What is the Gospel?

[Randy_Carson]

It is the same Holy Spirit that revealed to Paul that there must be a “falling away” first: “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, …” (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

A total apostasy, as you describe it, is impossible in the New Testament. There are three reasons for this:

First, the Old Testament prophecies concerning the New Covenant describe it as perpetual and indefectible. For example, Daniel 7:13-14:
‘I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man [Jesus], and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.’ (See also Isaiah 9:6-7 and Daniel 2:44.)
Second, the New Testament also describes the Church as indefectible. Yes, there will be apostasies. That is what St. Paul is referring to in 2 Thessalonians. In fact, there will be a major apostasy before the Second Coming according to 2 Thessalonians 2, but never does it say a total apostasy. According to the New Testament, this is impossible! Matt. 28:19-20 says, 'And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.’ A similar thought can be found in Luke 1:33, where the Angel Gabriel says of Jesus, ‘And of his kingdom there will be no end.’"

Third, Matthew 28:20 says the Lord will be with us, pasas tas hemaras, or ‘all the days’! So there’s no room for total apostasy. Christ will be teaching via his apostles and their successors all days even until the end of time!

In Ephesians, St. Paul explicitly tells us the Church will be with us until the end of time. Ephesians 1:22 describes the Church as ‘[Christ’s] body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.’ This Church is ‘built upon the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone’ (2:20). She is described as being so awesome, St. Paul can say ‘through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places’ (3:10). The Church teaches angels!

As we saw before, this true Church must have apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists and teachers (cf. 4:11). And why, you ask? ‘For the equipment of the saints. . . for building up the body of Christ. . . so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine. . .’ (4:12,14).

So, God gave us the Church that we may know with certainty the truths of the Faith. That’s not the only reason, but it is a central reason. But maybe the most important passage for us in Ephesians is 3:20-21:
‘Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, to him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.’
This Church that St. Paul is describing in Ephesians will be here to all generations (pasas tas geneas, ‘all the generations’) forever and ever. This eliminates the possibility of a total apostasy for even one generation!

No apostasy, no restoration. No restoration, no Mormonism.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[guanophore]

Why is that? I really have to disagree.

This is one of those posts where you demonstrate that your personal beliefs depart from the Catholic Teaching, Tweety.

The assurance of being led into all Truth was given to the Church. To the extent that any individual departs from the Church, they also separate themselves form the assurance that they will be led into all Truth.

The HS does not reveal "doctrine’ to individuals contrary to what He has already revealed to the Church. For this reason,when we read Scripture individually, it is important to read it within the context of what has already been revealed (Sacred Tradition). When people fail to do this, as the Refomers did, error and division result.

 

[guanophore]

Your questions are changing on me. I think I answered your questions honestly in what I believe. Now, when you are asking again, the questions changed in a different context.

No, I have been asking the same one, over and over. Does God permit humans to reject His purpose for themselves (to be saved)?

 

[guanophore]

And Scripture must be studied in the light of the Apostle’s teaching as recorded in Sacred Scripture.

What you are saying here is that God is to weak, impotent, or disinterested to preserve His word in the Church.

1Th 2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

You and Zerinus are in agreement that the Catholic Church apostasized, since the Word of God could not longer be found in her.

You are saying that the ONLY Word of God we have from the Apostles is in the Holy Scriptures, so what was present before and during the time of their writing got lost.

Jesus therefore failed to keep His promise, that He would lead them into all Truth. All He led was the book, nothing else was left.

 

[guanophore]

Why would you say that your personal interpertation of Romans 2:6-11 is correct since it has not been dogmatically defined by the Magestrium for you?

Because it is consistent with the Teaching of the Apostles that have been handed down to us, and are expressed in the dogmatic definitions of the Magesterium. The Magesterium is the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ to guide and govern the Church.

 I believe ....

I believe it is an incorrect conclusion…

Why should we give more weight to what you believe than we would to that which was handed down to us from the Apostles?

  It is this kind of view which leads many Protestants to think that Catholic Christians are trying to earn their salvation by their personal good works. By your posting, it appears you are preaching a gospel of works, and not of grace.

Yes, I can see how many are misled by this. Many of our separated brethren do not realize that Catholics do not prioritize certain scriptures over others. When Jesus teaches “I am the vine, and you are the branches…without me, you can do nothing” we believe this. We believe that it is only through His grace that we are able to do the good works that He prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

These good works, created in us and through us by grace, are not the basis of salvation, as is commonly thought by the ignorant. Neither are they separated from the grace that saves us by faith.

 

[guanophore]

Doesn’t your view work against you for motivation to read the Scriptures?

Why would it? Do you imagine that the early Christians read scripture in isolation from what the Apsotles believed and taught?

It seems some Catholics are afraid to read the Scriptures because the evils spirits will ponce on them while reading the Word of God. Of even worst, if you read too much Sacred Scripture, you will transform into a Protestant.

I don’t think fear is from God, but caution and discernment are. It is wise to have a sense of care about reading scripture apart from what God has already revealed. It does lend itself to Protestantism (heresies and errors).

 

[Philthy]

Okay, I had a look at your link, and I cannot for the life of me tell what relevance that has with what I was saying, or what you were asking.

There is no link! I have a feeling you were reading my post to 2nd Adam. My comments to you were in post 372…

The Mormon gospel is articulated in those scriptural passages I had posted in my Blog. No need to add anything to it. It is the same as what is taught in the Bible.

That is why I find no need for Joseph Smith, the LDS additions to the Catholic Scriptures and Mormonism. If you believe nothing was added by the texts of the LDS, why were they added at all?? Your statement indicates there was no good reason.

If you think it isn’t, it is up to you to tell us why, not for me to explain why not?

Thank you for the offer, but now that you have indicated that there is nothing new in the testimony of the LDS, and that all of what it contains is redundant we need not compare notes. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is expressed completely through the writings of his Apostles, interpreted within the context of the Tradition that has been kept alive in His Church built upon Peter which He promised to be with, and protect until the end of time. Any other testimony that does not proceed from those sources is at best unnecessary and superfluous, and potentially errant and deceptive.

Peace be with you!

 

[Philthy]

No apostasy, no restoration. No restoration, no Mormonism.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Outstanding Randy! Thank you, and may God bless your efforts!

 

[tweetymom]

This is one of those posts where you demonstrate that your personal beliefs depart from the Catholic Teaching, Tweety.

The assurance of being led into all Truth was given to the Church. To the extent that any individual departs from the Church, they also separate themselves form the assurance that they will be led into all Truth.

The HS does not reveal "doctrine’ to individuals contrary to what He has already revealed to the Church. For this reason,when we read Scripture individually, it is important to read it within the context of what has already been revealed (Sacred Tradition). When people fail to do this, as the Refomers did, error and division result.

Thank you!

 

[zerinus]

You make long posts Randy, which I don’t cope with very well. My attention span is limited, and I get bored quickly with long posts—especially if they are not very intelligently written. You are also derailing your own thread. Your OP was not about the Apostasy; it was about how Catholics and non-Catholics understand or define the gospel. I gave you the Mormon definition. If you disagree with that definition, then here is your opportunity to explain why.

On the subject of the Apostasy, since it is something that crops up all the time, I have written a comprehensive reply to it from a Mormon perspective in my Blog which you can read here. Unless you can come up with something new, I think that you will find that all your questions and objections have already been answered in that post.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Scripture must be studied in the light of the Apostle’s teaching as recorded in Sacred Scripture.

2ndAdam-

I don’t think this principle is correct.

When the earliest believers received a copy of some letter claiming to be written by one Apostle or another, they had to evaluate whether it was legitimate or not, didn’t they? After all, they did not have a bound copy of the Bible and no inspired table of contents to refer to.

Consequently, they read the letter and asked themselves…what? Whether they “felt” like it was inspired? That’s Mormonism. Whether the document claimed to be from the hand of an Apostle? The Gospel of Thomas claims that. Whether the writing taught justification by faith alone? That was Luther’s approach, and it almost resulted in the removal of the Book of James. Whether Jesus Christ is clearly preached? 3 John does not even mention His name.

No, they asked themselves whether the document in question agreed with the Gospel that they had been taught by the Apostles and the successors of the Apostles. In other words, the standard by which any writing was judged was the oral teaching already received. Sacred Tradition was used to determine what was inspired Scripture.

 

[Philthy]

You make long posts Randy, which I don’t cope with very well. My attention span is limited, and I get bored quickly with long posts—especially if they are not very intelligently written. You are also derailing your own thread. Your OP was not about the Apostasy; it was about how Catholics and non-Catholics understand or define the gospel. I gave you the Mormon definition. If you disagree with that definition, then here is your opportunity to explain why.

On the subject of the Apostasy, since it is something that crops up all the time, I have written a comprehensive reply to it from a Mormon perspective in my Blog which you can read here. Unless you can come up with something new, I think that you will find that all your questions and objections have already been answered in that post.

Randy makes long posts?? Your “reply” is 10 times longer than Randy’s - if you don’t cope well with long posts then why write such long replies and expect others to “cope with” them???
I have the capacity to read lengthy material, when it is well written and compelling. I didnt make it through 4 paragraphs of your ridiculously long (in the context of you complaining to Randy for the length of his post) reply. The very concept of what the Mormon Church means by Apostosy -paragraph 1 - is inconsistent with the entirety of the rest of Christianity. “by (apostosy) we mean the loss of the priesthood and Apostolic authority of the Church, which resulted in the loss of the ability to communicate directly with God, and to lead the church by revelation, as it used to be while the Twelve Apostles were still on the earth.” I think most Christians think of Apostosy as “complete repudiation of the Christian faith”, not the definition which you posted in your blog above. In addition, your speculation that the Great Apostosy occurred at the time of the death of the last Apostle remains completely unsupported. Certainly you may reason that we can be sure that the Church remained intact as long as an Apostle was alive would be met with little resistance, the presumption that apostosy occurred near that point is baseless. You didnt offer a single corroborating piece of evidence to support that allegation! And these are the foundational premises of your argument. And yet you expect us to wade through 15 pages on the justification of a basic premise which no one agrees with, and which it is laughable for a 19th century church to presume to pass judgement on is, well, more than most of us are willing to sit through. We also have limits to what we can “cope with” as you say.
My posts to you were short and sweet and yet you have done little to address them. Something seems amiss to an impartial observer.
And if it isnt obvious to you, no one is biting on your stale bait of presenting us with an “opportunity” to explain why we disagree with your positions. It may sound harsh to you, but Mormonism is largely regarded as a fringe element of Christianity that most Christians are comfortable ignoring. I dont say that to be inconsiderate or hurtful. I say it to wake you up. I’m sure most Mormons are good, decent people and I dont judge them at all - yourself included. Mormon theology and claims to authority are what I find to be incredulous.

Blessings

 

[Randy_Carson]

You make long posts Randy, which I don’t cope with very well. My attention span is limited, and I get bored quickly with long posts

I’ll keep this short and sweet…

No apostasy, no restoration. No restoration, no Mormonism.

PS - I followed the link to your blog. I copied everything you wrote in the entry “Apostasy and Restoration” into a Word document and coverted it to Arial 10pt. It’s eight, single-spaced pages. You introduced your blog with the following:

“This Blog is dedicated to addressing frequent questions that have arisen during my discussions about LDS doctrine with non-LDS on Christian discussion boards on the Internet. The intent is to save me the trouble of having to answer repeat questions…”

Now, if you feel the need to provide thorough answers to questions that you run across, why can’t I? Like me, you obviously feel that it is important to address these matters in detail.

Why the double-standard?

 

[guanophore]

OK, would you mind, then, explaining to me your understanding of being born again? Maybe I’ve been in and around too much of a certain stripe which differs from you. I’m willing to try to understand where you’re coming from on it.

2nd has repudiated “decisional regeneration”. I think that means that he does not think human will is at all involved - he has said things that make it clear that an “unregenerate” cannot desire, or choose God. I think the Monergists believe that God regenerates a person because He chooses them, then the person chooses God.

 

[guanophore]

NO:thumbsup: Are you

No, but to the extent that on embraces the Teaching of the Apostles preserved infallibly in the Church, one can benefit from the gift of infallibility. In like manner, to the extent that one distances oneself from that Teaching, one also falls further into error.

 

[guanophore]

How does that work for those who read the scriptures, see Catholic doctrines such as confession to priests and the Eucharist, and come into the Church?

Or is this just a one-way street?

I guess you’re saying that no one could ever actually read the Bible and still be a Catholic?

That would probably come as a surprise to the Catholic councils that defined the canon beginning in the fourth century.

Actually, he has specifically stated this here on CAF.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Originally Posted by Randy Carson
No apostasy, no restoration. No restoration, no Mormonism.

Hope this helps.

Outstanding Randy! Thank you, and may God bless your efforts!

Hey Randy

Thanks for your labor in the Lord and being a God pleaser and not a man pleaser!

For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ. - Apostle Paul

 

[guanophore]

I diagree with you on the subject that I personally am not protected by the Holy Spirit. If I trust in the Holy Spirit as I read the Bible I am protected!

And on what basis do you make this claim, Tweety?

What is it you are “protected” from ?

Why do you need protection?

How come only you are protected, and others are not?

What must someone do to get to the same special status you have?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hey Randy

Thanks for your labor in the Lord and being a God pleaser and not a man pleaser!

For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ. - Apostle Paul

Many thanks, 2nd Adam. :tiphat:

 

[tweetymom]

No, but to the extent that on embraces the Teaching of the Apostles preserved infallibly in the Church, one can benefit from the gift of infallibility. In like manner, to the extent that one distances oneself from that Teaching, one also falls further into error.

Thank you!