of apostate Christendom, who speak in the name of God without having any authority from God, and who “have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof”.

The LDS Church fabricated their 'keys" because the apostolic keys were passed from Peter to the bishops who are the apostles successors.

The “apostolic keys” were lost to the church when the Apostles died Christian church apostatized. They have now been restored to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is the only true and living Church of God on the face of the earth today.

amgid

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Dear amgid;

amgid:

The “apostolic keys” were lost to the church when the Apostles died Christian church apostatized. They have now been restored to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is the only true and living Church of God on the face of the earth today.

Restating your conclusion again and again without presenting any historical evidence of an apostasy does not improve your position. It only weakens it. Your claims to scripture also do not support your position because none of the passages you rely upon state that a total apostasy was to occur. Nor have you addressed the absolutely contradictory Scripture passages promising that the Church would remain as the pillar and bulwark of truth, and that Christ would always be with his followers.

And you never responded to the historical evidence that flatly contradicts your misinterpretation of Nicea I (See my last post - with links.) It simply did not happen the way that you claim. The authority at Nicea was always within the bishops acting in concert with the See of Rome. nicea was simply not evidence of a great apostasy. Why, if Constatine was in charge, would he not have simply declared the Arians to be heretics? Because he recognized that he lacked ecclesial authority.

So, while I see that I am not going to change your mind, I must at least inform you that you have presented no evidence to support your interpretation, and in fact your conclusory presentation has deepened my own conviction in the truth of the Cathilic position.

 

[JohnnyR]

amgid,

I would disagree … 2Tim 3:5 fits Mormonism best because they deny the power. The Catholic Church has the living Magerstrium which has the more sure word of prophecy to guide the Church. Scripture does not speak of a restoration of God’s church on Earth prior to the New Heaven and New Earth. The Catholic Church has the authority from God.

The “apostolic keys” were not lost to the church when the Apostles died. The Catholic Church holds the keys, the Mormon Church has fabricated their keys. Clearly the Mormon Church is not a true apostolic Church.

JohnnyR

 

[Tmaque]

amgid:

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, …

---

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

[/INDENT]
This is a perfect description of the corrupt and apostate condition of present day Christendom. They have “a form of godliness, but deny the poser thereof”. “The power thereof” is the ability to be led and directed by revelation from God, as God’s true Church has always been through all generations of time, and always should be.

Mormonism is a restoration of God’s true Church on earth—after a long night of apostasy.

Yes, it does. And it fits perfectly the apostate priests and ministers of apostate Christendom, who speak in the name of God without having any authority from God, and who “have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof”.

amgid

amgid,

Why do you ignore the intervening verses which put this scripture in context?

2
People will be self-centered and lovers of money, proud, haughty, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, irreligious,
3
callous, implacable, slanderous, licentious, brutal, hating what is good,
4
traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,

If you believe this “fits perfectly the apostate priests and ministers of apostate Christendom” then you are, I would say, slanderous and bigoted. I don’t think that you believe all non-LDS church leaders are callous, implacable, slanderous, licentious, and brutal. If you don’t believe that, then you must admit these passages can’t be talking about the leaders, but must be refering to some of the people. People that “make a pretense of religion but deny its power”, are those that go to church but then live their lives as if they do not. For them, going to Church and being a Catholic(or LDS) is just a show and has no impact on how they actually lead their lives. I know plenty of people like this, both Catholic and LDS.

IN NO WAY can these passages be used to argue for an apostasy. That is, unless you actually DO believe that all non-LDS church leaders are “self-centered and lovers of money, proud, haughty, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, irreligious, callous, implacable, slanderous, licentious, brutal, hating what is good, traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God”.

 

[majick275]

LDS history shows a pretty good case for this scripture describing Joseph smith. (with the exception of disobedient to parents)

 

[amgid]

JohnnyR:

I would disagree … 2Tim 3:5 fits Mormonism best because they deny the power.

The LDS Church is the only Church on earth that claims to be led by true prophets and Apostles, by direct revelation form God, as God’s true Church has always done throughout sacred history. No other Church makes such a claim. Consequently it is the only Church that does not “have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof”.

The Catholic Church has the living Magerstrium which has the more sure word of prophecy to guide the Church.

“Magerstrium” is unheard of in the Bible; but prophets and Apostles are the very stuff the Bible is made of. LDS Church has divine authority because it is lead by revelation, by prophets and Apostles of God, as in ancient days.

Scripture does not speak of a restoration of God’s church on Earth prior to the New Heaven and New Earth.

It does:

Acts 3:

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Revelation 14:

6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

The Catholic Church has the authority from God.

It does not.

The “apostolic keys” were not lost to the church when the Apostles died.

They were.

The Catholic Church holds the keys,

It does not.

the Mormon Church has fabricated their keys.

It has not.

Clearly the Mormon Church is not a true apostolic Church.

Clearly it is.

amgid

 

[amgid]

Tmaque:

Why do you ignore the intervening verses which put this scripture in context?

I have already addressed that issue in the course of debate on the apostasy in the thread called “Why are Catholics so interested in the LDS faith?” See especially posts #158, #106, and #174. The rest of your post is off base and does not deserve a reply.

amgid

 

[JohnnyR]

amgid,

The Catholic Church receives divine assitance (CCC892). For example the Trinity is an example of truth contained in divine revealtion (CCC88). For more information see the following link:

comparing-views.com/book/c01.htm

Magisterium is unheard of in the Bible, so is “three Gods” but yet Joseph Smith Clearly taught “three Gods”. The Catholic Church has the “more sure word of prophecy” (2Pet 1:19). The Catholic Church is “built” (Eph 2:20) on apostles and prohets. The LDS church does not have divine authority because it does not hold the “keys”, the LDS church fabricated their keys.

Acts 3 is speaking of the restoration of all things that occurs after the Last Judgment. Rev 14:6 is not talking about a restoration but is speaking of the judgement that occurs immediately after Jesus is resurrected.

Your words that the Catholic Church does not have authority from God and that the “keys” were lost are simply not support by scripture or by history. The apostasy descibed in the Bible is an apostasy from the truth and the restoration described in the Bible occurs after the Last Judgment instead of the time of Joseph Smtih.

JohnnyR

 

[Tmaque]

amgid:

The rest of your post is off base and does not deserve a reply.

amgid

I think that’s code for “I can’t present an effective argument so I would rather just ignore you”.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Tmaque:

I think that’s code for “I can’t present an effective argument so I would rather just ignore you”.

I concur. The LDS argument is all smoke and mirrors, but no substance. Amgid makes a valiant attempt but he has nothing of substance to work with IMHO.

The latest inconsistency…

amgid:

The “apostolic keys” were lost to the church when the Apostles died Christian church apostatized.

If the the LDS Church is a restoration of the original Apostles’ authority - and that original authority was lost when the original Apostles died, then why weren’t the same apostolic keys lost to the restored church when the restored apostles passed away in the 1800s?

Stated another way - if the original Apostles could not pass down their authority to their successors as amgid now argues, then how could the “restored” apostles inherit a successive authority? If amgid’s argument above were consistently applied, then a “restoration” of the “restored” church would be required by God following the death of each generation of “restored” apostles.