What Was the Apostasy?

[paul_c]

No, you gave me links to a catholic website which gave “answers” which were strawman representations of what we believed. Your “answers” were not answers at all.

And as you recall, we never got past the eucharist.

I will be glad to pass the torch to Snow if he feels like taking on those stupid answers on the catholic website.

Should take him about 5 minutes per answer. But he is a busy guy too!

I’m sorry, but you asked for scriptural passages to show the continuity of the catholic position. Those are contained in the answers on the Catholic website. The only one of those that even mentions the Mormon church was the one where you asked why Catholics don’t baptize the dead. Well, they never did - it is a Mormon practice only so - the only way I could respond was to give you the answer to why we differ form Mormons on this.

Look, you guys maintain that there are no scriptural basis for these Catholic Doctrines. I showed you why your assertions are invalid. At this point, you can either deny that what I sent you is valid and stick to your position that there was an apostasy or you can agree that they are valid and start on the path of conversion. Or you can do what Snow did and just ignore them altogether.

At this point, the only discussion that is still worthwhile is to debate the genesis of these Catholic Doctrines. Each of those doctrines are discussed regularly on these pages so you could just tune into those discussions if you are interested.

I’m still unclear as to why you Mormons are on this website.Is it to learn about Catholics , to Prostelytize, or to test your own theology against ours? .

 

[RebeccaJ]

Our doctrines are found only in the standard works. I have said this many many times and you know it.

Then why did you cite BY as a basis for your belief of the Mormon sacrament?

Also, since when are Mormons sola scriptura?

 

[Stephen168]

Yes, it makes sense but it is not really relevant for these discussions. Let me phrase it this way:

1. The RCC is God’s authorized Church today by virtue of it being
   A. the exact same Church as founded by Christ 2k years ago,
   B. having continued in an unbroken line.
   C. teaching the same doctrinal truths and
   D. being invested with Christ’s authority to act in His name.

1. The Mormon Church is God’s authorized Church today because
   A. the exact same Church as founded by Christ 2k years ago,
   B. having continued in an unbroken line.
   C. teaching the same doctrinal truths and
   D. being invested with Christ’s authority to act in His name.

or

1. The RCC is not God’s authorized Church today by virtue of
   A. It is not the same church
   B. There was a broken line
   C. Not teaching the same doctrine
   D. Not being invested with Christ’s authority
2. The Mormon Church is not God’s authorized Church today by virtue of
   A. It is not the same church
   B. There was a broken line
   C. Not teaching the same doctrine
   D. Not being invested with Christ’s authority

 

[Stephen168]

Where does the bible cover homoousious?

for starters, ready John 1: 1-4: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race.

cite the faithful apotolic scripture that demonstrates homoousious.

JOHN 1:1-14:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Yeah - I’ve read the verses. Not particularly relevant to this discussion.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Was there a great apostasy of Christ’s established Church?

“…and the gates of hell SHALL NOT prevail against it [THE CHURCH]”

Matthew 16

 

[MelanieAnne]

That’s a great quote.

Unfortunately, I suspect that Mormons would tell you that their church is the one that Mathew is talking about, that it once existed on the earth, became corrupted over time resulting in other faiths, perhaps even the Catholic faith, and then was finally “restored” by Joseph Smith. (If not in so many words, at least something along those lines.) Many of us have requested the detail on how that happened and have been frustrated in getting a response as there does not seem to be any consistency among Mormons as to what the so-called “Great Apostasy” even IS.

 

[Stephen168]

Was there a great apostasy of Christ’s established Church?

“…and the gates of hell SHALL NOT prevail against it [THE CHURCH]”

Matthew 16

I also like:
Luke 1:31-33
Mathew 28:19-20

Luke 1:48
John 6:51-58

 

[Snow]

Was there a great apostasy of Christ’s established Church?

“…and the gates of hell SHALL NOT prevail against it [THE CHURCH]”

Matthew 16

Does shouting make your point true?

Well, no. It’s merely a substitute for intelligent discussion.

1. What are the “gates of hell”

It ain’t Satan like most people here post. It is “hades” - the realm of the dead. Thus the scripture isn’t referring Satan prevailing. It says that death doesn’t prevail over the church. It has nothing to do with apostasy or a promise of no apostasy. It is a statement, in one reasonable interpretation, that those who find salvation in Christ and follow Him through the Church will overcome death, even spiritual death, free from any claim from Hades by virtue of the atonement.

The idea that Satan ruled the dead was a medieval idea appropriated from pagan sources.

1. It’s doubtful that Christ was referring to Peter when he stated upon what his Church would be built.

-Christ, if anyone, is the foundation of the Christ’s Church, not mortal, fallible men.

-The word Church in the verse was “Ekklesia” which is not a formal institutional church as in the RCC. It is a gathering of Christians assembled for worship.

-The rock upon which the church was was built was “petra” which is bedrock or large rock.

-Peter was “Petros” which is a smaller rock or stone.

The bedrock upon which the church was founded was

The Petros referred to in the verse was likely the revelation that Christ had just referred to. Christ was to build his Church upon the principle of continuing revelation which is what have revealed Christ’s identity to Peter.

The noted Bible scholar, Alfred Edersheim, after showing how terms related to “Petros” and “Petra” were used in Rabbinic literature, said this of Christ’s statement to Peter:

“Believing that Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic, we can now understand how the words Petros and Petra would be purposely used by Christ to mark the difference, which their choice would suggest. Perhaps it might be expressed in this somewhat clumsy paraphrase: “Thou art Peter (Petros) - a Stone or Rock - and upon this Petra - the Rock, the Petrine - will I found my Church.” If, therefore, we would not entirely limit the reference to the words of Peter’s confession, we would certainly apply them to that which was the Petrine in Peter: the heaven-given faith which manifested itself in his confession.”

(Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Hendrickson Publ., Peabody, Mass., 1993, p. 531)

Sure it sounds enticing to elevate a human clergyman to such lofty heights that Christ would found his entire earthly Church on him, but no so, in my opinion.

 

[ryanoneil]

loss of temple ordinances

Where are these in the scriptures, that “most catholic” of books?

What is this supposed to mean? Most protestants don’t even believe in priesthood

I must be missing something here. Temple ordinances can’t survive without a priesthood.

 

[ryanoneil]

Look at the OP. It’s not proof, but it is evidence:

ev·i·dence (v-dns)
n.

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:
2. Something indicative;

Since you brought up the OP, but could you respond to the questions and counter-evidence in post #58?

Thanks

 

[Snow]

I already did please reread my post.

I don’t know how to write it so it is clearer. The definition you are using is unique to LDS.

apostasy is a renunciation of a religious faith or Abandonment of one’s religious faith

What is unclear is that in your post you said that the definition is defined to fit a preconceived idea or as I wrote doctrine.

I have no idea what doctrine you think I am writing. I am giving you my understanding the of the word apostasy. I am not writing doctrine.

As to your claim that I am giving an definition of apostasy that is outside the standard definition… you ought to do your homework.

The scripture I cited was 2 Thess 2:3. It speaks of a “falling away.” "Falling away is translated from transliterated word “Apostasia” which is Greek; (αποστασία) meaning a defection or revolt, from απο, apo, “away, apart”, στασις, stasis, “standing”.

It is a falling away from or a revolt apart from or a defection from… that matches up well with the internet definition you are complaining about: Definition: 1- Turning or falling away from true gospel teachings as individuals or as a people.

Well it depends on which definition you use. Definition matters because you have to be on the same page. I don’t accept your definition. It is not the common definition. If you use the definition from the dictionary it would be hard to say that there has been an apostasy.

You are like a broken record. Who cares if you don’t accept my definition, or the Greek definition. This isn’t a thread about YOUR views of the apostasy. In this thread I am explaining MY views on the apostasy. Start your own thread if you want to your views of it.

 

[Snow]

Hinduism is polytheistic, denying the Truth of One God. And also denies Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

The challenge was to prove that Hinduism isn’t valid. Nice try at changing the subject.

Mormonism would be closer to Hinduism is then Catholicism. Polytheism…denying One God.

Except that The Chruch of Jesus Christ, is, er, Christian and Hinduism is, you know (maybe you don’t) Hindu.

And by the way - your dishonesty about The Church of Jesus Christ denying One God is showing again.

 

[adrift]

What is unclear is that in your post you said that the definition is defined to fit a preconceived idea or as I wrote doctrine.

I have no idea what doctrine you think I am writing. I am giving you my understanding the of the word apostasy. I am not writing doctrine.

As to your claim that I am giving an definition of apostasy that is outside the standard definition… you ought to do your homework.

The scripture I cited was 2 Thess 2:3. It speaks of a “falling away.” "Falling away is translated from transliterated word “Apostasia” which is Greek; (αποστασία) meaning a defection or revolt, from απο, apo, “away, apart”, στασις, stasis, “standing”.

It is a falling away from or a revolt apart from or a defection from… that matches up well with the internet definition you are complaining about: Definition: 1- Turning or falling away from true gospel teachings as individuals or as a people.

You are like a broken record. Who cares if you don’t accept my definition, or the Greek definition. This isn’t a thread about YOUR views of the apostasy. In this thread I am explaining MY views on the apostasy. Start your own thread if you want to your views of it.

Why do you get so nasty.; It may be your views but I have the duty to challenge those views. As I said you have presented the etymology of the word and not the definition.
You seem to think you are the only one entitled to present their views The preconceived ideas is that the Church needed restoring. It did not. You have presented your opinion on why it did. Sorry you don’t get to have a soap box with just your opinion.

 

[Snow]

I did answer in another thread which is now closed. I will just link to that answer I guess if you call me lazy you would be right

You realize of course that this statement I disagree with entirely. Although Constantine was not baptizes, putting it off until his deathbed, I would not say he was not Christian as you have already alluded to.

Let’s put it this way then - he was the kind of Christian who at the time refused to be baptized and wasn’t so Christian that he discontinued murdering people. Note that I am not talking about his bloody military battles.

I imagine your comments about Constantine is to impugn the doctrine? There is nothing wrong in this method but the holiness of the Church’s members does not disqualify what the Church teaches. It doesn’t matter and I will not address it further.

It doesn’t directly impugn doctrine but it illustrates how different doctrinal matters were decided upon in the 4th and 5th century than when direct revelation guided the Church during 1st century.

That isn’t to say that it would never matter but I really consider Constantine as a minor character that allowed the faith to be openly practiced but was very flawed.

Flawed, yes. Minor, no. He is a huge and imposing figure in the early era of Christianity. The Orthodox side of the Catholic Church refers to him as the 13th apostle.

The definition of Homoousios I will be using is of one and the same substance.

I find your usage of modern concept funny when you define modern as 4th and 5th century.

The modern understanding of the Trinity is derived from or the same as the Creeds of the 4th and 5th centuries, which was different than the understanding of the 1st and 2nd centuries.

I think we can agree that the Trinity is in the Bible and set aside that we do not mean the same thing. This is a problem because if we are not on the same ground than it might explain why you do not see how we see that the Trinity as defined at the Council of Nicea is what Scripture has always taught.
The versus that came to mind immediately were:

John 10:30
John 5:18
John 14:9
These versus say that Jesus and the Father are one. It can be inferred to mean equal. I already know that you can and do have a different meaning. That isn’t the point. The point is can you infer the teaching from these versus. I say yes you say no I assume .

John 10:30 says nothing about how the Father and Christ are one. It doesn’t address consubstantiality.

John 5:18 says nothing whatsoever about consubstantiality.

John 14:9 says nothing at all about being of the same ontological substance.

Do you have ANY verses that speak to Homoousios? Any at all?

The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.[P Achtemeier, editor, Harper’s Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 1099.]

A Catholic encyclopedia notes that Trinitarianism doesn’t really appear until the last 25 years of the 4th century:
Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as others, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century.[RL Richard, “Trinity, Holy”, in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols. (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1967), 14:295.]

A Jesuit [Catholic] scholar says this:
There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there…The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons.[Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 32,35.]

I also found this web site while searching for these versus

I don’t bother with anti-Catholic and anti-Mormon websites.

 

[Snow]

Why do you get so nasty.; It may be your views but I have the duty to challenge those views.

1. You called me dishonest. I think that is incorrect and if you can show that I have been - as I already said, I’ll apologize and correct any errors.
2. You called me lazy when in fact I opened this entire thread and spent a fair amount of time presenting LDS views at the request of a number of Catholic posters. I went out of my way to be responsive to their requests
3. You complain that my views of what the apostasy don’t match the definition of the word you prefer. It’s irrelevant. This thread is about LDS views.

Now I’m done with the topic of apostasy word definitions.

 

[Snow]

the Greek term episkopos literally means “one who oversees” or “one who supervises”.

Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the holy ones in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the overseers and ministers: (Phil 1:1)

I said that I thought he was talking to the entire body of believers. I don’t see how your post disputes that.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. Remnant doesn’t suggest complete to me.

Okay - we disagree.

A famine in the land of ancient Israel but not the whole world.

I believe that phrases sea to sea and coast to coast - searching and not finding indicate really, really widespread famine.

If Amos 8:11-12 is used to be applied to the early church, doesn’t it make sense to to apply Amos 9:8-10 as well?

This is evidence that the apostasy of this time would not be total. In Israel’s history there were several apostasies, but never a total one.

As I recall my point was that Amos 8 applied to the remnant of Israel, not the early Christian movement specifically.

OK, but how does this apply to a first century total apostacy?

You cite 2 Thessalonians 2:3 in reference to the second coming of Christ and give NT examples that the beginnings of the apostasy was already under way. Then you say that the apostacy was complete by the middle of the following century. But Christ did return as they thought He would.

I don’t understand your point. Christ has not yet returned. 2 Thess was speaking of the future.

So why should we believe a total apostacy took place?

If you are Catholic, I don’t think you should - it would cause too much cognitive dissonance.

It’s all a matter of faith.

 

[Stephen168]

1. It’s doubtful that Christ was referring to Peter when he stated upon what his Church would be built.

-Christ, if anyone, is the foundation of the Christ’s Church, not mortal, fallible men.

-The word Church in the verse was “Ekklesia” which is not a formal institutional church as in the RCC. It is a gathering of Christians assembled for worship.

-The rock upon which the church was was built was “petra” which is bedrock or large rock.

-Peter was “Petros” which is a smaller rock or stone.

The bedrock upon which the church was founded was

The Petros referred to in the verse was likely the revelation that Christ had just referred to. Christ was to build his Church upon the principle of continuing revelation which is what have revealed Christ’s identity to Peter.

The noted Bible scholar, Alfred Edersheim, after showing how terms related to “Petros” and “Petra” were used in Rabbinic literature, said this of Christ’s statement to Peter:

“Believing that Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic, we can now understand how the words Petros and Petra would be purposely used by Christ to mark the difference, which their choice would suggest. Perhaps it might be expressed in this somewhat clumsy paraphrase: “Thou art Peter (Petros) - a Stone or Rock - and upon this Petra - the Rock, the Petrine - will I found my Church.” If, therefore, we would not entirely limit the reference to the words of Peter’s confession, we would certainly apply them to that which was the Petrine in Peter: the heaven-given faith which manifested itself in his confession.”

(Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Hendrickson Publ., Peabody, Mass., 1993, p. 531)

so?

 

[mfbukowski]

Then why did you cite BY as a basis for your belief of the Mormon sacrament?

Also, since when are Mormons sola scriptura?

I did not “cite” BY as a “basis” for the belief in the Mormon sacrament.

It was YOU who mentioned that you thought that my position was not Mormon. I cited BY to show that my position was the same as his. I didn’t even find that quote until after I had written what I wrote to you. It is not a basis of my belief. I am the basis of my belief as I am with all Mormon doctrines.

I had a set of beliefs before I joined the church. I believed that if God had once revealed himself to prophets, he must do so today. I believed that there was no way that Catholicsm could possibly have apostolic succession after all that checkered history. I believed the sacrament was symbolic only – even while I was Catholic. I did not believe that Mary should be venerated-- before I was Mormon. I believed that we should be the best people we possibly could be, and I believed that in some sense we could participate in becoming like God. I believed that we lived before we came to this life. And I considered becoming a catholic priest at age 13. I went to a seminary to try it out, and received a revelation that I should in fact become a priest. But I also received a revelation that I should be married and have a family, which made no sense to me at the time. A married Catholic priest? No, a Married Mormon priest.

Every belief I have in Mormonism is something I believed before I joined the church. It was an incredible experience to find everything I already believed in one place. And I did not know how it all fit together until I was taught that in the church.

Every belief I have, I came up with myself. Another way to put it was that all these beliefs were revealed to me. And then I found the church. I was baptized within 6 weeks of my hearing the message of the church, which at that time was required by the Mormons. I was ready two days after I heard it all. And I have not looked back. Joseph Smith was only an incidental. It had to be true-- how else could anyone put together everything I knew was true?

And in the temple now I have learned so much more. So much more. It would not even be visible to you. The language of symbols taught there is beyond human understanding and may only be revealed by the spirit.

Why do I come here? Because you misrepresent my beliefs and my church. You make caricatures of what I find sacred. It is my effort to try to correct some of those misconceptions, but no one here will listen. It seems that you are all so insecure you cannot even look at the possibility that there may be other interpretations to what you believe.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The challenge was to prove that Hinduism isn’t valid. Nice try at changing the subject.

Bukowski knows that Hinduism isn’t valid, that, or he isn’t a Christian.

It is bukowski changing the subject. Dodging the truth with an relativistic: your truth is different than my truth and how do you know that your truth is any more valid than mine. It’s secular nonsense that I know well because I used to live it.

There is One Truth, which is found in a Person, Jesus Christ. He founded One Church. Which is of One Faith.

Except that The Chruch of Jesus Christ, is, er, Christian and Hinduism is, you know (maybe you don’t) Hindu.

And by the way - your dishonesty about The Church of Jesus Christ denying One God is showing again.

You do not believe in One God, THE GOD, THE ONLY GOD, you believe in A God. You know it and I know it so you can stop pretending.

A god, who is one among many…Hinduism has many gods, so maybe your god is one among those.

 

[Stephen168]

As to your claim that I am giving an definition of apostasy that is outside the standard definition… you ought to do your homework.

The scripture I cited was 2 Thess 2:3. It speaks of a “falling away.” "Falling away is translated from transliterated word “Apostasia” which is Greek; (αποστασία) meaning a defection or revolt, from απο, apo, “away, apart”, στασις, stasis, “standing”.

It is a falling away from or a revolt apart from or a defection from… that matches up well with the internet definition you are complaining about: Definition: 1- Turning or falling away from true gospel teachings as individuals or as a people.

historical

I believe that the apostasy is the loss of God’s authority to administer the affairs of the church in His name…

faith

You are like a broken record. Who cares if you don’t accept my definition, or the Greek definition. This isn’t a thread about YOUR views of the apostasy. In this thread I am explaining MY views on the apostasy.

But what is your definition? Is it an historical event or a statement of faith?