quote:
Someone please post a biblical basis for there being a Vatican Council.
The Council of Jerusalem related in Chapter 15 Acts of the Apostles.
Ecumenical council
Pope: Other Christians not true churches
6,449 Views |
259 Replies |
Last: 18 yr ago by Genesisag
The Council of Jerusalem related in Chapter 15 Acts of the Apostles.
Ecumenical council
well that guy from CNN wasn't as "die-hard" as he claims to be if he didn't know the bible. He's just a bigot and is sore at the Church.
if you Protestants don't care about the Pope then why bother paying attention to what he said? Like it was stated earlier, it was pointed towards us Catholics, no you.
"Our Country won't go on forever, if we stay as soft as we are now. There won't be any America because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a harder race!"
- Lt. Gen. Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller, USMC
if you Protestants don't care about the Pope then why bother paying attention to what he said? Like it was stated earlier, it was pointed towards us Catholics, no you.
"Our Country won't go on forever, if we stay as soft as we are now. There won't be any America because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a harder race!"
- Lt. Gen. Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller, USMC
quote:
Ronnie -Please explain the difference between "revelation" and "guidance".
Guidance - guid·ance /ˈgaɪdns/ [gahyd-ns] noun 1. the act or function of guiding; leadership; direction.
2. advice or counseling, esp. that provided for students choosing a course of study or preparing for a vocation.
3. supervised care or assistance, esp. therapeutic help in the treatment of minor emotional disturbances.
4. something that guides.
5. the process by which the flight of a missile or rocket may be altered in speed and direction in response to controls situated either wholly in the projectile or partly at a base.
Revelation - rev·e·la·tion /ˌrɛvəˈleɪʃən/ [rev-uh-ley-shuhn] –noun
1. the act of revealing or disclosing; disclosure.
2. something revealed or disclosed, esp. a striking disclosure, as of something not before realized.
3. Theology. a. God's disclosure of Himself and His will to His creatures.
b. an instance of such communication or disclosure.
c. something thus communicated or disclosed.
d. something that contains such disclosure, as the Bible.
4. (initial capital letter) Also called Revelations, The Revelation of St. John the Divine. the last book in the New Testament; the Apocalypse. Abbreviation: Rev.
Guidance is basically leadership, leading the faithful and guiding them in the already revealed faith. All churches do this.
Revelation stopped after the last book of the Bible was written but our understanding of it grows to this day.
The difference is obvious as your church has gone on and kept inventing/revealing and ignores/spurns the already established guidance for its own. The Bible and Apostolic Tradition (from the Apostles, via Christ Himself) tell us how to choose the next person to enjoy the primacy (guidance). We didn't just make it up like you did with your "oldest guy" rule (revelation).
Ronnie -not only did you "make it up" but God never gave the "laity" the privelege of chosing who would lead His Church. As Jesus said in John 15:19 to the Apostles: "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."
John the Beloved was still on the Isle of Patmos (at the same time) receiving "revelations" while a new church leader was being chosen. If the "Bishop of Rome" was the Lord's annointed, he would have been the one receiving revelation. He wasn't and he didn't.
• • •
To reinforce how the Lord works vs man consider the next verse. "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." Again the Lord chose, not "guided" the laity.
This verse so applies to the prophetic calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith that I thought it was worth including: 1 Cor. 1: 27-28 "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;"
There are no votes or campaigning to lead the Lord's Church.
I enjoyed your following statement: "Revelation stopped after the last book of the Bible was written but our understanding of it grows to this day."
When do you think the last Book of the Bible was written? Where in the scriptures does it say that "revelation" was then to cease?
You are splitting hairs when it comes to theology as to the difference between "guidance" and "revelation". Was it guidance or revelation concerning eating fish on Friday or saying Mass in Latin then to English and then back to Latin. Is God just reluctant or afraid to reveal His will to you all?
And if the Lord is "guiding" His Church, how can it allow so many horrible acts such as the crusades, wars on the Protestants (your Christian brothers),the inquisitions, etc.? The bottom line is you have not had nor have either guidance or revelation!
[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 7/14/2007 5:04p).]
John the Beloved was still on the Isle of Patmos (at the same time) receiving "revelations" while a new church leader was being chosen. If the "Bishop of Rome" was the Lord's annointed, he would have been the one receiving revelation. He wasn't and he didn't.
• • •
To reinforce how the Lord works vs man consider the next verse. "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." Again the Lord chose, not "guided" the laity.
This verse so applies to the prophetic calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith that I thought it was worth including: 1 Cor. 1: 27-28 "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;"
There are no votes or campaigning to lead the Lord's Church.
I enjoyed your following statement: "Revelation stopped after the last book of the Bible was written but our understanding of it grows to this day."
When do you think the last Book of the Bible was written? Where in the scriptures does it say that "revelation" was then to cease?
You are splitting hairs when it comes to theology as to the difference between "guidance" and "revelation". Was it guidance or revelation concerning eating fish on Friday or saying Mass in Latin then to English and then back to Latin. Is God just reluctant or afraid to reveal His will to you all?
And if the Lord is "guiding" His Church, how can it allow so many horrible acts such as the crusades, wars on the Protestants (your Christian brothers),the inquisitions, etc.? The bottom line is you have not had nor have either guidance or revelation!
[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 7/14/2007 5:04p).]
quote:
well that guy from CNN wasn't as "die-hard" as he claims to be if he didn't know the bible. He's just a bigot and is sore at the Church.
if you Protestants don't care about the Pope then why bother paying attention to what he said? Like it was stated earlier, it was pointed towards us Catholics, no you.
"Our Country won't go on forever, if we stay as soft as we are now. There won't be any America because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a harder race!"
- Lt. Gen. Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller, USMC
i've known several other former catholics with very similar testimonies. they grew up in the catholic church, but didn't know God or know how to know God.
after attending a non-denominational church, they began to grow in their walk with God and know Him. the problem isn't necessarily the church itself, but rather the leaders and what they choose to emphasize. it's no different than the Pharasies that put their oral traditions on the same level as the word of God, thereby diluting and veiling the focus of the message.
kind of like when weeds grow around a flower: you end up missing the beauty and vision of the flower, and eventually, the weeds choke out the life of the flower.
jkag wikpedia is nice, but I asked for a biblical authorization for a Vatican Council. I suspect you can find none.
I gave you one, Acts 15 with the Council of Jerusalem.
What ? The apostles had a church council where Peter invoked the Holy Spirit in the final decision? The apostles didn't search the scriptures to decide if pagans had to be circumcised first before becoming Christians?
They would have searched a very long time indeed for that scripture!!
They would have searched a very long time indeed for that scripture!!
quote:
I gave you one, Acts 15 with the Council of Jerusalem.
You sure did. That is absolutly a precedent for councils…
I guess if one has a great imagination and follows blindly the instruction of men you might reach that conclusion afraid and janag.
jja79- Vatican II (and the other Ecumenical Councils of the past) maybe the instructions of men rather than the work of the Holy Spirit, but I did give you solid Biblical precedent for such councils.
It was at Church Councils where the canon of the New Testament was put together and finalized, in the 4th Century, so let's hear it for Church Councils!!
Chapter XXXI
Of Synods and Councils
I. For the better government, and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils.[1]
IV. All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.[5]
======================
[1] ACT 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. 4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. 6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
[5] EPH 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. ACT 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 1CO 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. 2CO 1:24 Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.
[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 7/15/2007 8:33p).]
Of Synods and Councils
I. For the better government, and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils.[1]
IV. All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.[5]
======================
[1] ACT 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. 4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. 6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
[5] EPH 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. ACT 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 1CO 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. 2CO 1:24 Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.
[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 7/15/2007 8:33p).]
quote:
Ronnie -not only did you "make it up" but God never gave the "laity" the privelege of chosing who would lead His Church. As Jesus said in John 15:19 to the Apostles: "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."
Guess you’ve got a problem then since the “laity” of your church chose your current “prophet.”
quote:
John the Beloved was still on the Isle of Patmos (at the same time) receiving "revelations" while a new church leader was being chosen. If the "Bishop of Rome" was the Lord's annointed, he would have been the one receiving revelation. He wasn't and he didn't.
I guess you’ll have to show me from the Bible where Jesus told Peter he would receive revelation and because he received it he was the one to enjoy primacy. Or, better yet, you’ll have to show me where Jesus told Peter to pass on his gifts of Apostleship to the next oldest guy when he died.
St. John may have still been receiving revelation after Peter’s death (no dates are certain). That doesn’t prove anything since we don’t believe the Pope keeps receiving revelation from God like your “prophet” does. You have to keep changing your doctrinal stances so your “prophet” has to keep receiving revelation to justify them.
quote:
To reinforce how the Lord works vs man consider the next verse. "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." Again the Lord chose, not "guided" the laity.
I agree, Jesus hand picked the Apostles. You’re only damaging yourself here. The teachings of the apostles handed down is our Church’s sacred Tradition and runs contrary to most of your teachings.
quote:
This verse so applies to the prophetic calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith that I thought it was worth including: 1 Cor. 1: 27-28 "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;"
I agree, especially the part about foolish. Don’t agree it has anything to do with Joseph Smith though, sorry. Probably refers to Jesus’ death and suffering on a cross and the humility it showed for God to do this.
quote:
I enjoyed your following statement: "Revelation stopped after the last book of the Bible was written but our understanding of it grows to this day."
When do you think the last Book of the Bible was written? Where in the scriptures does it say that "revelation" was then to cease?
As a Catholic I don’t believe all revelation has ceased, I was speaking specifically of Scripture. Your church has added to the Bible by inventing its own scripture, not heeding the warning of Revelations (the last book written and the last book of the Bible)
quote:
Revelation 22:18-20 "I warn everyone who hear the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
The Church has formulated doctrine by guidance of the Holy Spirit, defending the Pope and the Bishops from teaching error.
quote:
You are splitting hairs when it comes to theology as to the difference between "guidance" and "revelation". Was it guidance or revelation concerning eating fish on Friday or saying Mass in Latin then to English and then back to Latin. Is God just reluctant or afraid to reveal His will to you all?
Fish on Fridays or the choice of what language to use when conducting mass are examples of non-doctrinal changes. They required no special revelation. Maybe ask your good friend the ex-devout-catholic Mario who didn't get married in a Catholic Church.
Unlike your doctrinal changes (polygamy, allowing blacks) the Catholic Church hasn’t had to modify its doctrines, only further clarify or define them over the course of Christianity’s history. We are guided in truth and prevented from error by virtue of Christ granting His Church infallibility. Because she is infallible, she can’t afford to go make it up as she goes like the LDS do. The doctrines of Polygamy and not allowing blacks were official church doctrine. You required revelation (under pressure from social norms, tsk, tsk) to change them.
You can’t name one doctrine the Catholic Church has flip flopped on. You can probably find lots of non-doctrinal changes (latin mass, fish on Friday, etc). I’ve already pointed out 2 of yours.
quote:
And if the Lord is "guiding" His Church, how can it allow so many horrible acts such as the crusades, wars on the Protestants (your Christian brothers),the inquisitions, etc.? The bottom line is you have not had nor have either guidance or revelation!
Guess you can just throw out that Bible we gave you then…
Ronnie -In our Church, the laity can only sustain the Prophet; they can never choose him! They can reject whom the Lord chooses but that is all. Huge difference!
I am amazed Ronnie, that you think the Book of Revelation is the last book written in the Bible as almost all Bible Scholars believe, if placed in chronological order, it would be towards the middle as it was written between AD 64 & 96.
John was talking about adding to or taking away from the revelations he had received on the Isle of Patmos, not the Bible which did not even exist when he wrote his book.
By referring to the words of Moses we find the evidence that no other conclusion is tenable, else we would be forced to reject all the books of the Bible from Deuteronomy on. Why? Just read Deut. 4:2: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
And Deut.12:32 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
I will answer the rest of your questions tomorrow to hopefully your complete satisfaction and understanding.
I am amazed Ronnie, that you think the Book of Revelation is the last book written in the Bible as almost all Bible Scholars believe, if placed in chronological order, it would be towards the middle as it was written between AD 64 & 96.
John was talking about adding to or taking away from the revelations he had received on the Isle of Patmos, not the Bible which did not even exist when he wrote his book.
By referring to the words of Moses we find the evidence that no other conclusion is tenable, else we would be forced to reject all the books of the Bible from Deuteronomy on. Why? Just read Deut. 4:2: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
And Deut.12:32 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
I will answer the rest of your questions tomorrow to hopefully your complete satisfaction and understanding.
bump for genesis
Ronnie -I am sure you have had your questons answered before but I want to revisit an issue and I respectfully ask that you give it full consideration. As you you know there are only two churches on the face of the earth that claim divine authority. Yours and mine. It will always be a sign of the true Church. We declare that the original apostolic authority was lost around the first century. Yours claims that it has had an unbroken chain of succession upto this day. We claim that after it was lost that the only way it could happen again on this earth would be through a "restoration". No reformation. If the original tree was dead, a live branch could not be taken from it in a "reformation process". The following deserves your careful consideration.
The scriptures indicate that although the early apostles worked hard to preserve the Church that Jesus Christ left to their care, they knew their efforts would eventually be consumed by crisis. Paul wrote the Thessalonian Christians, who were anticipating the return of the Saviour, that the day would not come until there was a falling away first (2 Thess. 2:3). Paul also warned Timothy that "the time would come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap unto themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.(2 Tim. 4: 2-4) and Peter presupposed an apostasy when he spoke of the times of refreshing" that would come before God would again send Jesus Christ...whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began". (Acts 3:20-21)
Now consider this. Peter was slain by his enemies sometime between A.D. 60 and 70. After Peter's death, the remaining apostles and their faithful followers struggled for survival in the face of horrifying oppression. To their everlasting credit, Christianity was preserved, and by the end of the second century A.D. it was truly a force to be reckoned with. Linus, Cletus, Clement, and other bishops of Rome were instrumental in helping Christianity endure. Were it not for these faithful saints, the good news of Christ's ministry might have been lost altogether.
There are those who believe that Peter's successor as president of the Church that Christ organized was Linus. In A.D. 79 Cletus succeeded Linus, and then Clement became bishop of Rome and the next successor in A.D. 90.
But the important question is, Was the Apostolic power transferred from Peter to Linus?
It is significant to note that not all of the original Twelve Apostles had died by this time. John the Beloved, for example, was exiled to the Isle of Patmos. While there, John received the Book of Revelation - a standard book in all Christian Bibles - which raises an interesting and fundamentally crucial question: If Linus was the head of the Church, and if he succeeded Peter, why wasn't the Book of Revelation revealed though him? Why did it come through John, an Apostle in exile?
The answer is clear. The revelation came through John because he was the last living Apostle, the last man holding the keys and authority, as designated by the Saviour Himself, of Apostleship. When God spoke to the Church, he therefore did so through His Apostle, John, on the Isle of Patmos. We do not believe that the Lord would have bypassed John, who clearly had apostolic power, when speaking to the Church.
As significant as the individual ministries of Linus, Cletus and Clement doubtless were, there is no evidence to suggest that these men continued to function as an authoritative Council of Twelve Apostles - the administrative body that the Lord placed at the head of the earthly Church He Himself organized. Without the authority and direction of the Council of Twelve Apostles, men began looking to other sources for doctrinal understanding, and as a result many plain and precious truths were lost. Majority opinion began to rule on doctrinal issues rather than revelation. The crusades and Inquisition left a bloody trail of death, persecution and destruction. Christ's central teachings of faith, hope and charity and tolerance seemed lost on zealots who were absolutely determined "that every knee shall bow" one way or another.
I will address your other questions tomorrow.
[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 7/17/2007 12:01a).]
[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 7/17/2007 10:55a).]
The scriptures indicate that although the early apostles worked hard to preserve the Church that Jesus Christ left to their care, they knew their efforts would eventually be consumed by crisis. Paul wrote the Thessalonian Christians, who were anticipating the return of the Saviour, that the day would not come until there was a falling away first (2 Thess. 2:3). Paul also warned Timothy that "the time would come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap unto themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.(2 Tim. 4: 2-4) and Peter presupposed an apostasy when he spoke of the times of refreshing" that would come before God would again send Jesus Christ...whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began". (Acts 3:20-21)
Now consider this. Peter was slain by his enemies sometime between A.D. 60 and 70. After Peter's death, the remaining apostles and their faithful followers struggled for survival in the face of horrifying oppression. To their everlasting credit, Christianity was preserved, and by the end of the second century A.D. it was truly a force to be reckoned with. Linus, Cletus, Clement, and other bishops of Rome were instrumental in helping Christianity endure. Were it not for these faithful saints, the good news of Christ's ministry might have been lost altogether.
There are those who believe that Peter's successor as president of the Church that Christ organized was Linus. In A.D. 79 Cletus succeeded Linus, and then Clement became bishop of Rome and the next successor in A.D. 90.
But the important question is, Was the Apostolic power transferred from Peter to Linus?
It is significant to note that not all of the original Twelve Apostles had died by this time. John the Beloved, for example, was exiled to the Isle of Patmos. While there, John received the Book of Revelation - a standard book in all Christian Bibles - which raises an interesting and fundamentally crucial question: If Linus was the head of the Church, and if he succeeded Peter, why wasn't the Book of Revelation revealed though him? Why did it come through John, an Apostle in exile?
The answer is clear. The revelation came through John because he was the last living Apostle, the last man holding the keys and authority, as designated by the Saviour Himself, of Apostleship. When God spoke to the Church, he therefore did so through His Apostle, John, on the Isle of Patmos. We do not believe that the Lord would have bypassed John, who clearly had apostolic power, when speaking to the Church.
As significant as the individual ministries of Linus, Cletus and Clement doubtless were, there is no evidence to suggest that these men continued to function as an authoritative Council of Twelve Apostles - the administrative body that the Lord placed at the head of the earthly Church He Himself organized. Without the authority and direction of the Council of Twelve Apostles, men began looking to other sources for doctrinal understanding, and as a result many plain and precious truths were lost. Majority opinion began to rule on doctrinal issues rather than revelation. The crusades and Inquisition left a bloody trail of death, persecution and destruction. Christ's central teachings of faith, hope and charity and tolerance seemed lost on zealots who were absolutely determined "that every knee shall bow" one way or another.
I will address your other questions tomorrow.
[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 7/17/2007 12:01a).]
[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 7/17/2007 10:55a).]
Ronnie -any question or comment before I go on?
I'll wait till you are finished to comment. If you can comment tonight I'll be sure to respond either tonight or tomorrow during the day.
I have a meeting toight so if not tonight it will be tomorrow.
Genesis,
I was hoping you’d post last night, but since you haven’t yet, please just read/respond if you like to this.
This is a statement from earlier in the thread. I just wanted to respond to this in a non-snarky manner.
You believe that Joseph Smith was given the “keys” by God since they were lost by the original 1st century Apostles (did they check their couch cushions?). JS then subsequently chose his successor? I thought it was voted upon by the remaining members of the lds church? In regards to revelation – how is that different than what the Catholic Church does (which I believe is guidance by the Holy Spirit not revelation)? Where in the New Testament do we have example of the way the LDS church does it now (it’s the oldest guy’s turn)? Maybe it is a great system (I don’t agree with it but hey whatever floats your boat), but where did it come from? Jesus never taught that in the 1st century and his Apostles weren’t bound to follow this invention of your church, no matter how logical you think it is.
You make a statement and quote scripture to the effect that there would be a falling away and that that happened following Peter’s death or the death of the last Apostle.
Is it possible that the falling away happened later than that? Is it possible it is talking about a falling away that is yet to come? You’re talking about these things like they are absolutes, but I think you are reading your own theology into the Scripture there.
I think the Apostles were working out their salvation in fear and trembling because they knew not the day or hour of Christ’s triumphant return. They saw these miraculous things and Jesus told them to be on guard – they thought the world was ending. In the grand scheme of God’s timeline, it will be just a blink of an eye and we should be constantly on guard. But as time has told it has been 2000+ years since Christ walked the earth and we’re all still here. There’s no evidence to suggest that a falling away has occurred as you describe in Scripture here. You read that into there but you do because it fits your ready-made explanation that there was an apostasy and the Church needed restoration.
For the same reason that much of the rest of the New Testament didn’t come from Peter. Being the Pope has nothing to do with receiving special revelation from on high. It’s already been revealed. He is there to guide and teach from it, and to prevent the Church from falling into error. The fact that God chose St. Paul and St. Matthew and St. John to write portions of the New Testament doesn’t mean that St. Peter didn’t enjoy primacy. It’s not mutually exclusive. It’s different than the mormon church office of President who is also called a Prophet, where anything he says is basically taken as God revealed truth and they can change the doctrines and add to the deposit of their faith because God whispered it into his ear.
Do you know what the Catholic Church teaches regarding those keys? It sounds like that’s where the one of the disconnects is in all this – you think keys and apostleship = revelation from God. I take it that’s the definition in the LDS church. Well that’s not the way it works in orthodox Christianity. The Pope isn’t constantly receiving new revelation and dispensing it out to the Church.
You claim there is “no evidence to suggest that these men continued to function as an authoritative Council of Twelve Apostles - the administrative body that the Lord placed at the head of the earthly Church He Himself organized” but you are just plain wrong. Please read these links:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFPRIMA.HTM (by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger before he was named Benedict XVI)
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_III
They enumerate many examples of the Bishop of Rome as the authoritative presence among the successors to the Apostles and give explanation as to why he enjoys his primacy. And as I mentioned before – you must admit at least they were guided by the Holy Spirit until the Bible was put together. Otherwise you can throw that out along with its rightful interpretations your church has spurned in favor of its own brand of worship.
And if you do admit the Holy Spirit guided the Church in the formation of the Bible, then you’re saying there was an Apostasy is at best just inconsistent and at worst intellectually dishonest and as I see it a little too convenient to fit your argument. Kind of like the magical revelation your “prophet” got about Polygamy in order for your secular state to join a secular union with the US.
I disagree. The remaining Apostles did go out and found churches and those Apostles/Bishops and their successors continued to look to the Bishop of Rome for the final say. You call it “Majority Rule” but I am telling you it is guidance by the Spirit. I agree that these men didn’t get together and start proclaiming wild things and claim it was revealed to them. If anyone, the LDS church is most guilty of going elsewhere for sources of doctrinal understanding.
The same could be said of your church’s polygamy and not allowing blacks doctrines. Except they are worse – those were actually doctrines in your church. The crusades and inquisition are sins of the past but we didn’t build the dogma of our belief around them.
Since the original thread topic was about the Pope, I will stick to this line of questions primarily. You and I cannot come to agreement on whether or not the Book of Mormon or the Doctrines and Covenants or the Pearl of Great Price are scripture, or whether or not you should have added to the Bible by claiming they are Scripture. It really at this time has no bearing. I apologize if I derailed the topic by bringing it up.
I was hoping you’d post last night, but since you haven’t yet, please just read/respond if you like to this.
quote:
Ronnie -not only did you "make it up" but God never gave the "laity" the privilege of choosing who would lead His Church. As Jesus said in John 15:19 to the Apostles: "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."
This is a statement from earlier in the thread. I just wanted to respond to this in a non-snarky manner.
You believe that Joseph Smith was given the “keys” by God since they were lost by the original 1st century Apostles (did they check their couch cushions?). JS then subsequently chose his successor? I thought it was voted upon by the remaining members of the lds church? In regards to revelation – how is that different than what the Catholic Church does (which I believe is guidance by the Holy Spirit not revelation)? Where in the New Testament do we have example of the way the LDS church does it now (it’s the oldest guy’s turn)? Maybe it is a great system (I don’t agree with it but hey whatever floats your boat), but where did it come from? Jesus never taught that in the 1st century and his Apostles weren’t bound to follow this invention of your church, no matter how logical you think it is.
quote:
The scriptures indicate that although the early apostles worked hard to preserve the Church that Jesus Christ left to their care, they knew their efforts would eventually be consumed by crisis. Paul wrote the Thessalonian Christians, who were anticipating the return of the Saviour, that the day would not come until there was a falling away first (2 Thess. 2:3). Paul also warned Timothy that "the time would come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap unto themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.(2 Tim. 4: 2-4) and Peter presupposed an apostasy when he spoke of the times of refreshing" that would come before God would again send Jesus Christ...whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began". (Acts 3:20-21)
You make a statement and quote scripture to the effect that there would be a falling away and that that happened following Peter’s death or the death of the last Apostle.
Is it possible that the falling away happened later than that? Is it possible it is talking about a falling away that is yet to come? You’re talking about these things like they are absolutes, but I think you are reading your own theology into the Scripture there.
I think the Apostles were working out their salvation in fear and trembling because they knew not the day or hour of Christ’s triumphant return. They saw these miraculous things and Jesus told them to be on guard – they thought the world was ending. In the grand scheme of God’s timeline, it will be just a blink of an eye and we should be constantly on guard. But as time has told it has been 2000+ years since Christ walked the earth and we’re all still here. There’s no evidence to suggest that a falling away has occurred as you describe in Scripture here. You read that into there but you do because it fits your ready-made explanation that there was an apostasy and the Church needed restoration.
quote:
But the important question is, Was the Apostolic power transferred from Peter to Linus?
It is significant to note that not all of the original Twelve Apostles had died by this time. John the Beloved, for example, was exiled to the Isle of Patmos. While there, John received the Book of Revelation - a standard book in all Christian Bibles - which raises an interesting and fundamentally crucial question: If Linus was the head of the Church, and if he succeeded Peter, why wasn't the Book of Revelation revealed though him? Why did it come through John, an Apostle in exile?
For the same reason that much of the rest of the New Testament didn’t come from Peter. Being the Pope has nothing to do with receiving special revelation from on high. It’s already been revealed. He is there to guide and teach from it, and to prevent the Church from falling into error. The fact that God chose St. Paul and St. Matthew and St. John to write portions of the New Testament doesn’t mean that St. Peter didn’t enjoy primacy. It’s not mutually exclusive. It’s different than the mormon church office of President who is also called a Prophet, where anything he says is basically taken as God revealed truth and they can change the doctrines and add to the deposit of their faith because God whispered it into his ear.
quote:
The answer is clear. The revelation came through John because he was the last living Apostle, the last man holding the keys and authority, as designated by the Saviour Himself, of Apostleship. When God spoke to the Church, he therefore did so through His Apostle, John, on the Isle of Patmos. We do not believe that the Lord would have bypassed John, who clearly had apostolic power, when speaking to the Church.
Do you know what the Catholic Church teaches regarding those keys? It sounds like that’s where the one of the disconnects is in all this – you think keys and apostleship = revelation from God. I take it that’s the definition in the LDS church. Well that’s not the way it works in orthodox Christianity. The Pope isn’t constantly receiving new revelation and dispensing it out to the Church.
quote:
As significant as the individual ministries of Linus, Cletus and Clement doubtless were, there is no evidence to suggest that these men continued to function as an authoritative Council of Twelve Apostles - the administrative body that the Lord placed at the head of the earthly Church He Himself organized.
You claim there is “no evidence to suggest that these men continued to function as an authoritative Council of Twelve Apostles - the administrative body that the Lord placed at the head of the earthly Church He Himself organized” but you are just plain wrong. Please read these links:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFPRIMA.HTM (by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger before he was named Benedict XVI)
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_III
They enumerate many examples of the Bishop of Rome as the authoritative presence among the successors to the Apostles and give explanation as to why he enjoys his primacy. And as I mentioned before – you must admit at least they were guided by the Holy Spirit until the Bible was put together. Otherwise you can throw that out along with its rightful interpretations your church has spurned in favor of its own brand of worship.
And if you do admit the Holy Spirit guided the Church in the formation of the Bible, then you’re saying there was an Apostasy is at best just inconsistent and at worst intellectually dishonest and as I see it a little too convenient to fit your argument. Kind of like the magical revelation your “prophet” got about Polygamy in order for your secular state to join a secular union with the US.
quote:
Without the authority and direction of the Council of Twelve Apostles, men began looking to other sources for doctrinal understanding, and as a result many plain and precious truths were lost. Majority opinion began to rule on doctrinal issues rather than revelation.
I disagree. The remaining Apostles did go out and found churches and those Apostles/Bishops and their successors continued to look to the Bishop of Rome for the final say. You call it “Majority Rule” but I am telling you it is guidance by the Spirit. I agree that these men didn’t get together and start proclaiming wild things and claim it was revealed to them. If anyone, the LDS church is most guilty of going elsewhere for sources of doctrinal understanding.
quote:
The crusades and Inquisition left a bloody trail of death, persecution and destruction. Christ's central teachings of faith, hope and charity and tolerance seemed lost on zealots who were absolutely determined "that every knee shall bow" one way or another.
The same could be said of your church’s polygamy and not allowing blacks doctrines. Except they are worse – those were actually doctrines in your church. The crusades and inquisition are sins of the past but we didn’t build the dogma of our belief around them.
Since the original thread topic was about the Pope, I will stick to this line of questions primarily. You and I cannot come to agreement on whether or not the Book of Mormon or the Doctrines and Covenants or the Pearl of Great Price are scripture, or whether or not you should have added to the Bible by claiming they are Scripture. It really at this time has no bearing. I apologize if I derailed the topic by bringing it up.
Ronnie -Sorry to take so long but I wished to assemble this so it would be easy to digest and at the same time not offensive or argumentative.
When one talks about the apostasy of the original Church, it is to broach a subject that is almost unthinkable. Sort of like when for 1500+ years everyone thought that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun and planets revolved around it. Then Galileo came along with his telescope and he turned everything upside down.
In a like manner, most theologians and Christian historians have for centuries taught that Christ's Church survived without interruption since the meridian of time. They acknowledge it confronted some embarrassing and regrettable, and even tragic mishaps, but nonetheless, they insist, the Church marched on. But there is one major problem with that proposition: like the theory of an earth centered universe, it is wrong!
For many this will be unthinkable. Yet for some it was unthinkable that anyone could reject the numerous and powerful miracles of the Saviour, yet the majority of his contemporaries did. For others it was unthinkable that Christ, who was omniscient, would have wept, yet it was so. For some it was unthinkable that Christ, who was perfect, would have selected Judas to the holy apostleship, yet with his omniscience it was done.
In each of the foregoing cases the "unthinkable" was the truth! Fortunately, Joseph Smith, with his spiritual telescope, charted the "celestial skies," and in so doing discovered the truth. He announced to the world that the doctrine of a "continuous" church was wrong; instead, he asserted, the Church of Jesus Christ had been taken from the earth, and a "restoration" was necessary. It was a bold and startling statement, but it was true.
To demonstrate the strength of our position, Ronnie, I am going to remind you of a Catholic theologian who spoke to members of the Church in Salt Lake City. He had asked for and received permission to study our welfare system, for as you know, during the great depression, our members were forbidden to accept the Federal Government's dole. We did not need it as we had a system that was more effective and did not rob one of their self-reliance. He said:
"You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don't even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that is all there is to it. The Protestants haven't a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary and Mormonism's attitude is the only consistent one. It is either perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days."
That indeed is the issue. Uninterrupted for 2,000 years or was there a cessation of that church followed by a restoration? In our search for the truth we will examine the evidence -the testimony of the scriptures, the witness of the early Christian writers, the records of history, the power of logic, and the whisperings of the Spirit. Occasionally in isolation, but most often in unison, these witness will leave a consistent and compelling tapestry of the truth, however unthinkable it may seem.
I will continue this when I get back from my work out. Thanks for your patience!
When one talks about the apostasy of the original Church, it is to broach a subject that is almost unthinkable. Sort of like when for 1500+ years everyone thought that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun and planets revolved around it. Then Galileo came along with his telescope and he turned everything upside down.
In a like manner, most theologians and Christian historians have for centuries taught that Christ's Church survived without interruption since the meridian of time. They acknowledge it confronted some embarrassing and regrettable, and even tragic mishaps, but nonetheless, they insist, the Church marched on. But there is one major problem with that proposition: like the theory of an earth centered universe, it is wrong!
For many this will be unthinkable. Yet for some it was unthinkable that anyone could reject the numerous and powerful miracles of the Saviour, yet the majority of his contemporaries did. For others it was unthinkable that Christ, who was omniscient, would have wept, yet it was so. For some it was unthinkable that Christ, who was perfect, would have selected Judas to the holy apostleship, yet with his omniscience it was done.
In each of the foregoing cases the "unthinkable" was the truth! Fortunately, Joseph Smith, with his spiritual telescope, charted the "celestial skies," and in so doing discovered the truth. He announced to the world that the doctrine of a "continuous" church was wrong; instead, he asserted, the Church of Jesus Christ had been taken from the earth, and a "restoration" was necessary. It was a bold and startling statement, but it was true.
To demonstrate the strength of our position, Ronnie, I am going to remind you of a Catholic theologian who spoke to members of the Church in Salt Lake City. He had asked for and received permission to study our welfare system, for as you know, during the great depression, our members were forbidden to accept the Federal Government's dole. We did not need it as we had a system that was more effective and did not rob one of their self-reliance. He said:
"You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don't even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that is all there is to it. The Protestants haven't a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary and Mormonism's attitude is the only consistent one. It is either perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days."
That indeed is the issue. Uninterrupted for 2,000 years or was there a cessation of that church followed by a restoration? In our search for the truth we will examine the evidence -the testimony of the scriptures, the witness of the early Christian writers, the records of history, the power of logic, and the whisperings of the Spirit. Occasionally in isolation, but most often in unison, these witness will leave a consistent and compelling tapestry of the truth, however unthinkable it may seem.
I will continue this when I get back from my work out. Thanks for your patience!
Ok Ronnie, I am back. Before we get into more of the specifics the question should be addressed (as there will be others not of either of our faiths that will read this) did Christ establish a formal church on the earth, or did he merely teach an informal body of believers? Some religions teach that Christ did not organize a temporal church, but only a spiritual one. They acknowledge that he taught doctrines of salvation through divinely appointed servants, but they assert a formal organization was not necessary for that purpose. Others teach that Christ did not personally organize a church but that his disciples did so. Of course, if Christ's disciples did so under his direction, then the resulting organization would have his stamp of approval. Lest there be a question, the scriptures confirm there was a formal church and that Christ was its founder.
The Saviour himself made reference to the Church. While speaking to Peter he said, "upon this rock I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18) Furthermore, Paul declared that Jesus was "the head of the body, the Church" (Col. 1:18) The word church comes from the Greek word ecclesia which means "an assembly called together." It is mentioned more than 30 times in the NT - most of those times in the context of an organized congregation. The Saviour and his apostles made multiple references to "the Church," and they took numerous steps to formally organize it. In fact, the apostles established branches or congregations of the Church and appointed leaders wherever they proselytized. Terrullian (A.D. 140-230), an early Christian apologist spoke of the apostles preaching the gospel throughout the world, and then observed: "They then in like manner founded churches in every city from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith." There were many other references to the "churches formed" in both the scriptures and the early Christian Fathers writings.
But this formal church organized by the Saviour and his apostles was not an end in and of it self, but rather the organization through which God chose to save souls and build his kingdom. The scriptures and early Christian writings are a clear testament and historical record that Christ's Church was not an amorphous group of believers but an organized body of Saints that was established in each city where the gospel was preached and accepted.
Tomorrow, we examine the "hallmarks" of this Divine institution known as Christ's Church.
The Saviour himself made reference to the Church. While speaking to Peter he said, "upon this rock I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18) Furthermore, Paul declared that Jesus was "the head of the body, the Church" (Col. 1:18) The word church comes from the Greek word ecclesia which means "an assembly called together." It is mentioned more than 30 times in the NT - most of those times in the context of an organized congregation. The Saviour and his apostles made multiple references to "the Church," and they took numerous steps to formally organize it. In fact, the apostles established branches or congregations of the Church and appointed leaders wherever they proselytized. Terrullian (A.D. 140-230), an early Christian apologist spoke of the apostles preaching the gospel throughout the world, and then observed: "They then in like manner founded churches in every city from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith." There were many other references to the "churches formed" in both the scriptures and the early Christian Fathers writings.
But this formal church organized by the Saviour and his apostles was not an end in and of it self, but rather the organization through which God chose to save souls and build his kingdom. The scriptures and early Christian writings are a clear testament and historical record that Christ's Church was not an amorphous group of believers but an organized body of Saints that was established in each city where the gospel was preached and accepted.
Tomorrow, we examine the "hallmarks" of this Divine institution known as Christ's Church.
Ronnie -sorry to be so late but the fun of having visiting grandchildren.
You and I know that the Church the Saviour established is a divine institution. But what are the hallmarks of such an institution?
First, the teachings and doctrines were perfect because the Saviour was their source - the fountain from which they sprang. This does not mean that Christ revealed all religious truth at one given time, for he did not. Instead, he revealed line upon line, precept upon precept, predicated upon the spiritual receptivity of the people.
Second, the Church provided the ordinances necessary to save and exalt man. These ordinances included baptism, confirmation of the Holy Ghost, receipt of the priesthood, and participation in divinely appointed temple ceremonies.
Third, the Church possessed the priesthood - the power and authority to act in God's name. With that authority men had the right and capacity to teach the truths of Christ's gospel with a penetrating power to perform the ordinances with divine sanction, and to otherwise bless mankind. When the Saviour finished the Sermon on the Mount, the scriptures record that his listeners were "astonished at his doctrine." Then the scriptures tell us why: "For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes" (Matt. 7:28-29). It was not just what he said, but how he said it that caused them to marvel. Paul himself acknowledged this demonstrable power of the priesthood: "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit and power" (1 Cor. 2:4).
Fourth, the Church was a divinely organized institution that was designed to be the most effective and efficient way to (a) disseminate Christ's teachings, (b) perform and monitor his sacred ordinances, and (c) regulate his priesthood authority in an orderly manner. It seems unrealistic to suppose that God would attempt to administer his Church in some random, unstructured fashion. Paul reminded the Saints that "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Cor. 14:33). Rather he is a god of order. That is why Paul instructed the Saints to "let all things be done decently and in order" (1 Cor. 14:40). Christ's Church was a formal, organized institution. It had deacons, teachers, priests, bishops, elders, seventies, high priests, apostles and evangelists all of which contributed to the "order of the Church".
Christ placed his name upon this divine institution in the meridian of time because it was his Church. The hallmarks that distinguished Christ's Church remained for a short season after his ascension, but then, one by one, they disappeared. Most of the teachings became corrupted or lost, the ordinances lost much of their simplicity and symbolism, and eventually the priesthood vanished until the Church leaders could no longer say with authority, "thus saith the Lord." An organized church did continue for a while, but it was no more than a mere shadow of Christ's original Church. Yes, there were some similarities, some truths remained. An external framework was still visible. But the internal structure - the heart and soul of Christ's Church - was gone.
Next, we will discuss what happended to Christ's Church.
[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 7/22/2007 2:42p).]
You and I know that the Church the Saviour established is a divine institution. But what are the hallmarks of such an institution?
First, the teachings and doctrines were perfect because the Saviour was their source - the fountain from which they sprang. This does not mean that Christ revealed all religious truth at one given time, for he did not. Instead, he revealed line upon line, precept upon precept, predicated upon the spiritual receptivity of the people.
Second, the Church provided the ordinances necessary to save and exalt man. These ordinances included baptism, confirmation of the Holy Ghost, receipt of the priesthood, and participation in divinely appointed temple ceremonies.
Third, the Church possessed the priesthood - the power and authority to act in God's name. With that authority men had the right and capacity to teach the truths of Christ's gospel with a penetrating power to perform the ordinances with divine sanction, and to otherwise bless mankind. When the Saviour finished the Sermon on the Mount, the scriptures record that his listeners were "astonished at his doctrine." Then the scriptures tell us why: "For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes" (Matt. 7:28-29). It was not just what he said, but how he said it that caused them to marvel. Paul himself acknowledged this demonstrable power of the priesthood: "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit and power" (1 Cor. 2:4).
Fourth, the Church was a divinely organized institution that was designed to be the most effective and efficient way to (a) disseminate Christ's teachings, (b) perform and monitor his sacred ordinances, and (c) regulate his priesthood authority in an orderly manner. It seems unrealistic to suppose that God would attempt to administer his Church in some random, unstructured fashion. Paul reminded the Saints that "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Cor. 14:33). Rather he is a god of order. That is why Paul instructed the Saints to "let all things be done decently and in order" (1 Cor. 14:40). Christ's Church was a formal, organized institution. It had deacons, teachers, priests, bishops, elders, seventies, high priests, apostles and evangelists all of which contributed to the "order of the Church".
Christ placed his name upon this divine institution in the meridian of time because it was his Church. The hallmarks that distinguished Christ's Church remained for a short season after his ascension, but then, one by one, they disappeared. Most of the teachings became corrupted or lost, the ordinances lost much of their simplicity and symbolism, and eventually the priesthood vanished until the Church leaders could no longer say with authority, "thus saith the Lord." An organized church did continue for a while, but it was no more than a mere shadow of Christ's original Church. Yes, there were some similarities, some truths remained. An external framework was still visible. But the internal structure - the heart and soul of Christ's Church - was gone.
Next, we will discuss what happended to Christ's Church.
[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 7/22/2007 2:42p).]
Ronnie --We will begin to examine what happened to Christ's church and we will later look at the external persecution that was done by the Jews and the Romans.
The Church flourished for a season. So rampant was the spread of the gospel in the Holy City that the scriptures record: "The number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith" (Acts 6:7).
The HQ of the Church remained in Jerusalem for 10-12 years after the Saviour's ascension, but in the interim, the persecution had become intense. As a result of this persecution, the Saints were "scattered abroad" and "went every where preaching the word" (Acts 8:1,4). Later, when Peter received his marvelous vision, he announced the opening of the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 11:17-18) and there after Paul became the mighty messenger to them --a "teacher of the Gentiles" (2 Tim. 1:11). Clement of Rome (AD 30-100) observed that Paul "taught righteousness unto the whole world" and reached the farthest bounds of the West." The author of The Shepherd of Hermas (AD 90-150) was of a similar understanding. Of course "the world" meant as it was then known to them.
The Church was no longer a local institution; it was fast becoming a "worldwide" force. But there was a price to be paid --it was quickly adopting the ways of the world.
The "lights" then began to go out. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes a bold and startling statement; it declares there was a turning point that occurred shortly after the death of the apostles--an apostasy or falling away that eventually resulted in a total loss of Christ's Church from the earth. While an apostasy of the Church is not the same as an apostasy of individuals from the Church, the former cannot occur without the latter. Individual members of Christ's Church may reject its teachings and ordinances without affecting the authority and integrity of the Church. When, however, a sufficient number of persuasive individuals apostatize, and in the process the official Church doctrines and ordinances become perverted, then, inevitably the priesthood or divine power that sustains and sets the Church apart from all other worldly organization is lost. That constitutes an apostasy of the Church. From that point forward the ongoing institution may propagate some truths; it may be a fraternity of sorts; it may render service and satisfy certain social needs. All this is good. But it will lack the power to save and exalt man. Elder Boyd K. Packer, acting President of the Council of the Twelve described the apostasy as follows: "The Apostles were martyred, and in time, an apostasy took place. The doctrines of the Church were corrupted and the ordinances changed. The keys of the Priesthood authority were lost." As unthinkable as that proposition may be to some, the evidence of its occurrence is overwhelming.
The apostasy was not a straight-line descent. Things seldom happen that way in real life. For a time following the death of the apostles, there were isolated islands of righteousness among certain congregations. There were devoted members of the Church, some of whom were righteous martyrs, but the overall level of righteousness was quickly waning. Spirituality was succumbing to secularity, and the pure doctrines of the Kingdom were being overrun by heresy. The gospel light were dimming. William Manchester, a noted author and historian, observed: "Christ's missionary commandment had been clearly set forth in Matt. (28:19-20), but in the early centuries after his crucifixion the flame of faith flickered low." Hugh Nibley observed that the Church was "fast falling asleep; the lights were going out."
Next we will examine in detail whether the demise of Christ's Church was known in advance, and the terrible persecution of the Church by the Jews and the Romans and its impact.
The Church flourished for a season. So rampant was the spread of the gospel in the Holy City that the scriptures record: "The number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith" (Acts 6:7).
The HQ of the Church remained in Jerusalem for 10-12 years after the Saviour's ascension, but in the interim, the persecution had become intense. As a result of this persecution, the Saints were "scattered abroad" and "went every where preaching the word" (Acts 8:1,4). Later, when Peter received his marvelous vision, he announced the opening of the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 11:17-18) and there after Paul became the mighty messenger to them --a "teacher of the Gentiles" (2 Tim. 1:11). Clement of Rome (AD 30-100) observed that Paul "taught righteousness unto the whole world" and reached the farthest bounds of the West." The author of The Shepherd of Hermas (AD 90-150) was of a similar understanding. Of course "the world" meant as it was then known to them.
The Church was no longer a local institution; it was fast becoming a "worldwide" force. But there was a price to be paid --it was quickly adopting the ways of the world.
The "lights" then began to go out. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes a bold and startling statement; it declares there was a turning point that occurred shortly after the death of the apostles--an apostasy or falling away that eventually resulted in a total loss of Christ's Church from the earth. While an apostasy of the Church is not the same as an apostasy of individuals from the Church, the former cannot occur without the latter. Individual members of Christ's Church may reject its teachings and ordinances without affecting the authority and integrity of the Church. When, however, a sufficient number of persuasive individuals apostatize, and in the process the official Church doctrines and ordinances become perverted, then, inevitably the priesthood or divine power that sustains and sets the Church apart from all other worldly organization is lost. That constitutes an apostasy of the Church. From that point forward the ongoing institution may propagate some truths; it may be a fraternity of sorts; it may render service and satisfy certain social needs. All this is good. But it will lack the power to save and exalt man. Elder Boyd K. Packer, acting President of the Council of the Twelve described the apostasy as follows: "The Apostles were martyred, and in time, an apostasy took place. The doctrines of the Church were corrupted and the ordinances changed. The keys of the Priesthood authority were lost." As unthinkable as that proposition may be to some, the evidence of its occurrence is overwhelming.
The apostasy was not a straight-line descent. Things seldom happen that way in real life. For a time following the death of the apostles, there were isolated islands of righteousness among certain congregations. There were devoted members of the Church, some of whom were righteous martyrs, but the overall level of righteousness was quickly waning. Spirituality was succumbing to secularity, and the pure doctrines of the Kingdom were being overrun by heresy. The gospel light were dimming. William Manchester, a noted author and historian, observed: "Christ's missionary commandment had been clearly set forth in Matt. (28:19-20), but in the early centuries after his crucifixion the flame of faith flickered low." Hugh Nibley observed that the Church was "fast falling asleep; the lights were going out."
Next we will examine in detail whether the demise of Christ's Church was known in advance, and the terrible persecution of the Church by the Jews and the Romans and its impact.
Ronnie-one of the objections raised about the possibility of an apostasy revolves around the issue of why would Christ and the Apostles establish a Church if they knew if was going to go into a state of apostasy. So, a natural question is did they know it, and if they did, what scriptural or historical support is there for this position?
The spiritual blackout did not catch Christ or the Apostles by surprise. Such a question would be tantamount to asking --did the Lord know Eve would partake of the forbidden fruit or did her transgression put a "wrench" in the divine plan? Did Jesus know that Judas would betray him or was he somehow caught off guard? Did the Saviour anticipate his crucifixion or did it unexpectedly come upon him? Of course the Lord knew Eve would partake of the forbidden fruit, that Judas would betray him, and that He himself would be crucified. Likewise he knew the apostasy would occur. Both he and the prophets testified of it. It came as no surprise whatsoever. In this regard it was inevitable. While God did not dictate it or desire it, he did allow for the agency of man and thus accounted for it in his master plan. Justin Martyr AD 110-165) one of the first Church apologists who ultimately gave his life for the cause , understood this principle:
"For what things He (the Saviour) predicted would take place in His name, these we do see being actually accomplished in our sight. For he said, 'many shall come in My name, clothed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.' And 'there shall be schisms and heresies.' And 'beware of false prophets'...There are, therefore and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things ... So that in consequence of these events, we know that Jesus foreknew what would happen after him.
Tertullian (AD 140-230) made a similar observation: "The character of the times in which we live is such as to call forth from us even this admonition, that we ought not to be astonished at the heresies (which abound) neither ought their existence to surprise us, for it was foretold that they would come to pass." A scholar of early Christianity, A. Cleveland Coxe, who provided editorial notes to The Ante-Nicene Fathers, observed: "If it shocks the young student of the virgin years of Christianity to find such a state of things (the proliferation of heresies), let him reflect that it was foretold by Christ himself, and demonstrates the malice and power of the adversary."
Lehi, a Book of Mormon prophet, put things in their eternal perspective when he observed; "Behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things" (2 Nephi 2:24). Christ and his apostles knew of the apostasy, they prophesied of it and God in his wisdom provided for a remedy through the glorious restoration of his Church.
Although external persecution was a historical reality that had a substantial impact upon the early Church and its members, it was not the cause of the great apostasy. This external persecution was leveled by both the Judaic religions of the day and by the Roman government.
The persecution by the Jewish leaders was in reality a conflict between systems, not between peoples or nations. Christ was a Jew: His apostles were Jews, and the disciples who constituted the body of the Church at its establishment and throughout the early years of its existence were largely Jews. When we read of the Jews opposing the Church, we understand that Judaistic Jews are meant as the defenders of Judaism as a system, upholders of the law and enemies of the gospel.
Judaism in all of its various forms, was a rival religion to Christianity - competing for converts and power. It had no tolerance for this upstart religion that claimed the Mosiac law was fulfilled and sacrificial ordinances were obsolete. Its leaders knew that Christianity, if allowed to prosper, would dilute their following and erode their power base. Worse yet, if Christianity prevailed certain Jewish leaders would be recognized as the assailant of the only true Messiah.
The scriptures tell us that the scribes and chief priests "feared Him, because all of the people were astonished at his doctrine" (Mark 11:18). After Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, the chief priests and Pharisees counseled: "If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation" (John 11:48). It was religious jealousy that dictated the first half of the sentence and political fear the rest.
I am sorry as I will have to finish this later; "grandchildren time now". I will explain the real cause of the demise of the Church "the enemy within"!
[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 7/21/2007 2:45p).]
The spiritual blackout did not catch Christ or the Apostles by surprise. Such a question would be tantamount to asking --did the Lord know Eve would partake of the forbidden fruit or did her transgression put a "wrench" in the divine plan? Did Jesus know that Judas would betray him or was he somehow caught off guard? Did the Saviour anticipate his crucifixion or did it unexpectedly come upon him? Of course the Lord knew Eve would partake of the forbidden fruit, that Judas would betray him, and that He himself would be crucified. Likewise he knew the apostasy would occur. Both he and the prophets testified of it. It came as no surprise whatsoever. In this regard it was inevitable. While God did not dictate it or desire it, he did allow for the agency of man and thus accounted for it in his master plan. Justin Martyr AD 110-165) one of the first Church apologists who ultimately gave his life for the cause , understood this principle:
"For what things He (the Saviour) predicted would take place in His name, these we do see being actually accomplished in our sight. For he said, 'many shall come in My name, clothed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.' And 'there shall be schisms and heresies.' And 'beware of false prophets'...There are, therefore and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things ... So that in consequence of these events, we know that Jesus foreknew what would happen after him.
Tertullian (AD 140-230) made a similar observation: "The character of the times in which we live is such as to call forth from us even this admonition, that we ought not to be astonished at the heresies (which abound) neither ought their existence to surprise us, for it was foretold that they would come to pass." A scholar of early Christianity, A. Cleveland Coxe, who provided editorial notes to The Ante-Nicene Fathers, observed: "If it shocks the young student of the virgin years of Christianity to find such a state of things (the proliferation of heresies), let him reflect that it was foretold by Christ himself, and demonstrates the malice and power of the adversary."
Lehi, a Book of Mormon prophet, put things in their eternal perspective when he observed; "Behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things" (2 Nephi 2:24). Christ and his apostles knew of the apostasy, they prophesied of it and God in his wisdom provided for a remedy through the glorious restoration of his Church.
Although external persecution was a historical reality that had a substantial impact upon the early Church and its members, it was not the cause of the great apostasy. This external persecution was leveled by both the Judaic religions of the day and by the Roman government.
The persecution by the Jewish leaders was in reality a conflict between systems, not between peoples or nations. Christ was a Jew: His apostles were Jews, and the disciples who constituted the body of the Church at its establishment and throughout the early years of its existence were largely Jews. When we read of the Jews opposing the Church, we understand that Judaistic Jews are meant as the defenders of Judaism as a system, upholders of the law and enemies of the gospel.
Judaism in all of its various forms, was a rival religion to Christianity - competing for converts and power. It had no tolerance for this upstart religion that claimed the Mosiac law was fulfilled and sacrificial ordinances were obsolete. Its leaders knew that Christianity, if allowed to prosper, would dilute their following and erode their power base. Worse yet, if Christianity prevailed certain Jewish leaders would be recognized as the assailant of the only true Messiah.
The scriptures tell us that the scribes and chief priests "feared Him, because all of the people were astonished at his doctrine" (Mark 11:18). After Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, the chief priests and Pharisees counseled: "If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation" (John 11:48). It was religious jealousy that dictated the first half of the sentence and political fear the rest.
I am sorry as I will have to finish this later; "grandchildren time now". I will explain the real cause of the demise of the Church "the enemy within"!
[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 7/21/2007 2:45p).]
Just to sum up - The Nicene Creed says that one believes in "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church".
The Pope's statement refers to these 4 marks of the church. The protestant churches are not one, they are many. They may be holy for sure. They are not catholic, or universal, as they may not be in Bongo Congo or Mongolia. And they are certainly not apostolic, as their roots do not go back to the apostles, but only to the 16th century.
No where does the Pope's statement say that Protestants aren't saved. They certainly can be. I know a lot of them who I think are. All he was referring to was the definition of what "church" means.
[This message has been edited by texasag73 (edited 7/21/2007 4:17p).]
The Pope's statement refers to these 4 marks of the church. The protestant churches are not one, they are many. They may be holy for sure. They are not catholic, or universal, as they may not be in Bongo Congo or Mongolia. And they are certainly not apostolic, as their roots do not go back to the apostles, but only to the 16th century.
No where does the Pope's statement say that Protestants aren't saved. They certainly can be. I know a lot of them who I think are. All he was referring to was the definition of what "church" means.
[This message has been edited by texasag73 (edited 7/21/2007 4:17p).]
titan4x4, The title of this thread is disingenuous at best. And at worse is willfully causing disharmony in the Body of Christ.
First, does it make any sense to argue a Christian opinion based on secular source which is blatantly misquoting and misconstruing an original Christian document.
Second, you worded the thread “Other Christians not true churches” when the poorly quoted secular document even said “other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches”.
I don’t really need to comment about a secular media misquote, since that’s what their modus operandi is – i.e. to misquote and misrepresent issues in order to create controversy, and thus generate “news product”.
But you claim to be Christian, and you know the difference between other Christians and other Christian communities, namely that the communities to which are referred are institutions, not the other Christians themselves.
Then your very next post is a diatribe essentially against Church as an institution.
I guess you are trying to represent the defective communities
First, does it make any sense to argue a Christian opinion based on secular source which is blatantly misquoting and misconstruing an original Christian document.
Second, you worded the thread “Other Christians not true churches” when the poorly quoted secular document even said “other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches”.
I don’t really need to comment about a secular media misquote, since that’s what their modus operandi is – i.e. to misquote and misrepresent issues in order to create controversy, and thus generate “news product”.
But you claim to be Christian, and you know the difference between other Christians and other Christian communities, namely that the communities to which are referred are institutions, not the other Christians themselves.
Then your very next post is a diatribe essentially against Church as an institution.
I guess you are trying to represent the defective communities
wow, that is definitely splitting hairs.
Genesisag, it seems that you try to hijack every thread to launch your faulty doctrine, but you never really consider any argument against your faulty logic.
I can’t quote your whole booklet, but I’ll just address a few faulty points.
Each of the foregoing cases
I can’t quote your whole booklet, but I’ll just address a few faulty points.
quote:
When one talks about the apostasy of the original Church, it is to broach a subject that is almost unthinkable. Sort of like when for 1500+ years everyone thought that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun and planets revolved around it. Then Galileo came along with his telescope and he turned everything upside down.
- First, everyone didn’t think the earth was the center of the universe. That was a fleeting eroneous theology, not a Church doctrine. Theology is theory – Doctrine is considered fact.
- Second, it is not like the issue of the Church being totally apostate – that would be centrally critical to Christian belief.
quote:Your analogy as well as your assertion are bogus and without any merit.
n a like manner, most theologians and Christian historians have for centuries taught that Christ's Church survived without interruption since the meridian of time. They acknowledge it confronted some embarrassing and regrettable, and even tragic mishaps, but nonetheless, they insist, the Church marched on. But there is one major problem with that proposition: like the theory of an earth centered universe, it is wrong!
quote:
For many this will be unthinkable. Yet for some it was unthinkable that anyone could reject the numerous and powerful miracles of the Saviour, yet the majority of his contemporaries did. For others it was unthinkable that Christ, who was omniscient, would have wept, yet it was so. For some it was unthinkable that Christ, who was perfect, would have selected Judas to the holy apostleship, yet with his omniscience it was done.
- It’s not unthinkable that anyone could reject the numerous and powerful miracles of the Saviour. The history of mankind is rampant with man’s abuse of God’s lovingkindness & mercy.
- It’s not unthinkable that Jesus wept, as He was fully human, as well as fully divine, His omniscience would reveal to Him the needless but painful suffering of His fellow humans
- It’s not unthinkable that Christ, who was perfect, would have selected Judas to the holy apostleship, as Judas was representative of people who have the opportunity to be righteous, but instead follow satan’s way.
quote:
In each of the foregoing cases the "unthinkable" was the truth! Fortunately, Joseph Smith, with his spiritual telescope, charted the "celestial skies," and in so doing discovered the truth. He announced to the world that the doctrine of a "continuous" church was wrong; instead, he asserted, the Church of Jesus Christ had been taken from the earth, and a "restoration" was necessary. It was a bold and startling statement, but it was true.
Each of the foregoing cases
- was not unthinkable and
- was not “the truth” but merely FACTS – all but one, that is.
- Joseph Smith, did not have a spiritual telescope,
- did not chart the "celestial skies," and
- did not discovered the truth.
quote:Your alleged search
Uninterrupted for 2,000 years or was there a cessation of that church followed by a restoration? In our search for the truth we will examine the evidence -the testimony of the scriptures, the witness of the early Christian writers, the records of history, the power of logic, and the whisperings of the Spirit. Occasionally in isolation, but most often in unison, these witness will leave a consistent and compelling tapestry of the truth, however unthinkable it may seem.
- did NOT examine the evidence -the testimony of the scriptures ( which were compiled and approved by the Church you called apostate).
- did NOT examine the evidence - the witness of the early Christian writers; instead you omitted them.
- did NOT examine the evidence - records of history, which supports the Roman Catholic Church
- did NOT examine the evidence - the power of logic, instead you present baseless conjecture.
- did NOT examine the evidence - the whisperings of the Spirit. Many Mormons apparently listen to the whisperings of the Spirit to conduct their daily lives, but continue to be duped by slick prresentations like yours.
I will never understand why we as Christians claim to believe in the same Christ- and then proceed to denigrate anyone who is of a different denomination than you are. The Baptist say that only they know how to interpret the Bible- and if you do not believe in the exact multiple situational interpretation of the day you will be condemned to hell, the Catholics say we have been here longer and thus we are th only guys who are all knowing, all seeing, universal know alls of right and wrong- and anyone else just ain't right, Mormons are bad, Jews are bad...yadda yadda yadda....
It gets really old listening to this garbage all the time. We are so busy justifying our church, that we forget about God's CHURCH- and what we are called to do. I am sure I am not near the Biblical scholar that you folks are, but to date I have not found anywhere in the Bible that says that the key to everlasting life has anything whatsoever to do with what denomination you associate with, or that Catholics will go to heaven and Baptists won't- or that we should judge each other and belittle them- whether you are a Pope or a writer or someone trying to live life as Christ asks us to, nor that it is a beauty contest as to which denomination is the bestest in the whole wide world....
It gets really old listening to this garbage all the time. We are so busy justifying our church, that we forget about God's CHURCH- and what we are called to do. I am sure I am not near the Biblical scholar that you folks are, but to date I have not found anywhere in the Bible that says that the key to everlasting life has anything whatsoever to do with what denomination you associate with, or that Catholics will go to heaven and Baptists won't- or that we should judge each other and belittle them- whether you are a Pope or a writer or someone trying to live life as Christ asks us to, nor that it is a beauty contest as to which denomination is the bestest in the whole wide world....
SiVally -First "Ronnie" asked me a question and I was trying to give him a thoughtful and detailed answer. Everyone thought the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe. It was a shock when they learned otherwise that had been inviolate for centuries. Because they had been believed for centuries did not make them true.
It "is" unthinkable for most people to think that an all knowing God would have allowed the fall of Adam & Eve, and would have picked a huge defect like Judas for being a special witness who would betray him.
It is unthinkable to me that anyone who saw Jesus raise the dead, heal the blind and lame, etc. would not believe in Him, but the majority did not. In fact the religious leaders of his day gave the devil the credit for these miracles. You can't compare those events with instances of loving kindness and mercy after Christ was gone. Those instances could have been interpreted as mere coincidences. The miracles that were performed by Christ and were witnessed first hand and were rejected by the majority who witnessed them.
Tomorrow, when I have more time I am going to continue to post more historical "facts" that you are not going to like about the demise of the early Church. When I get through, you are going to learn in great detail about "the inevitable apostasy" and the Restoration foretold.
[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 7/23/2007 12:01a).]
It "is" unthinkable for most people to think that an all knowing God would have allowed the fall of Adam & Eve, and would have picked a huge defect like Judas for being a special witness who would betray him.
It is unthinkable to me that anyone who saw Jesus raise the dead, heal the blind and lame, etc. would not believe in Him, but the majority did not. In fact the religious leaders of his day gave the devil the credit for these miracles. You can't compare those events with instances of loving kindness and mercy after Christ was gone. Those instances could have been interpreted as mere coincidences. The miracles that were performed by Christ and were witnessed first hand and were rejected by the majority who witnessed them.
Tomorrow, when I have more time I am going to continue to post more historical "facts" that you are not going to like about the demise of the early Church. When I get through, you are going to learn in great detail about "the inevitable apostasy" and the Restoration foretold.
[This message has been edited by Genesisag (edited 7/23/2007 12:01a).]
The best thing to do is to not respond...which I have recently violated
fahraint, you're right. I even said I wouldn't respond anymore, earlier on this thread, and I've responded to several threads I shouldn't have even opened.
Doh.
That's MY fault.
Doh.
That's MY fault.
I want everyone in this thread to know they are doing Jesus' work. LOL
Featured Stories
See All
17:52
14h ago
11k
A&M prevails in Round 1 of highly-dramatic Lone Star Showdown
by Richard Zane
Kansas State transfer guard P.J. Haggerty commits to Texas A&M hoops
by Luke Evangelist
0:38
16h ago
2.5k
Hot start fuels No. 13 Texas A&M in 10-6 win in Oxford
by Emily Dreger
Infection_Ag11
Not sure I've ever heard such uniform boos at an A&M sporting event before
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
169
JasonD2005
Little Jimmy Schlongdangler may have given us a great gift
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
144