I don't believe that there was ever an apostasy as the Mormons claim.

[Arandur]

The intent of my post in this thread was to answer the question by explaining the understanding of people of my faith, which is now shared by at least some non-Mormon biblical scholars and translators, that the “rock” referred to in Matthew 16:18 was not a church but, rather “revelation”, and that “the gates of hell” cannot prevail against revelation.

What non-Mormon biblical scholars share the same view of Matthew 16:18? Perhaps more importantly, when/how did that view develop–is there any support or evidence that earlier Christians, particularly the first generations of them, held any similar belief?

Further, what does it mean to you that “the gates of hell cannot prevail against revelation?” If that revelation is defeated, ended, hidden, or overcome by falsehoods in the world, how has hell not prevailed against it? In other words, if the Great Apostasy constitutes an end to revelation for a time at least, and a corruption of that revelation as it is manifested on earth, how has revelation not been overcome by hell? It seems to me that even if we assume interpretation of the rock as revelation, Matthew 16:18 still makes the Great Apostasy an impossibility.

Back to the “rock” as “revelation,” though, how do you explain why a man was given a new and sacred name, “rock?” Why was Simon renamed Peter/Cepha? Are we to take this to mean that he was actually called “revelation?”

There is a church today, which rests upon the rock of revelation, by teaching of revelation received by a living Prophet and Apostles, and it is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

So you say. So could many others say. I understand your point and the reason you made it, but would just point out that it is so far an unsupported assertion .

 

[mfbukowski]

I do not feel that the Mormons have enough truth in their claim of an apostasy. I would really like a Mormon to answer the following question: what did Jesus mean when he said… ** “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”** Matthew 16:18

Was Jesus lying? I don’ think so!

In December, I started a thread about the Gates of Hell prophecy. I think it has nothing to do with apostolic succession

Honestly, I am burned out on this topic, but if you want to know what I think about that prophecy, it is here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=282000

Besides that one, there was an 800 post thread from October that got completely eliminated on the apostasy, so that’s why I am still burned out on it.

The bottom line, is that no one can prove an apostasy or disprove it. It relies on historical evidence which is always in the eye of the beholder. So Mormons take the apostasy on faith, and Catholics take the lack of an apostasy on faith.

But in my opinion there is no way that the gates of hell prophecy means what Catholcis think it means. Check out that thread if you care what I said about it.

 

[ricko]

In December, I started a thread about the Gates of Hell prophecy. I think it has nothing to do with apostolic succession

Honestly, I am burned out on this topic, but if you want to know what I think about that prophecy, it is here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=282000

Besides that one, there was an 800 post thread from October that got completely eliminated on the apostasy, so that’s why I am still burned out on it.

The bottom line, is that no one can prove an apostasy or **disprove **it. It relies on historical evidence which is always in the eye of the beholder. So Mormons take the apostasy on faith, and Catholics take the lack of an apostasy on faith.

But in my opinion there is no way that the gates of hell prophecy means what Catholcis think it means. Check out that thread if you care what I said about it.

But we can disprove it. At the time you say the apostasy is occurring we have all of the historical documents of the Church and other historical documents. No mention of an apostasy. SOMEONE would have written something. In fact we have the evidence that the Church was continuing to grow and was spreading the Gospel as Jesus comissioned the Apostles and they in turn passed that comission on to their followers. As has been said many times “Saying it is does not make it so”

 

[RebeccaJ]

In December, I started a thread about the Gates of Hell prophecy. I think it has nothing to do with apostolic succession

Honestly, I am burned out on this topic, but if you want to know what I think about that prophecy, it is here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=282000

Besides that one, there was an 800 post thread from October that got completely eliminated on the apostasy, so that’s why I am still burned out on it.

The bottom line, is that no one can prove an apostasy or disprove it. It relies on historical evidence which is always in the eye of the beholder. So Mormons take the apostasy on faith, and Catholics take the lack of an apostasy on faith.

But in my opinion there is no way that the gates of hell prophecy means what Catholcis think it means. Check out that thread if you care what I said about it.

You continue to rely on this as “evidence” of your beliefs, while ignoring many other scriptures. Christ promised that He would always be with us. The Holy Spirit was given to the Church and all the confirmed.

To believe in a great apostasy, you would have to have faith that Christ was not true to what He promised, and that the Holy Spirit failed.

I’m sorry, but to have faith in the failure of God is utterly upside down and only one source would encourage such “faith”.

God Sacrificed Himself for all of mankind. There is no aspect of Jesus Christ that is a failure. None. Zero. Nothing that He restored was lost. No promise He made was broken. This is where our faith lies, in the Perfect Revelation of God’s love, found in a Person. Our faith is nowhere else.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Rebecca, thank you, that truly sums it up. For our Faith not to be authentic is essentially to assert that Jesus did not keep His word. Where would any of us be in that case? And, further, if that were the case, what claim on authenticity would any other Christian faith have since all proceed from a common source?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca, thank you, that truly sums it up. For our Faith not to be authentic is essentially to assert that Jesus did not keep His word. Where would any of us be in that case? And, further, if that were the case, what claim on authenticity would any other Christian faith have since all proceed from a common source?

It doesn’t make any sense to me. I understand, from a Mormon POV, a restoration is a very exciting and positive thing to believe in. It’s human nature to believe you have something else that no one else has. A great secret. But first, this set of beliefs, requires a faith in failure.

To be as clear as possible, nothing was lost. Not one thing. The Holy Spirit has revealed to mankind for 2000 years the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit has guided, and continues to guide, the Church that Jesus Christ established. Without interruption. Never ceasing. The faithful have in return, have never ceased believing, never stopped praying, never stopped seeking to become holy, and the Church has never rested in its mission, never stopped bringing people to salvation through the Word of Jesus Christ, never stopped protecting and teaching the truths given us by the apostles.

I am at a loss as to how this is not painfully obvious, really, I am.

 

[Arandur]

I agree, Rebecca. I have several times on CAF cited many other Scripture passages in addition to Matthew 16:18 that contain the promises of Christ to his Church. If we are to take Christ’s message in context, we must consider the rest of Scripture, which wholeheartedly supports the Catholic position.

I have also tried to demonstrate the base slander and blasphemy against God involved in claims that the Church failed, as it is indeed, as you are saying, having faith in the failure of God and in the idea that He breaks promises and is in His own words, a fool.

Yet even in the in depth discussions we’ve had with mski and Diana and others, I don’t recall ever hearing a Mormon response to our simple and supported declarations that belief in a Great Apostasy is belief in an oathbreaker God, a foolish God.

I have not read all 30 pages of the thread that mski cites, but the argument is pretty weak. It appears to be thus (the OP from his citation):

One answer a Mormon might give is “That prophecy is right. The gates of hell have not prevailed against the true church, the LDS church”.

But it did prevail against Christ’s first churches originating in Israel and, according to the BoM, in the America’s? What else do you call more than a millenium of silence?

Another Mormon answer is that the “rock” being referred to is not Peter at all, but the “rock of revelation”.

Weak, makes no sense in context: why is Peter named “Peter,” then? As I stated earlier, even if this definitional contortionism were accepted, the end or corruption of revelation required for the Great Apostasy means that the gates of hell still prevailed against revelation.

Still another Mormon answer I have seen is the belief that this prophecy has nothing to do with apostasy or apostolic succession, but is in fact referring to ministry for the dead which Catholics see as prayers for those in purgatory, and Mormons see as vicarious ordinance work for the dead, including baptism for the dead as mentioned in 1Corinthians 15:29.

Oh really? Where’s the context? If you look at what Christ is immediately talking about in Matt 16:18, as well as similar passages about the Church, keys, Peter, and apostolic roles, no connection can be made to ordinances for dead people. How do you make now the rock that hell won’t prevail against into ordinances for the dead (AND “revelation,” for that matter)? Jesus is clearly speaking of founding and building a church and appointing a ministerial head, as the Davidic King does.

Those who take this position hold that when Jesus “descended into hell” (as per the Apostles Creed, and other scriptural references) He in fact, smashed the “gates of hell” and so these gates did not prevail against His church.

But yet the church on earth later died? What is death or corruption other than the victory of hell? Again, incompatible with belief in a Great Apostasy.

 

[mfbukowski]

Regarding the “gates of hell” prophecy you said:

You continue to rely on this as “evidence” of your beliefs, while ignoring many other scriptures. Christ promised that He would always be with us. The Holy Spirit was given to the Church and all the confirmed.

No, it is the catholics who incessantly bring this scripture up. It is the Catholics who base their entire faith on it, as well as the other scriptures you see as “promise” scriptures.

To believe in a great apostasy, you would have to have faith that Christ was not true to what He promised, and that the Holy Spirit failed.

Not at all; this is a very simplistic view. I think that the priesthood was lost from the earth, and many non-biblical practices and doctrines were added to the simple doctrines found in the NT. The knowledge that Jesus is the Christ stayed with the Church, and as always the Holy Spirit inspired those who wanted true knowledge. Many reformers were inspired during this period, Benedict, Francis, and many others tried to get back to the original apostolic simplicity.

God allows us to reap the consequences of our actions, and those actions include making mistakes. If it was “not possible” that the church apostasize, God would be violating the principle of free will, which he does not do. Do you really believe that it is not possible for the church to make mistakes?

I’m sorry, but to have faith in the failure of God is utterly upside down and only one source would encourage such “faith”.

Not at all. It isn’t that God fails, but that mankind fails. If it were not so, we wouldn’t have agency.

God Sacrificed Himself for all of mankind. There is no aspect of Jesus Christ that is a failure. None. Zero. Nothing that He restored was lost. No promise He made was broken. This is where our faith lies, in the Perfect Revelation of God’s love, found in a Person. Our faith is nowhere else.

There is no aspect of Jesus Christ that is a failure is exactly true, and no one is saying that.

Yet to believe that nothing could be lost is to believe that sin and error is not possible. Believing sin is not possible negates the entire reason for the atonement. It is you who negate the atonement by negating agency.

Throughout the bible the story is the same, apostasy and restoration. Adam knew the truth, yet Cain sinned. God destroyed mankind in the flood – was there no apostasy there?

Abraham made a covenant with God, yet his children strayed, were taken captive in Egypt. Another apostasy. Moses led them out and was given a higher law. He came off the mountain and found them obeying the golden calf. Another apostasy. Moses gave them the 10 commandments and led them to Israel, where subsequent generations apostasized and were led into Babylon. Another apostasy.

Apostasy and restoration has been the story of history. God gives us agency, and we mess up. We have the freedom to do that, and when we do, God teaches us again. It is just as it is in our personal lives

The promise is that he is always here for us to teach us by his spirit on a personal level. But when we make mistakes personally and collectively, we get the consequences.

The restoration had to wait until there was a land independent and far away from the power centers of Europe with freedom of religion as the law of the land, so that no government could squash the restoration. Even with that, the Mormons were driven out and nearly exterminated time after time. But the promise that God’s church would not fail in the long run also applies to Mormons, and though there have been splinters, God’s church is alive and well.

 

[hosemonkey]

God’s church is alive and well.

You are correct, Ski. God’s Church IS alive and well and it exists in the Catholic Church, not in the cult of Joseph Smith. This mormon talk about a “Great Apostacy” is nothing more than a morman attempt to justify the fabrication of a cult that attempted to ligitimize the lustful desires of Joseph Smith and his ilk for sinful sex and illegal power. “Restoration?” You cannot restore something that was never lost. Sorry Ski, when you apostacized from Catholicism, you got duped. All the theological tap-dancing will not prove or justify your contention.

 

[PJM]

No, there was no Apostasy as the Mormons claim. Where is the evidence? The only historical evidence proves that the Church continued as Jesus promised. The apostle John reminds us that Jesus is greater than Satan (1 John 4:4)(1 Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “The household of God . . . the pillar and foundation of truth.” In light of this, we find additional assurance that the house that Jesus built will not be pillaged by Satan. “No one can enter a strong man’s house to plunder his property unless he first ties up the strong man. Then, he can plunder his house” (Mark 3:27; cf. Matt. 12:29). Jesus is the “strong man” guarding his household, the Church.) “On this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18); “Behold, I will be with you always, even until the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20); “The Father . . . will give you another Advocate to be with you always” (John 14:16); “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all I have told you” (John 14:26); “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth” (John 16:13). The bible is clear, Jesus did not lie, could not lie, but the theory of an apostasy is a lie. Since they have no proof of an apostasy they simply proclaim that it happened and with some that is all that is needed. We’ve all seen westerns in the movies and TV where a murder is commited and the sheriff jails a guy for another crime but we the audience knows he is not the killer. Now on the scene comes the real killer, he incites the crowd, tells them the killer is in jail and needs justice now (hanging). No proof has been offered, just one man stirring up the feelings of the town. So they bust into the jail and hang the man, all based on their FEELINGS. That, sadly is the nature of some who set their reasoning aside and go only on feelings, easy to believe something bad about someone with no proof but slow to believe the TRUTH. This is how the Mormons work with their apostasy. They know human nature is inclined to believe something bad before believing something good. So all they have to do is make the accusation, with no proof, and some will believe simply because it is said. Just like the mindless crowd that hung an innocent man, the Mormons believe with no reason, no evidence, no proof.

Dear Brother Rick :tiphat: :clapping: :bounce:

A suggestion,

Try to break up your post a bit. Color, ** BOLD** Underline and space between thoughts will make them Far easier **to read **

God bless you my friend, a really good job!

 

[Arandur]

Not at all; this is a very simplistic view. I think that the priesthood was lost from the earth, and many non-biblical practices and doctrines were added to the simple doctrines found in the NT. The knowledge that Jesus is the Christ stayed with the Church, and as always the Holy Spirit inspired those who wanted true knowledge. Many reformers were inspired during this period, Benedict, Francis, and many others tried to get back to the original apostolic simplicity.

Benedict, Francis, and many others always recognized the eternal truth of the Church. They knew that it was preserved by Christ, that it was just the actions of the members that were faulty.

God allows us to reap the consequences of our actions, and those actions include making mistakes. If it was “not possible” that the church apostasize, God would be violating the principle of free will, which he does not do. Do you really believe that it is not possible for the church to make mistakes?

Not at all. It isn’t that God fails, but that mankind fails. If it were not so, we wouldn’t have agency.

Now THAT’s the simplistic view, mski, this idea of yours that God keeping a promise to hold His Church together violates agency. Hasn’t God held together the Jewish identity?

You know full well that Catholics recognize the sins committed by members of our Church, the failings even in teaching well.

There is no aspect of Jesus Christ that is a failure is exactly true, and no one is saying that.

Yet to believe that nothing could be lost is to believe that sin and error is not possible. Believing sin is not possible negates the entire reason for the atonement. It is you who negate the atonement by negating agency.

You seem to forget that Christ IS the Church! If the Church failed in a Great Apostasy, then it is absolutely and unavoidably true that Christ failed! St. Paul is doing a giant facepalm right now because you have completely missed the main point of his whole mission.

Throughout the bible the story is the same, apostasy and restoration. Adam knew the truth, yet Cain sinned. God destroyed mankind in the flood – was there no apostasy there?

But God maintained a constant line through Noah! Of course there are individual and even group apostasies, but God has always maintained a faithful line.

Abraham made a covenant with God, yet his children strayed, were taken captive in Egypt. Another apostasy. Moses led them out and was given a higher law. He came off the mountain and found them obeying the golden calf. Another apostasy. Moses gave them the 10 commandments and led them to Israel, where subsequent generations apostasized and were led into Babylon. Another apostasy.

Yet God remained faithful to His Covenant with Abraham, don’t you see! He kept together the Hebrew people, He did not let them be destroyed or dispersed as so many others! In the same way, God keeps His New and Everlasting Covenant with the Church, so the Church will always be preserved through the end of time!

Those OT sins and failures did NOT make God give up on His end of the Covenant–God still maintained His people, despite so many times when they could easily have dissolved or been destroyed.

This is what you don’t seem to be seeing, mski and other Mormons. God IS FAITHFUL. You are saying that in the Great Apostasy He chose for the very first time to renege on His Covenant (AFTER His Son had died to forge it!)! What blasphemous nonsense–this is not a belief that comes from God.

Apostasy and restoration has been the story of history. God gives us agency, and we mess up. We have the freedom to do that, and when we do, God teaches us again. It is just as it is in our personal lives

The promise is that he is always here for us to teach us by his spirit on a personal level. But when we make mistakes personally and collectively, we get the consequences.

The restoration had to wait until there was a land independent and far away from the power centers of Europe with freedom of religion as the law of the land, so that no government could squash the restoration. Even with that, the Mormons were driven out and nearly exterminated time after time.

What utter BS. God had to wait for man to get in gear and make the United States and its principles? Please. I’ve addressed this before, mski, and you had no response then. God’s faithful THRIVE in persecution. He would not wait until they were not. He wants us to love Him despite persecution, to persevere in the midst of it.

Plus, Rome was a realm of comparative religious freedom. There have been many others. The Jews experienced freedom in Persia. There was not much special about the US to recommend itself to some special new restoration.

But the promise that God’s church would not fail in the long run also applies to Mormons, and though there have been splinters, God’s church is alive and well.

Now this is just beneath even you, mski. I am saddened to hear you say something so stupid. Perhaps you will care to restate and support this absurdity. This might help: How is it, then, that this promise somehow applies to YOU and not to the Church Christ Himself first established?

In case you haven’t noticed, I’m not in a mood to parse words and be gentle today. Since I view accusations of the failure of the Church as accusations that God is an unfaithful fool, I find it difficult in any case to treat such a matter of insulting blasphemy gently.

 

[mfbukowski]

But we can disprove it. At the time you say the apostasy is occurring we have all of the historical documents of the Church and other historical documents. No mention of an apostasy. SOMEONE would have written something. In fact we have the evidence that the Church was continuing to grow and was spreading the Gospel as Jesus comissioned the Apostles and they in turn passed that comission on to their followers. As has been said many times “Saying it is does not make it so”

I have heard this before and it is not a great argument. I am trying to be charitable.

"I hereby record in ths papal encyclical this day in AD 207 that there has been an apostasy, and the Catholic church is no longer true. I wanted everyone to know for all future ages, that I am pretending to be pope, but really have no authority

Yours truly, the Pope"

UHHHH I don’t think so.

 

[mfbukowski]

You are correct, Ski. God’s Church IS alive and well and it exists in the Catholic Church, not in the cult of Joseph Smith. This mormon talk about a “Great Apostacy” is nothing more than a morman attempt to justify the fabrication of a cult that attempted to ligitimize the lustful desires of Joseph Smith and his ilk for sinful sex and illegal power. “Restoration?” You cannot restore something that was never lost. Sorry Ski, when you apostacized from Catholicism, you got duped. All the theological tap-dancing will not prove or justify your contention.

I’m praying for you hose.

 

[mfbukowski]

This is an interesting thread

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4841949#post4841949?rd=

 

[Arandur]

I have heard this before and it is not a great argument. I am trying to be charitable.

"I hereby record in ths papal encyclical this day in AD 207 that there has been an apostasy, and the Catholic church is no longer true. I wanted everyone to know for all future ages, that I am pretending to be pope, but really have no authority

Yours truly, the Pope"

UHHHH I don’t think so.

Every other heresy of the time was discussed, as were the common beliefs and interpretations of the time (including the heretical ones). How come we have so much data on all of them and none that seemed to think that the Church would die out? If it was as plain as you think, why didn’t anyone at the time believe it? For that matter, why didn’t anyone talk of a Prophet (or lack thereof), “stakes,” or various other Mormon beliefs? “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is pretty weak when the evidence that does exist supports a much different reality than what you suggest. The Catholic position is supported by the evidence. The Mormon position relies on saying that while there isn’t evidence for it, it could still be true. Such an approach is more accurately described as “fantasy.”

 

[ricko]

No common sense, no ability to reason, no comprehension. All gone. What’s left is the “burning in the bosom”. May as well talk to a brick wall, at least it doesn’t talk back with nonsense.

 

[mfbukowski]

What utter BS. God had to wait for man to get in gear and make the United States and its principles? Please. I’ve addressed this before, mski, and you had no response then. God’s faithful THRIVE in persecution. He would not wait until they were not. He wants us to love Him despite persecution, to persevere in the midst of it…

I don’t know where you get this stuff, honestly. God gives us what he can when we are ready to learn. I believe that the US constitution is an inspired document. I don’t want to argue with you , it’s silly and pointless. What is plain to you is absurd to me and there is no basis for communication.

Plus, Rome was a realm of comparative religious freedom.

This is fantasy. Ever heard of Nero et al?

There have been many others. The Jews experienced freedom in Persia.

Freedom to be apostate. Read up on the Samaritans

There was not much special about the US to recommend itself to some special new restoration

Sorry, this is so far off the wall that it’s not belivable. I guess freedom of relgion doesn’t count if you are the follower of the most politically powerful single person of the middle ages and hundreds of years later- the pope. But if you were one he was persecuting, I think freedom of religion was a little more important to you. Remember the pilgrims and all the others that left the old world for religious freedom?

Now this is just beneath even you, mski. I am saddened to hear you say something so stupid. Perhaps you will care to restate and support this absurdity. This might help: How is it, then, that this promise somehow applies to YOU and not to the Church Christ Himself first established?

Well I have never maintained I was very bright. Ask my wife. I am not going to bother restating anything, there’s no point. Either you get it or you don’t. I don’t really care. The promise applies to all who want to have revelation from God. Read James-- “If any lack wisdom…”

In case you haven’t noticed, I’m not in a mood to parse words and be gentle today. Since I view accusations of the failure of the Church as accusations that God is an unfaithful fool, I find it difficult in any case to treat such a matter of insulting blasphemy gently.

Well I can accuse you of blaphemy and being part of the great and abominable church of satan, and where will that get us? It’s just stupid. This is how those stupid religious European wars got started and why the restoration had to happen where there was religous freedom.

It seems Catholics cannot discuss this rationally, I guess it is just too close to a nerve or something. I think you all know deep inside that I am right. There is no “mass” in the NT, there is no Mariology, no confession, no purgatory, saints, indulgences, sprinkling baptism, popes, original sin, immaculate conception or anything else. I know, its tradition. I call it invention. Stick with it, I hope it’s workin for ya.

Boy we are much closer now aren’t we?
I’m outa here. No point in this.

 

[mfbukowski]

No common sense, no ability to reason, no comprehension. All gone. What’s left is the “burning in the bosom”. May as well talk to a brick wall, at least it doesn’t talk back with nonsense.

Have you ever noticed that it is not only Mormons who think you apostasized? Like maybe protestants and all other Christians? I guess none of them have any ability to reason either. Grow up.

Have fun with your brick wall. Maybe you can convert it – it doesn’t think.

 

[Parce_Domine]

I call it invention. Stick with it, I hope it’s workin for ya.

irony

 

[RebeccaJ]

Regarding the “gates of hell” prophecy you said:

No, it is the catholics who incessantly bring this scripture up. It is the Catholics who base their entire faith on it, as well as the other scriptures you see as “promise” scriptures.

Not at all; this is a very simplistic view. I think that the priesthood was lost from the earth, and many non-biblical practices and doctrines were added to the simple doctrines found in the NT. The knowledge that Jesus is the Christ stayed with the Church, and as always the Holy Spirit inspired those who wanted true knowledge. Many reformers were inspired during this period, Benedict, Francis, and many others tried to get back to the original apostolic simplicity.

God allows us to reap the consequences of our actions, and those actions include making mistakes. If it was “not possible” that the church apostasize, God would be violating the principle of free will, which he does not do. Do you really believe that it is not possible for the church to make mistakes?

I too simple but the problem is we need to get back to simplicity?

You are lost, and talking nonsense. What I said I have no need to debate. It is like telling me the sky is not blue, just because you think so. It is like talking to a child who insists something just because they want it to be.

This could very well be the living definition of stiff necked.

Not at all. It isn’t that God fails, but that mankind fails. If it were not so, we wouldn’t have agency.

You know this is weak and you know you don’t believe it. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be following that false prophet named Joseph Smith.

There is no aspect of Jesus Christ that is a failure is exactly true, and no one is saying that.

Yet to believe that nothing could be lost is to believe that sin and error is not possible. Believing sin is not possible negates the entire reason for the atonement. It is you who negate the atonement by negating agency.

More nonsense. I am not talking about the sins of people. I’m talking about God.

Throughout the bible the story is the same, apostasy and restoration. Adam knew the truth, yet Cain sinned. God destroyed mankind in the flood – was there no apostasy there?

Obviously, you fail to notice that God never abandoned humankind. NEVER. He saved Noah, preserving truth. He sent Jesus Christ to atone for all of the sins of mankind. This idea you have that a total apostasy happens is totally devoid of truth and evidence.

The evidence is this, God never gives up on us. Never abandons us. He never stops calling us to Him.

Abraham made a covenant with God, yet his children strayed, were taken captive in Egypt. Another apostasy. Moses led them out and was given a higher law. He came off the mountain and found them obeying the golden calf. Another apostasy. Moses gave them the 10 commandments and led them to Israel, where subsequent generations apostasized and were led into Babylon. Another apostasy.

HE GAVE THEM THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. Are you listening to yourself?

Apostasy and restoration has been the story of history. God gives us agency, and we mess up. We have the freedom to do that, and when we do, God teaches us again. It is just as it is in our personal lives

Look bukowski, you wander in sin, I wander in sin. God gives up on neither of us. How do you know this? Look to Jesus Christ. If God had given up on us because of our “apostasy”, their would be no Salvation, at all. Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the OT, He didn’t replace them or restore them, He continued the work of God, which is very clear from every story in the OT and NT, is to bring all mankind to Salvation.

It is the same for God’s chosen people. Which, by virtue of Christ’s Sacrifice, we are ALL His chosen people. We may wander, the Church may wander, but God pulls us back to Him. Always.

The same with every person and groups you have named in the OT. They wandered, God pulled them back. He never started over, He stayed with them.

The promise is that he is always here for us to teach us by his spirit on a personal level. But when we make mistakes personally and collectively, we get the consequences.

Yes, sin has consequences FOR US, NOT FOR GOD.

The restoration had to wait until there was a land independent and far away from the power centers of Europe with freedom of religion as the law of the land, so that no government could squash the restoration. Even with that, the Mormons were driven out and nearly exterminated time after time. But the promise that God’s church would not fail in the long run also applies to Mormons, and though there have been splinters, God’s church is alive and well.

This is just total lalala land make believe.

Just keep on believing these lies you have been taught. I’m not wasting another minute on this nonsense.