What Was the Apostasy?

[RebeccaJ]

You have to look at this all through rose colored glasses to rationalize it away as you do.

I don’t think so bukowski. All you have to do is look at the evidence. Something Mormons refuse to do because you have it in your heads that an apostasy occurred, therefore, it occurred. Mormonims is a restoration, therefore something was lost. Your whole mindset is a priori.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I presume you are talking about the “gates of hell” prophecy which discussion is still on this forum, and which does NOT even say what you believe it says.

So says you, and who are who?

 

[mfbukowski]

No more so than you have to look at all this with an eye to apostasy in order to rationalize it as Snow has.

I’m glad that you acknowledge that the apostasy cannot be disproven.

 

[Stephen168]

Prove the negative seems to be a key strategy in mormon apologetics, even for a philosophy major.
Because that is all they have in a lot of cases; like this one.

 

[mfbukowski]

Prove the negative seems to be a key strategy in mormon apologetics, even for a philosophy major.
Because that is all they have in a lot of cases; like this one.

Notice how few responses there have been. Usually apostasy topics grow like wildfire. No one has any comebacks, except the usual snipers in the bushes.

 

[mfbukowski]

Dear mfb. With all due respect to you and snow, I think it is your church that requires the wearing of pink lenses.

It seems clear to me that neither Amos nor Thess. supports the notion that there would be a complete and total apostacy of the NT Church. Amos was speaking of the apostacy of OT Israel and not the NT Church. And even then, it is clear from the next chapter that the apostacy was not total. Similarly, Thess. does not speak of total apostacy, but of a turning away from sound doctrine. The presumption underlying the statement is that there will remain some Church that preaches sound doctrine, from which sinners will turn away. Again, the conclusion of total apostacy is being read into the text by snow, who approaches the matter as an already established doctrine.

I think that snow’s rationale shows, as much as I surmised in the earlier thread, that the LDS position is to first assume (as a matter of dogma) that an apostacy occurred, then move from that assumption into a “rose-colored-for-LDS” view of Scripture and Church history. It’s not very persuasive at all, unless it’s what a person already wants to believe in the first instance.

Peace,
-Robert

Even if I agree you are right, which I don’t, that’s two down out of how many examples?

There is no such thing as objectivity in religion. It’s not science. I think Catholics just don’t get that, and that is your weakness. We accept the truth of our religion on faith and experience.

You really think this stuff can be proven by evidence, which it can’t. To me, the least persuasive argument there is is that the true church was preserved through all those schisms, heresies battles, conflicts and corruption. It’s not very persuasive at all, unless it’s what a person wants to believe in the first instance.

 

[mfbukowski]

Prove the negative seems to be a key strategy in mormon apologetics, even for a philosophy major.
Because that is all they have in a lot of cases; like this one.

Ah yes, either deliberate distortion or just ignorance of logic.

First of all, one cannot prove a negative, not even a Mormon.

What I said was that the apostasy cannot be DISPROVEN, which is what I have been saying for months on this forum. Big difference. If I need to explain it further I will.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Notice how few responses there have been. Usually apostasy topics grow like wildfire. No one has any comebacks, except the usual snipers in the bushes.

Most people don’t care. And as I have said, this subject has been addressed. Several times. From Mormons and others who believe in an apostasy.

In the end, Mormons take it on faith that Christ’s Church failed. I don’t know how many times it has to be explained that to believe this, is to believe that Christ Himself failed.

Catholics have faith that Jesus succeeds.

 

[zaffiroborant]

To me, the least persuasive argument there is is that the true church was preserved through all those schisms, heresies battles, conflicts and corruption. It’s not very persuasive at all, unless it’s what a person wants to believe in the first instance.

What happened to with God all things are possible?

IMO it is not a very persuasive argument that God couldn’t. Or that God wouldn’t. The idea that God would stick with us and work with what he had (in terms of people) seems very much in keeping with what’s seen in the OT and IMO much more in keeping with the revealed nature of God.

In spite of all the LDS protestations otherwise the whole “apostasy” can not be seen as anything less than an abandonment by God of his people.

I am curious though if you say “the apostasy can’t be disproven” and you understand the “apostasy” can’t be proven, why are you here arguing? I’m beginning to believe those who say your point here is to proselytize.

 

[rockjock]

IMO it is not a very persuasive argument that God couldn’t. Or that God wouldn’t. The idea that God would stick with us and work with what he had (in terms of people) seems very much in keeping with what’s seen in the OT and IMO much more in keeping with the revealed nature of God.

Sort of like the covenant that the nation of Israel made with God with one of the blessings that no nation would have power over her as long as she remained faithful. You know the history of Israel correct? She was destroyed by Rome and scattered to the four corners of the earth for 1800 years.

In spite of all the LDS protestations otherwise the whole “apostasy” can not be seen as anything less than an abandonment by God of his people.

No, the people abandoned God. A chosen people who have made covenants with God have the Holy Ghost guiding them. Direct revelation from God. Disobedience to God, and you lose the spirit guiding you. After that you are left with a dead religion. One where people analyze and debate the words of a dead people who once had the living light. The rabbis and doctors replace the prophets.

 

[Stephen168]

This thread is the post Snow is referring to here:

I’ll make a post that gives an overview of current LDS scholarly thinking. The reason I say “current scholarly thinking” is that we believe by way of modern revelation that there was an apostasy. Early LDS authors and scholars then tried to frame how, when and why. There understanding was derived from 19th century Protestant scholarship. New understanding is now available.

But I don’t see any new scholarship. It is the same stuff presented by James Talmage in 1909. In summary it goes like this:

The Apostasy was, we believe, predicted in the Bible. A few of the common scripture typically cited are reviewed below:

But warnings have been given to Christians from the beginning to this very day. My parents warned me and I’ve warned by kids.
An example of a warning/advice is: “Be careful or you will wreck your car”
An example of a prophecy/prediction is: “You will wreck your car this Thursday”
Notice a prophecy has a time and event.

So as hard as Mormon’s try to find a prophecy of the Great and total Apostasy in the Bible, it just isn’t there. It is a historical fantasy.

The only new twist that Snow offered was the “misconceptions.” Of course Snow contradicted the misconceptions because they are part of historical fantasy.

At the conclusion of the 1st century, the apostolic era comes to an end. We know from the limited accounts in the NT that additional apostles were added as vacancies in their number arose; however, from what know, only John remained by 95 AD.

Christ commissioned many Apostles (one who is sent, messenger) (Matthew 28:19-20, Luke 5:1-11, Luke 10:1, Acts 9:6). The Twelve selected a replacement for Judas as a member of The Twelve. Clements First letter to the Corinthians Chapter 42 written about 96 AD states: God sent Christ. Christ sent the Apostles. The Apostles were appointed by God and the Holy Spirit. The Apostles appointed Bishops and Deacons.
At the conclusion of the first century all those whom Christ has sent had died and those taught and ordained by them were given authority over his Church. The corner stone and foundation are laid once; upon which we build the Church. (Ephesians 2:19-22)

 

[Stephen168]

You really think this stuff can be proven by evidence, which it can’t.

What is your definition of “this stuff?”

 

[Joe_Keenan]

I have often seen this argument, and it is spurious. Do you really think (1) that an apologist for the church would have written a commentary on the apostasy of his own church and that (2) such a document would have survived, being copied over and over by later scribes and monks?

Even if it had been written, who would copy it? And of course it would be surpressed! Imagine a world in which every anti-catholic argument on the internet today would have to be copied over by hand by faithful catholics to survive. In a world dominated by catholic scholarship, that is exactly what it would have taken to have such documents survive. How long would they last? Would you sit down and faithfully copy such a website to make sure it survived? Such manuscripts were quickly destroyed by “natural selection”. They were extraordinarily incompatible with the dominant ideology.

And of course Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp would urge others to repent. Do you seriously think they would tell people NOT to repent, and continue “to flee” the church?

So lack of proof for your position, is proof? Perhaps there’s an easier explanation, you’re wrong.There is no need to suppress an event that did not occur

 

[Joe_Keenan]

I have often seen this argument, and it is spurious. Do you really think (1) that an apologist for the church would have written a commentary on the apostasy of his own church and that (2) such a document would have survived, being copied over and over by later scribes and monks?

Even if it had been written, who would copy it? And of course it would be surpressed! Imagine a world in which every anti-catholic argument on the internet today would have to be copied over by hand by faithful catholics to survive. In a world dominated by catholic scholarship, that is exactly what it would have taken to have such documents survive. How long would they last? Would you sit down and faithfully copy such a website to make sure it survived? Such manuscripts were quickly destroyed by “natural selection”. They were extraordinarily incompatible with the dominant ideology.

And of course Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp would urge others to repent. Do you seriously think they would tell people NOT to repent, and continue “to flee” the church?

Regarding point 1, assuming for the sake of argument its validity, why wouldn’t the enemies of the Church record a general falling away? The Romans would of recorded it for example. All in all, pretty weak reasoning

 

[Snow]

Snow,
I believe that the Church still follows the Apostolic Doctrines, so therefore no Apostacy occurred.

So , while you’ve published all kinds of warnings against heretics and even examples of heretical behavior, you have not shown that their views supplanted those of Christ in the Church. And that’s the rub. The Church, through the saving power of the Holy Spirit in its councils, has been able to fend off the continual threats to its orthodoxy, staying true to the Apostolic doctrines. If you disagree, the next step would be to show which doctrines have changed (which is the definition of apostacy).

Thank you for your response - and yes I do disagree. I believe that doctrines have changed significantly for the early Church up through the modern RCC. An example, of course, is the Trinity. Another that comes to mind is creation ex nihilo. Saying it doesn’t make it so, so perhaps as time and motivation permits, I can put together something that speaks to it.

 

[Snow]

I agree with Paul. The warnings were fulfilled and refuted, they are being revived and refuted again.

To say that the Church Jesus established went apostate is to deny that He said " i will not leave you orphans" or that “i am with you till the end of days”.

That really is an ineffective argument… that unless one agrees with your particular interpretation of scripture, then one denies Christ or his message. Actually, I agree with the Bible, just your with your view, no offense intended, of it.

 

[Snow]

I believe the historical identification of the beast is Emperor Nero Ceasar.

Is this your understanding?

From what I understand, preterists (those that believe that some or most of the prophecies re the end times actually happened in the first century or so) identfiy the beast with Imperial Rome or Nero.

Historists such as the 7th day Adventists hold that hte beast is the papacy.

Futurists say it is an anti-Christ that will come after the rapture.

Jehovah’s Witnesses say it’s world power

Aleister Crowley claimed it was him.

 

[Snow]

Do you think Paul is speaking to valid successors at this point in time?

I think that he was talking to the entire body of believers.

At most, these verses point to an apostasy FROM the Church, but not OF the Church.

Matter of interpretation. I don’t think that it is explicit what he means but given the totality of biblical scripture on the matter, a complete apostasy is one reasonable interpretation.

How does this warn of complete apostacy?

In that their will be a famine, that men will stagger and wander from sea to sea / coast to coast searching for the word of God and will not find it.

How does the next chapter fit in with complete apostacy?

The eyes of the Lord GOD are on this sinful kingdom; I will destroy it from off the face of the earth. But I will not destroy the house of Jacob completely, says the LORD. For see, I have given the command to sift the house of Israel among all the nations, As one sifts with a sieve, letting no pebble fall to the ground. (Amos 9:8-9)

The house of Jacob is a remnant of Israel. While God intended to destroy “this sinful kingdom” not all of Jacob’s descendants were to be destroyed.

Can you provide historical evidence identifying “the son of perdition” and how he “set himself up in God’s Temple”?

Thanks!

No - I don’t think anyone can. Who or what the son of perdition is is a matter of opinion or interpretation.

Some think it refers to someone that will come during the end times.

Some think it refers to the RCC

Some think it might be Nero or Caligula or John of Giscala.

I think the LDS understanding is that it refers to a symbol of evil such as Satan.

 

[Snow]

Yes, we should not listen to another Gospel, ones such as the LDS preach. Like the Gospel of Apostasy. The Gospel of Christ Failed. The Gospel of Polytheism. You are part of the great lie. Congratulations.

More insults.

I think I asked for no trolls in the OP.

 

[Snow]

Dear Snow,
Reading your well thought out presentation should be a lesson to all, that, depending on one’s own experience, presuppositions and theological background, a cogent argument can be made for very different interpretations of the same set of verses and historical facts. As an ex Protestant I know that I used to have what I thought were good arguments for my positions…but now I see that I was wrong. That is why it is so important to make your interpretation of the New Testament & Church history informed by and in continuity with the historical community of believers (the historical Catholic Church) who originally wrote it and lived it. In that way you will come away with a more accurate understanding than by interpreting from the point of view of a faith group that only came into existance 1800 years later.

I do not wish to be in continuity with historical Catholic or mainstream Christianity. I believe that there was an apostasy and their interpretations are in error - not in everything or course; but many things.

No, that’s not what I believe. I believe that there was an apostasy, revelation ceased and the church turned to Greek philosophy to develop and understand their doctrines.

The Church on the other hand believes public revelation was complete and sufficient and finished at the end of the apostolic age…and only the charism of authoritatively preserving, teaching and interpreting that finished revelation (given with the keys of the kingdom and the gift of unfailing faith) that has continuously resided in the successors of St. Peter was necessary to keep the church safe from the gates of hell. Yes there have been warnings, yes there have always been wolves and heretics, yes there will be a great apostasy someday, but early church history never records anybody saying that the great apostasy had already occured.

Let’s say that you are right - that nobody in the Church - say the 2nd century through the 12th says there was a complete apostasy. Okay - I don’t know if that is true but I wouldn’t expect them to. Revelation had ceased. They shouldn’t be expected to know God’s mind via direct communication.

Only after the reformation did this theory come to the front… but you should realize that it was proposed by reformers and denominational leaders who had a vested interest in proposing it: only if the Catholic Church was apostate or the whore of Babylon would there be justification in starting a new or reformed church.

Yes - you can say that reformers had a vested interest in reforming but that doesn’t, by itself, mean that they were wrong.

The Catholic Church on the other hand does not simply rest its existance upon its interpretation of the Bible…but on a continuous and verifiable historical record that spans 20 centuries all the way back to Jesus and the Apostles.

That God approves of the RCC, or imbues it with his divine authority is purely a matter of faith that cannot be substantiated with any historical record.

Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp may have noticed and warned of heresies but they did not write that the apostasy had come and that people should flee the church. On the contrary they admonished people to abide in the church with a valid ongoing apostolic succession of bishops. That is incompatible with your theory.

Not incompatible. My theory illustrates that people like Clement understood that there was much dissension swirling around about them but does not require them to understand that such dissension is or would become a complete falling away.

I respectfully think you should reconsider.

Don’t get me wrong. While I disagree with the RCC, I am filled with respect and appreciation for it. It is filled with men and women who have sought to preserve truth and goodness that has been given them. I just don’t think they were given all the requisite truth.

Regards