Posted on 12/26/2010 5:29:46 PM PST by Colofornian
I'm still reading the Announcement of the Universal Apostasy , but this is where you lose me.
Can you show me:
1. What constitutes the "true" church and
2. Proof that it remained intact throughout history?
The true church is Christianity - people, not a building.
Proof that it remained intact throughout history?
LOL, prove that it DIDN'T remain intact 10. Christianity has Jesus' promise that it would remain intact throughout history and that though some would LEAVE it, it would remain intact.
This is what amazes me.
We’re contending one thing, [mormons claim complete apostasy]. 10 is defending one thing [that’s not what they meant, not one whit of truth left?].
When we offer proof of the mormon claims, 10 turns around and says, “oh really, prove the opposite”.
Really? Christ is a liar?
I tire of these word and spin games.
Too vague. By this definition anything is Christianity. While it certainly isn't a building, it isn't people either.
People are Christians. They practice Christianity, but Christianity is a belief system and a way of life. To make Christianity "true" it must be headed by Jesus Christ himself or else it cannot bear his name and be true.
Christianity has Jesus' promise that it would remain intact throughout history and that though some would LEAVE it, it would remain intact.
Overreach on this one. He didn't promise it would remain intact throughout history. That's eisegsis.
The Christian expectation is apostasy at some point and restoration. That's the story of the Bible.
In Noah's day you had universal apostasy. Josaiah as experienced universal apostasy among his people. Jesus encountered it as well. By dictionary definition apostasy is An abandonment of what one has voluntarily professed; a total desertion or departure from one's faith, principles, or party; esp., the renunciation of a religious faith; as, Julian's apostasy from Christianity.
These definitions are important when trying to search out the truth. The LDS definition of apostasy is slightly different. The LDS definition of Apostasy is:
Latter-day Saints believe that apostasy occurs whenever an individual or community rejects the revelations and ordinances of God, changes the gospel of Jesus Christ, or rebels against the commandments of God, thereby losing the blessings of the Holy Ghost and of divine authority.
So you have four conditions that satisfy apostasy for the LDS:
1. Rejection of revelations of God
2. Rejection of the ordinances of God
3. Changes to the gospel of Jesus Christ
4. Rebellion against the commandments of God
#4 most certainly is always happening, but is it complete? Few Christians observe the Sabbath Day who would otherwise strictly adhere to the other Ten Commandments. The Trinity is another example of changes to the gospel of Jesus Christ
Let me continue my research and reading. I haven't finished reading History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: History of Joseph Smith the Prophet By Joseph Smith, B. H. Roberts.
I hadn't known this book was available until Szonian and you put me on to it and I was thrilled to find it online. I like going to the source and not just getting the opinions of men. Interpretations get filtered and all that.
I'm not going to read the whole thing for now, but just the chapter starting on page XL called Announcement of the Universal Apostasy
When I'm done I'll post what I've found or have you read it already?
Jesus promised that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”? (Matt. 16:18) Jesus also promised, “lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” (Matt. 28:20) There couldn’t have been unless Jesus lied.
Jesus cannot lie or else he wouldn't be God. So we agree on that.
Matt. 16:18 is best translated that “the gates of [Hades] shall not prevail against it.” Hades being the holding place for dead spirits. This is in keeping with the OT Sheol and with LDS doctrine as regards the dead, no?
It actually makes the most sense when you think about the LDS doctrine of work for the dead. In this context it's obvious that Jesus meant his Atonement was infinite and could not be limited even by death.
For Matthew 28:20 context matters. A common tactic of eisegesis is to snip a verse, taking it out of context and then buttressing your doctrine by it, but that's just putting too much sand in the mix and castles built of sand...
The verse only makes sense as a complete thought and Jesus' thought is (Matt. 28:19-20):
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."(I used the NIV as it is pretty close to the actual Greek)
The "make disciples" is mathéteuó and means "helping someone to progressively learn the Word of God to become a matured, growing disciple (literally, "a learner," a true Christ-follower); to train (develop) in the truths of Scripture and the lifestyle required, i.e. helping a believer learn to be a disciple of Christ in belief and practice.
Baptizing is baptizó meaning properly, "submerge" (Souter); hence, baptize, to immerse (literally, "dip under"). 907 (baptízō) implies submersion ("immersion"), in contrast to 472 /antéxomai ("sprinkle").
"Teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" is very interesting and you'd profit by grabbing your Strong's and reading the Greek with the definitions. I like going here Matthew 28:20. I hate relying on anyone else's interpretation as you're likely to be mislead. There's so much eisegesis out there it isn't funny.
So only under the preceding circumstances does Christ promise, "And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age," function.
Once you lose authority to preach, baptize and teach "all that I [Jesus Christ] have commanded you" you most certainly have apostasy and it sounds complete.
Total apostasy can still exist under these circumstances, no? Imagine we'd taken apart a motorcycle down to its constituent parts. Some would have a tire, a spark plug, gas tank, etc. It wouldn't be a motorcycle even though all the parts are there.
You'd still have complete apostasy even with these four still alive, no? The only exception would be if they were still discipling, baptizing and teaching the commandments of God.
Do the LDS believe they were doing that at the time of Joseph Smith's vision?
That fits if you believe, as the LDS do, that you need authority, baptism (immersion), ordinances, work for the dead, functioning temples, etc.
It seems that you're just arguing beliefs as facts. That you believe differently is known. That the LDS are wrong isn't.
I’m simply seeking to understand what you meant. If complete apostasy means not one whit of truth left, then there isn’t a complete apostasy.
If instead it simply means that there is no functioning authority discipling, baptizing and teaching ordinances then there was a complete apostasy.
Ordinance being defined as:
1. A rule established by authority; a permanent rule of action. An ordinance may be a law or statute of sovereign power. In this sense it is often used in the Scriptures. Ex. 15. Num. 10. Ezra 3. It may also signify a decree, edict or rescript, and the word has sometimes been applied to the statutes of Parliament, but these are usually called acts or laws. In the United States, it is never applied to the acts of Congress, or of a state legislature.
2. Observance commanded.
3. Appointment.
4. Established rite or ceremony. Heb. 9. In this sense, baptism and the Lord’’s supper are denominated ordinances.
This is in keeping with Matt. 28:19-20.
Wrong again - church is the 'ekklesia' - the called out ones, the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth and the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven. Perhaps your are not well read enough.
People are Christians. They practice Christianity, but Christianity is a belief system and a way of life.
Nope, "people" are not necessarily "christian" for practicing a "belief system" any more than sleeping in a garage makes you a car 10. To be a follower of Christ is not a 'belief system'. Belief systems are products of men.
To make Christianity "true" it must be headed by Jesus Christ himself or else it cannot bear his name and be true.
Nope again - to be true the Person, nature and works of Christ (ie the definition of WHO Jesus is) must be true. Under your definition there would be no separation between JW, Unitarians, Moonies, etc. Additionally, LOTS of organizations 'bear' the name of Jesus - doesn't make them true either.
Overreach on this one. He didn't promise it would remain intact throughout history. That's eisegsis.
Just another ignorant statement - THAT is EISEGESIS 10 and an epic fail on your part. There is absolutely NOTHING in Jesus' promise to Peter that would indicate otherwise - except morg theology - thus eisegesis on your part.
In Noah's day you had universal apostasy.
Not ABSOLUTE universal though because Noah and his family were found righteous before Lord.
Josaiah as experienced universal apostasy among his people.
Josaiah is not found in the OT - If you are referring to Josiah, his reign is noteworthy for the great revivals back to the worship of Jehovah which he led.
Jesus encountered it as well.
Biblical reference please - I don't accept the bom references.
An abandonment of what one has voluntarily professed; a total desertion or departure from one's faith, principles, or party; esp., the renunciation of a religious faith; as, Julian's apostasy from Christianity.
Webster's dictionary is a poor source for theology 10. However, if we apply the same the key is the word TOTAL comprising the whole number or amount , which leaves NO room for any to slip by.
The LDS definition of Apostasy
Please note that the contents of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, a joint product of Brigham Young University and Macmillan Publishing Company, do not necessarily represent the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
#4 most certainly is always happening, but is it complete? Few Christians observe the Sabbath Day who would otherwise strictly adhere to the other Ten Commandments.
mormon do not observe the sabbath either as defined within the Bible.
The Trinity is another example of changes to the gospel of Jesus Christ
Mormon polytheism is another example of changes to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Interesting to see you swirling in the backwater of lds claims of TOTAL apostasy, not complete 10, please keep focused. I've defined TOTAL in prior post. Remember, smith also said -
AII their creeds and professors (professors of their faith evangelists/preachers) were also wrong.
Not some, not most, not many but ALL - right in line with TOTAL. Please try to stay focused 10 and not parse words or even switch them in mid stream.
Ah, here is your 'complete' problem. Context, context, context 10. if it is 'complete', then the apostasy was TOTAL, according to smith et al. If there was NO (not some, not a few, not many but NO) true church was in existence and ALL the things that made for a "true" church were COMPLETELY removed/corrupted, then it was TOTAL. Come on 10 leave the nicy-nice PR spin to the more experienced at lds hq.
That's a better definition than your original statement, but it still isn't Biblical. It's too loosey-goosey. The churches of the NT are orderly and geographical with the persons at a specific locale and professing faith in Jesus Christ falling under an ordained hierarchy of leadership.
Here's the word "church" in Greek:ekklésia Definition: an assembly, congregation, church; the Church, the whole body of Christian believers.
The addition of "HELPS Word-studies" by Helps Ministries, Inc. works to obfuscate the word further by its attempt to universalize the definition. It doesn't make sense if the Church is "the universal (total) body of believers whom God calls out from the world and into His eternal kingdom" without further definition of what makes up a believer, that is what is the right belief and for that the Bible is clear. It isn't simply any professed believer in Jesus Christ, there's order in God's true Church.
The definition you posted, while theologically convenient is eisegesis. Particularly your reference to the "assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven" which is absurd in light of Biblical truth.
I'd like to discuss your other assertions in this post further, but I don't have time until later in the week. Take care.
The addition of "HELPS Word-studies" by Helps Ministries, Inc. works to obfuscate the word further by its attempt to universalize the definition.
LOL, can't refute a source - attempt to poison the well. Epic fail 10. From your own found definition - ". . . the whole body of Christian believers". That is a universal statement, not (snicker) 'eisegesis'. It isn't simply any professed believer in Jesus Christ, there's order in God's true Church.
See, had you HONESTLY posted the strongs definition, under definitions 1d 4) and 5) is what I included in my citation. So since you presented a cherry-picked definition extract you failed. Even with your extract, it still supports my statement.
Regarding order - are you telling me that Paul appointed 12 year old boys to supervise your definition of a 'church'?
"The Christian expectation is apostasy at some point and restoration. That's the story of the Bible.
In Noah's day you had universal apostasy. Josiah experienced universal apostasy among his people. Jesus encountered it as well. By dictionary definition apostasy is An abandonment of what one has voluntarily professed; a total desertion or departure from one's faith, principles, or party; esp., the renunciation of a religious faith; as, Julian's apostasy from Christianity.
These definitions are important when trying to search out the truth. The LDS definition of apostasy is slightly different. The LDS definition of Apostasy is:
Latter-day Saints believe that apostasy occurs whenever an individual or community rejects the revelations and ordinances of God, changes the gospel of Jesus Christ, or rebels against the commandments of God, thereby losing the blessings of the Holy Ghost and of divine authority.
So you have four conditions that satisfy apostasy for the LDS:
1. Rejection of revelations of God
2. Rejection of the ordinances of God
3. Changes to the gospel of Jesus Christ
4. Rebellion against the commandments of God
#4 most certainly is always happening, but is it complete? Few Christians observe the Sabbath Day who would otherwise strictly adhere to the other Ten Commandments. The Trinity is another example of changes to the gospel of Jesus Christ
Let me continue my research and reading. I haven't finished reading History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: History of Joseph Smith the Prophet By Joseph Smith, B. H. Roberts.
I hadn't known this book was available until Szonian and you put me on to it and I was thrilled to find it online. I like going to the source and not just getting the opinions of men. Interpretations get filtered and all that.
I'm not going to read the whole thing for now, but just the chapter starting on page XL called Announcement of the Universal Apostasy "
On further research #1, #2 and #3 have also occurred.
The closing of scriptures is a refutation of further revelation from God. The Christian expectation should be the opposite. There isn't any Biblical passage that indicates revelation or scripture is closed.God is sovereign, not the Bible.
#2 is true. There are no ordinances without authority and most ordinances have been abandoned by "Christians".
#3 is a function of 1 & 2.
That's what B.H. Roberts spells out here:
Nope - that is NOT the Christian expectation 10 - it may be yours, but you fail epically.
In Noah's day you had universal apostasy.
Except for Noah and his family - hence NOT universal. Yawn, your repetition if boring 10.
Josiah
Time wasn't UNIVERSAL apostasy either as there were still many who believed. Tsk, tsk, stupidity is doing the same thing over and over, as you are here, and expecting the same results. Read your bible
Yes, definitions are important - however the presence of INDIVIDUAL apostasy does not equal the complete, total and universal apostasy your mormon prophets claimed were in existence prior to smith's scam operation 10.
On further research #1, #2 and #3 have also occurred. The closing of scriptures is a refutation of further revelation from God.
LOL, sorry 10, repeating what your echo chamber sez doesn't prove a total, complete and universal apostasy existed in Christianity.
But your last commentary is worth refuting in detail. What 'PROOF' do we have that this 'further revelation from God' (which ever one that may be in mormondom) is a TRUE revelation from God. Your whole testimony hinges on a subjective FEELING that smith was a prophet. Facts are a pesky thing to such a dogmatically adhered to 'faith'. Every aspect of smith's life shouts that he was a false prophet. That is the judgement OF scripture 10. Every facet of the bom story has been shown to be false - it comes up empty every time and not a single proven artifact or discovery in the americas to support it. How about all the different first vision stories 10 - smith contradicts himself multiple times over.
Fact is, just like there never was a complete, total and universal apostasy of Christianity - this supposed 'continuing' revelation is shown to be fraudulent as well.
The Christian expectation should be the opposite. There isn't any Biblical passage that indicates revelation or scripture is closed.God is sovereign, not the Bible.
No, history shows otherwise - many heretical sects came up because they had their own 'revelations'. But then you are filtering your understanding through the peepstone of mormonism. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would bring to REMEMBRANCE that which he HAD (past tense) taught them. The Bereans didn't look to the teachings of Paul to verify his message - they went to the existing scriptures - the OT. There is nothing that the bom can add to the message of the Bible. But the message of MORMONISM is repudiated by the Bible at every turn.
There are no ordinances without authority and most ordinances have been abandoned by "Christians".
LOL, except where those 'ordinances' never existed in Christianity to begin with.
Roberts is wrong as are you. The gates of hell didn't prevail against the Church and Christ was true to His promise to never leave or forsake His church at any stage of its existence. Your regurgitation of Roberts fails when it strikes that pesky fact of history.
Smith was a false prophet, the bom is a false witness and mormonism is a false religion, facts that I can testify to according to the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ preserved for us in the Bible.
I don't understand your point, but I can only think of Acts 5:19-20, actually the whole chapter is temple focused.
I did honestly post the entire Strong's definition of Here's the word "church" in Greek: ekklésia previously as well as the reference as a link. Definition: an assembly, congregation, church; the Church, the whole body of Christian believers.
The trouble with the view you're espousing that of the final definition and the first is that the "whole body of Christian believers" and "an assembly" are too open ended. Church is found in the New Testament as a specific, authorized, ordered entity, geographically limited and only under those circumstances does the "whole body of Christian believers" constitute the Church and "an assembly" the grouping of those Christians in their geographic place. We cannot impose the 20th century on the 1st.
Let's look at some examples:
In Matthew 18 Jesus covers several topics, but one that is overlooked is the "church" as described by Christ himself. Matthew 18:17 Jesus: "If the person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church. Then if he or she won't accept the church's decision, treat that person as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector."
Now that's Jesus talking and the Church he is describing is one of order. Can you imagine just going to any church to resolve this problem? Even if the church agreed with your beliefs would you argue that any randomly chosen church would settle this issue?
The Church of Jesus Christ is a church of order, it is an assembly of order and only in order can it ever be called the "the whole body of Christian believers."
Regarding order - are you telling me that Paul appointed 12 year old boys to supervise your definition of a 'church'?
Now this is not my definition of church, but God's. I don't know if Paul appointed 12 year old boys to administer in the church and neither do you as the Bible is silent on that matter. But the Christian expectation is a church with Christ ordained offices. See: Ephesians 4:11 Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers.
The Greek is fascinating, particularly "the great rebellion" which is apostasia: a defection from truth.
This must be among only those who profess to be Christians otherwise it doesn't make sense as the world has revolted against God from the beginning. Jesus came to correct the Jews, the Hebrew remnant, yet the "falling away" or apostasy was to come later and be among the Christians.
Here's Websters (1913/1828): An abandonment of what one has voluntarily professed; a total desertion of departure from one's faith, principles, or party; esp., the renunciation of a religious faith; as, Julian's apostasy from Christianity. But, you likely know this already.
So if the Bible and its teachings are ignored, the fervent Christians deny the need for ordinations and authority or lose said authority to act what would you call that? Who can baptize and if no one why baptize, it's just symbolic anyway, right?
"No need for order or authority the Church is just all of us anyway." Nonsense, absolute nonsense.
It flies in the face of all our Lord and Master taught: 18Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
PS it isn't the gates of "hell" that won't prevail that won't prevail against the Church, but Hades - the holding place of the dead. Please do the research, be open minded and avoid eisegesis. The Bible doesn't say what you want to believe it does.
For instance Josiah became king at age 8 and ruled in righteousness and restored the temple ordinances which had been utterly lost.
Fail again 10, you were emphasizing a physical structure associated with location. Acts 14 comes later than Acts 5 10. Were the Gentiles Paul were ministering to attending temple in Jerusalem - NO, they were forbidden. The temple was nothing like mormon temples.
I did honestly post the entire Strong's definition of Here's the word "church" in Greek: ekklésia previously as well as the reference as a link. Definition: an assembly, congregation, church; the Church, the whole body of Christian believers.
Sorry, fail again, Biblos provides an incomplete definition. This site provides the more accurate and detailed definition:
http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=1577
The trouble with the view you're espousing that of the final definition and the first is that the "whole body of Christian believers" and "an assembly" are too open ended.
Fail again 10 - do you bother to read in context? The usage of the word in context provides the definition. Are you claiming that Christian believers are not part of the church? Remember - at no point in the NT did they have a physical location/building called a 'church' - that is a late invention (see your baffled statement at first)
Church is found in the New Testament as a specific, authorized, ordered entity, geographically limited .. . .
Still haven't studied the bible very much huh? Unfortunately - even your abbreviated definition of ekklesia repudiates this view. It was only geographically limited because it was growing and young. It had no temples, it had no priesthood, it had no 'ordiances' aka morg doctrines.
only under those circumstances does the "whole body of Christian believers" constitute the Church and "an assembly" the grouping of those Christians in their geographic place. We cannot impose the 20th century on the 1st.
LOL, I'm not the one superimposing the bogus views of a peep stone user on the 1st century. That is why ekklesia in its context is true. Read Paul - his references to church proves that its use is not limited geographically or chronologically - Ro 16:23, 1Co 6:4, 1Co 10:32, 1Co 11:22, 1Co 12:28- just for starters. Paul uses it to address ALL Christian across ALL the ages, and not just the Believers - the "called out" ones (practical application of ekklesia from the bible).
BTW 10, just which specific geographically limited 'church' was Jesus establishing in MT 16:18?
In Matthew 18 Jesus covers several topics, but one that is overlooked is the "church" as described by Christ himself.
And what does Jesus "describe" 10? Definitely nothing remotely resembling mormonism. Jesus said to lay the whole matter before the congregation of Christian believers - no ecclestical structure at all.
Can you imagine just going to any church to resolve this problem? Even if the church agreed with your beliefs would you argue that any randomly chosen church would settle this issue?
Jesus' context was also clear - it was the local assembly - no broader church hierarchy 10.
The Church of Jesus Christ is a church of order, it is an assembly of order and only in order can it ever be called the "the whole body of Christian believers."
Yes, a 'church' of legalism, but ekklesia says NOTHING requiring order now does it. In fact the structure of the early believers was very fluid.
Now this is not my definition of church, but God's. I don't know if Paul appointed 12 year old boys to administer in the church and neither do you as the Bible is silent on that matter.
LOL - the argument from silence. In that passage Paul appointed elders - elders in mormonism are appointed at 12 years old. Paul later describes these elders as being married with children. Another epic fail on your part 10
See: Ephesians 4:11 Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers.
And mormonism continues to get it wrong doesn't it. It places apostles over prophets (what NO Presidents), and why no women prophets (Lu 2:36)? No priesthood, no wards, no stake presidents, no office of patriarchs, no office of seventies. My, the more I look, the more it is evident that mormonism doesn't even remotely resemble anything found in the first century.
BTW, what was the name of the "church" in the first century 10?
Uhhhh 10, context is everything now isn't it. Paul was writing about the end of the world and that Christians would be raptured. BTW, the apostasy Paul was describing has a key component - the revelation of the antichrist. Since that hasn't happened, it is not the apostasy Paul was teaching about.
Dictionaries are not valid sources of theology for Christian. Since the passage only speaks about a rebellion against God - all peoples - are involved. Take time and read the context 10 - you may learn something.
So if the Bible and its teachings are ignored, the fervent Christians deny the need for ordinations and authority or lose said authority to act what would you call that? Who can baptize and if no one why baptize, it's just symbolic anyway, right?
Still never proven that these existed in the first century church. No temples for necro dunks, or sacred (secret) ordinances. BTW, according to mormonthink a 'fervent' Christian would not be lead into apostasy because they would have truth burning in their bosom eh.
It flies in the face of all our Lord and Master taught:
And according to your mormonthink only those apostles could baptize people - uuuuuuuh you better ignore Phillip then.
PS it isn't the gates of "hell" that won't prevail that won't prevail against the Church, but Hades - the holding place of the dead. Please do the research, be open minded and avoid eisegesis. The Bible doesn't say what you want to believe it does.
LOL, nice word games 10. Your eisgesis fails you again. Were you to read in CONTEXT you would see that the focus is not necessarly on Hades or Hell, but the imagery of the GATES.
And the gates of hell ... - Ancient cities were surrounded by walls. In the gates by which they were entered were the principal places for holding courts, transacting business, and deliberating on public matters. See the notes at Matthew 7:13. Compare the notes at Job 29:7. See also Deuteronomy 22:4; 1 Samuel 4:18; Jeremiah 36:10; Genesis 19:1; Psalm 69:12; Psalm 9:14; Proverbs 1:21. The word "gates," therefore, is used for counsels, designs, machinations, evil purposes.
"Hell" means, here, the place of departed spirits, particularly evil spirits; and the meaning of the passage is, that all the plots, stratagems, and machinations of the enemies of the church would not be able to overcome it a promise that has been remarkably fulfilled.
Sorry 10, there is no need for a restoration when Christ has preserved HIS church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.