Posted on 05/06/2008 7:30:45 AM PDT by sevenbak
I understand your view that a universal apostasy is impossible, because Jesus told Peter, “upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:18) This claim means that the Church organized by Jesus would never suffer apostasy and loss despite being predicted by several other NT writers. (Jesus trumps Paul, etc)
It is not surprising that this issue revolves around how one interprets Jesus’ remark. There are several options, the key to understanding the passage, however, is figuring out what the final “it” refers to. Does it refer to “the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church,” or does it refer to “the gates of hell shall not prevail against this rock?” If it refers to the “rock,” then one must describe what “the rock” refers to.
Catholic perspective
The Catholic church, of course, thinks that “this rock” is literally Peter, and have based their claims to apostolic succession on the unbroken succession of bishops of Rome back to Peter. Other churches must necessarily define a different meaning, because they cannot claim apostolic succession in this way.
Churches (such as the Protestants) who believe that the Church of Rome is somehow flawed or in apostasy from the pure truth must adopt a different reading:
Protestant perspective
Protestant readers have generally interpreted “the rock” to refer to the Christian Church. Under this reading, Jesus is promising that the church will never be entirely overcome by death and/or the forces of Satan.
Latter-day Saint perspective
Latter-day Saints have generally read this verse as referring to the only true, unmovable rock that exists—revelation from God. That is the rock upon which any Church must be built, and it is evidenced by the verses just before this one. In Matt. 16:13-17, the subject is literally revelation given to Peter as to who Jesus Christ really is. This knowledge came by revelation from God (Matt. 16:17), and Christ taught Peter that this revelation is the rock upon which He would build His Church.
Both the Protestant and Catholic versions must contend with the fact that other Biblical authors taught an inevitable apostasy. It would seem strange for such Biblical authors, including Peter, to teach something which Jesus here denies.
One must also notice that gates only prevail against something that is already inside of them; they cannot prevail against something that is external to those gates. Was Christ saying that His Church was already inside the gates of hell, and needed to come out? Or was He saying, in His normal “hidden teaching” manner, that His Church would one day be dead (i.e., in apostasy), held back by the gates of hell, and that it was revelation—the rock—that would free it from those gates?
This reading of Matthew 16 reconciles all the other biblical reference to the apostasy, and agrees with the interpretation given by Joseph Smith.
Here are some other biblical references pointing to an apostasy.
Thesselonians 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Amos 8: 11-12 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.
Isaiah 60: 2-3 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.
3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.
Isaiah 24: 5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the cordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore thebinhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.
And here are many more snipped to save time and space. I would recommend reading them in their entirety.
Isa. 24: 5 changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Isa. 29: 13 this people draw near me with their mouth.
Isa. 60: 2 darkness shall cover the earth.
Amos 8: 11 a famine . . . of hearing the words of the Lord.
Matt. 13: 25 his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat.
Matt. 24: 5 saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many.
Matt. 24: 24 shall arise false Christs, and false prophets.
John 6: 66 his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Acts 20: 29 shall grievous wolves enter in among you.
1 Cor. 11: 18 there be divisions among you.
Gal. 1: 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him.
Gal. 3: 1 who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey.
2 Thes. 2: 3 shall not come, except there come a falling away first.
1 Tim. 1: 6 some having swerved have turned aside.
1 Tim. 4: 1 giving heed to seducing spirits.
2 Tim. 1: 15 all they which are in Asia be turned away from me.
2 Tim. 2: 18 Who concerning the truth have erred.
2 Tim. 3: 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power.
2 Tim. 4: 4 turn away their ears from the truth . . . unto fables.
Titus 1: 16 profess that they know God, but in works they deny him.
James 4: 1 From whence came wars and fightings among you.
2 Pet. 2: 1 false prophets also among the people.
2 Pet. 3: 17 being led away with the error of the wicked.
1 Jn. 2: 18 now are there many antichrists.
1 Jn. 4: 1 many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Jude 1: 4 certain men crept in . . . denying the only Lord God.
Rev. 2: 2 which say they are apostles, and are not.
Rev. 3: 16 thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot.
Rev. 13: 7 to make war with the saints.
Hope this heled. Cheers
Check your HM.
The 10 virgins were chosen because they were among the most believing, most obedient. They were to be special guests at his wedding. This parable is His church, and it’s adherents. So yes, next time you talk about 50 percent of LDS not keeping the commandments and living inactive lives, I will say you are right.
Go ahead, but I don’t visit those threads.
That’s the difference between us Color, you go to threads of a religion you don’t adhere to in order to sow tares. I don’t. I’ll stay in the wheat threads growing alongside the weeds that are sure to encumber the ground.
Noted. And so next time I consider the parable of the ten virgins, I will not consider Mormons at all.
Have a nice day! ,-)
My HM has given me some comfort. Thank you. :-)
Same to you. It’s a beautiful day in the valley. ;-)
Sounds like a bishops interview and every bit as insipid.
A “former” freeper? I wonder why he is “former?”
BTW, you mentioned me and ‘forgot’ to ping me. Heads up to Colofornian (or do you suggest this is “ganging up” on you...lol?)
Meant to ping you guys to #150.
Sorry, I didn’t read the part where you were mentioned.
1. Comparing mormons "persecution" to that of the Holocaust is ridiculous. When you present evidence of millions of mormons loaded into cattle cars and hauled off to be gassed, I will consider the comparison. Mormons have made hay out of the few battles that occurred where comparatively low numbers died. AND, let's not add in the numbers of poor mormons who died in the "treks"...poor planning by mormon leaders had more to do with that than "enemies".
2. Joseph Smith isn't a "martyr".
MARTYR:
3. LOL. If you are an “ex-Mormon,” as you say, why is it that you know so little about the history of the Latter-Day Saints? The things you continually publish on FR are decades-old, thoroughly debunked mythology. You have never presented anything new, nor do you add anything beyond what has been presented ad nauseum. Is it possible that you are in fact NOT an “ex-Mormon” as you claim?
What IS it with you mormons and insisting we exes provide our credentials? LOL. I generally add the little things you mormons like to leave out, like the coercion of tithing in order to reach "Heaven" and the excluding of parents from their childrens' temple weddings.
I ALSO provide links to my posting of mormon history, such as the chapter and verse of BY's rantings.
4. If I were an ex-Catholic I could possibly answer your question. I'm not.
5. Is it possible that the personal attacks as well as the incessant “ping-lists” and gang behavior perpetrated by you and others such as Colofornian, colorcountry and many others, can readily be identified as harrassment, and ARE, in fact, “bashing?” And that this is the sort of behavior that the moderators have alluded to? In short, is it possible that you need to examine your ways, and repent of your very poor behavior?
Gee, a personal attack about my "poor behavior" in accusing me of personal attacks. Provide links to those "personal attacks" you are accusing me of.
My, the ping list (which is growing BTW) sure does bother you guys...resty has one for you, do you see us complaining about it? Since we don't have a multi-billion-dollar corporation behind us like you do, we just have to make do with what we have.
I love the harassment claim from a mormon whose organization is even now making a big move to try and recover those who have left. I also remind you that it is not ME that knocks on doors to tell folks their religion is wrong.
In short, is it possible that you need to examine your ways, and repent of your very poor behavior?
Are you NOW going to rebuke me in the name of your priesthood?
6. When challenged, you respond that you are trying to “save others from error.”
I have never made that claim. I am called to try to save those who have not fallen for the false claims of mormonism from doing so. Most of those on FR who are TBMs are, IMO not ready to be saved. God will provide an avenue for them, eventually.
Get back to me when your former FReeper friend issues further marching orders.
Anyone who knows me at all knows I don’t take marching orders from anyone. Thanks for reading my posts over the last couple years.
It’s pointless to argue with you over someone else’s conversation.
Have a good day.
“Or about the Polygamous marraige Martin Luther solemized.”
And regretted wholeheartedly. It was done as an expedient to keep the sovereign on the farm, but only as long as he didn’t promote it. Martin was quite fallible, but admitted and lamented it. He was no Joseph Smith, thank God.
What’s worse is that you even “confess” right up front that you were ”passing this on from a former freeper who saw your post and couldn’t stomach it any longer.“ which means you readily admit that you were gossiping the gossip began by someone else. [Is that the way it works in Mormon circles these days? Instead of just telling folks to abide by Jesus’ admonition that if you have something against them, you go directly to them, you just take anonymous “gossip,” post it nationally for extra slander effect, and oh, by the way, oops, WE (and “we” is ALWAYS a conspiracy) forgot to letcha know.]
I would suggest, that the Mormon preacher who gave this to you, in light of the above, partake of his own medicine: To quote him/her as you’ve quoted him/her In short, is it possible that you need to examine your ways, and repent of your very poor behavior? [And I will accept nothing less than repentance of this very poor behavior by both of you—neither of which you followed Matthew 18’s prescription]
As for the anonymous gossiper/unnamed accuser’s accusations:
Do you agree that Jews should “never forget” what happened to them in Europe in the 1940s? Or is that “whining”?
Let me know when the accumulative 180-year Mormon “body count” reaches 6,000 compared to the decade European Jewish count of 6 million, then we’ll talk.
Are you suggesting that NO mention of religious martyrdom by ANYONE should ever be allowed on FR? If not, why not?
There’s 2 ways to define “martyrdom”—the old-fashioned way of dying for your faith; and the new-fashioned way of sulking (“being a martyr”). I would suggest that too many complaining folks resemble the latter.
If you present anti-Catholic rhetoric here, particularly that which has been thoroughly debunked and answered countless times before, how do you expect Catholic members of FR to react?
If your teen is using drugs, and sees nothing wrong with it from a health perspective, and you provide info to give him another perspective, that doesn’t automatically mean you’re “anti-your teen.” (In fact, “tough love” is exactly the opposite). Let’s say somebody presents info countering what a Catholic believes. I’ve done this on the religion forum, for example, with Catholics who “pray to the saints.” Are you actually, seriously concluding that just because somebody counters a common Catholic tenet, that it automatically makes them “anti-Catholic?” Doesn’t it simply qualify as “anti-falsehood?” or “anti-praying to the saints?” Why do Mormons always want to make truth vs. falsehood discussions so personal?
When challenged, you respond that you are trying to “save others from error.” Jesus Christ came to save the whole world from error. Do you think that He did so by belittling the sincere beliefs of others…
Yes or no, were the Pharisees “sincere” in their beliefs? Were they so sincere that Jesus said they would traverse over land & sea to make a single convert & therefore make him “twice the son of hell?”
Would you accuse the apostle Paul & Apollos? Paul “reasoned” with other religious folks (Acts 17:2,17). He “spoke boldly” for months on end to religious folks in the synagogue (Acts 19:8). The result? (They “publicly maligned” Paul in Acts 19:9, as Mormons have done toward some of us). Apollos spoke with “great fervor” and boldness in the presence of religious folks in the synagogue (Acts 18:25-28), where he “vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures…”
Stephen, like Jesus, was even more pointed in his crits of the Pharisees and Jews heavily influenced by them: "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it." (Acts 7:51-53)
So return questions to you and your gossiper originator: Did Stephen “belittle” the Jews? Did Jesus “belittle” the Pharisees by calling them children of the devil (John 8), and calling them “vipers” and “snakes” and “whitewashed tombs” and the like? [I don’t see Mormons being called the devil’s kids, vipers, snakes, etc.]
[decided to lambaste your religion on a regular basis & then did so by using misquotes, misconceptions, falsehoods, disinformation, etc., wouldn’t that get your gander up a little? ]
Except most of us have TONS of links to creditable source material - including the BOM and D&C etc. that are the source of most of your angst. I can well imagine that having sound references thrown at you would be disturbing, especially given how disturbing the words and actions of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, et. al. were. Squaring a circle can often be disturbing. Pulling wisdom out of a rock found in a well is bound to cause problems.
You and I have butted heads before, but usually in a more civil manner.
Bad manners? I bet if I looked just a little I could find lots of places where you talked about me behind my back. Get over it.
so!
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.