Apostasy?

[Jason of Wyoming]

My view of evidence (not proof) of the apostasy is the divisions in Christianity. Christianity has split many many times over interpretations and definitions in the Bible. Yet the Bible mandates that there are to be no divisions, and that all who profess to be followers must be of one heart and mind. Since these major divisions, there have been noble efforts to unite, even with catholicism, as one body. But the divisions are happening faster than any effort to unite.

So that counts out Mormonism and it's hundreds of splits. At least you're honest.

 

[Jason of Wyoming]

Mormons claim that the authority of the Church was lost with the death of the Apostles, but what they don't realize is that the Apostolic Fathers themselves testified that they taught and carried the same Gospel.

St. Ireaneus writes:

"Polycarp, a man who had been instructed by the apostles, and had familiar intercourse with many that had seen Christ, and had also been appointed bishop by the apostles in Asia, in the church at Smyrna, whom we also have seen in our youth, for he lived a long time, and to a very advanced age, when, after a glorious and most distinguished martyrdom, he departed this life. He always taught what he had learned from the apostles, what the church had handed down, and what is the only true doctrine." (Irenaeus, book 3 against heresies, also Eusebius Book 4, chapter 14)

In another place, Ireanus describes the intimacy of John and Polycarp. The historian Pressense writes:

"Like St. Peter and St. Paul, Ignatius came to his end obscurely. Nothing is more remote from the melodramatic than the death of the saints. He left behind him, in Asia Minor, a young man, raised, perhaps by John himself, to the office of elder in the Church of Smyrna, and destined to exercise a great influence over the Christians in those countries. This young man was Polycarp. Ignatius had already noted in him remarkable steadfastness in the faith. He was planted upon the rock of apostolic teaching. The Church which he governed was one of the most flourishing in Asia Minor, and is exhibited to us in the Revelation as displaying courageous fidelity under persecution. Polycarp had been the immediate disciple of St. John, and ever cherished his sacred memory. It was the constant theme of his conversation and preaching. Irenaeus, who was the disciple of Polycarp, writes: "I could point out the spot where the blessed Polycarp sat to teach. I could describe his gait, his countenance, all his habits, even the clothes he was accustomed to wear. I could repeat the discourses which he delivered to the people, and recall all that he said of his intimacy with St. John, and the narratives he used to relate about those who had seen the Lord upon earth. His memory was constantly dwelling on that which they had told him of the words, the miracles, the doctrine of Christ.’ This valuable testimony shows how eminently qualified was Polycarp, for effecting the transition from the apostolic to the following age. He delighted to be the docile, almost passive echo of the apostles. It is not surprising, therefore, that he should not have displayed much originality, though commanding such universal respect. He was the living tradition of the Church." (Pressense, The Martyrs And Apologists, Hodder And Stoughton, London, 1870, 246-247. See also Eusebius Book 5, Chapter 20.)

Eusebius, careful to separate fact from fiction, tells us more of Polycarp and his studies under St. John. He also points out that St. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, had not actually know the apostles personally, though had many conversations with those Presbyters who were their immediate disciples. (Some scholars refute this, saying that some of the "Presbyters" may have been other apostles such as Andrew.)

"About this time, Polycarp flourished in Asia, an intimate disciple of the apostles who received the episcopate of the church at Smyrna, at the hands of the eyewitnesses and servants of the Lord. At this time, also, Papias was well-known as bishop of the church at Hierapolis, a man well-skilled in all manner of learning and well-acquainted with the Scriptures. Ignatius, also, who is celebrated by many even to this day as the successor of Peter at Antioch, was the second who obtained the episcopal office there....Of those who flourished in these times, Quadratus is said to have been distinguished for his prophetic gifts. There were many others also noted in these times who held the first rank in the apostolic succession. These, as the holy disciples of such men, built up the churches where foundations had been previously laid in every place by the apostles....As it is impossible for us to give the numbers of the individuals who became pastors or evangelists during the first immediate succession from the apostles in the churches throughout the world, we have only recorded those by name in our history, of whom we have received the traditional account as it was delivered in the various comments on the apostolic doctrine still extant....There are said to be five books of Papias, which bear the title Interpretation of Our Lord’s Declarations. Iranaeus also made mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following terms: "These things are attested by Papias, who was John’s hearer and the associate of Polycarp, an ancient writer, who mentions them in the fourth book of his works. For he has written a work in five books.’ So far Irenaeus. But Papias himself, in the preface to his discourses, by no means asserted that he was a hearer and an eyewitness of the holy apostles but informed us that he received the doctrines of faith from their intimate friends, which he stated in the following words: ‘I shall not regret to subjoin to my interpretations, also for your benefit, whatsoever I have at any time accurately ascertained and treasured up in my memory, as I have received it from the elders, and have recorded it in order to give additional confirmation to the truth, by my testimony. For I have never, like many, delighted to hear those that tell many things, but those that teach the truth, neither those that record foreign precepts, but those that are given from the Lord, to our faith, and that came from the truth itself. But if I met with anyone who had been a follower of the elders anywhere, I made it a point to inquire what were the declarations of the elders. What was said by Andrew, Peter or Philip. What by Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord; for I do not think that I derived so much benefit from books as from the living voice of those that are still surviving." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapters 36-37, 39.)



We also possess records of questionable authorship that testify of Apostolic authority:

"In the third year of Claudius Caesar, Simon Cephas departed from Antioch to go to Rome. And as he passed on he preached in the divers countries the word of our Lord. And, when he had nearly arrived there, many had heard of it, and went out to meet him, and the whole church received him with great joy....And after these years Nero Caesar seized him and shut him up in prison. And he knew that he would crucify him; so he called Linus, the deacon, and made him bishop in his stead in Rome." (The Teaching of Simon Cephas In The City Of Rome, from The Memoirs Of Edessa And Ancient Syriac Documents, Ante-Nicean Fathers 8:673-675.)

Though this record is today considered apocryphal, it nevertheless demonstrates the common understanding that authority was passed on, and has been preserved in the Catholic Church.

There is also another testimony of authority not yet discussed. These records are rarely discussed, but in themselves point towards a faithful church blossoming in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries. Besides those things just described, we have the testimony of the Church that various persons, intimately acquainted with Christ and His Apostles, were still living! According to the early Church Fathers, the saints resurrected with our Lord, continued on with the Church for quite some time (see St. Matthew 27:52-53):

"St John the Evangelist had a famous disciple, St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (died in 156). St. Polycarp, in turn, had a celebrated disciple, the great St. Irenaeus ( c. 130-220) who became Bishop of Lyons. Irenaeus know the early Church very well, east and west; as a famous apologist for the Church, he wrote five influential volumes entitled Against the Heresies. In that work Irenaeus says, "Some persons that were dead have been raised again and have continued among us many years." (Father Albert J. Hebert, Raised From The Dead, 33.)

"Quadratus addressed a discourse to him [Aelius Hadrian] as an apology for the religion that we profess because certain malicious persons attempted to harass our brethren. The work is still in the hands of some of the brethren, as also in our own, from which anyone may see evident proof, both of the understanding of the man and of his apostolic faith. This writer showed the antiquity of the age in which he lived in these passages: ‘The deeds of our Savior’, said he, ‘were always before you, for they were true miracles; those that were healed, those that were raised from the dead, who were seen, not only when healed and when raised, but were always present. They remained living a long time, not only while our Lord was on earth, but likewise when he had left the earth. So that some of them have also lived to our own times.’ Such was Quadratus. (Eusebius, Book 4, Chapter 3.)

It seems rather incredible that those who had been raised from the dead, would then teach false doctrines, or allow those around them to preach that which was never taught. In this, if nothing else, we can be assured that the Church preserved and guarded those teachings, called the Deposit of Faith, well into the first few centuries. Proving that it continues to this day is question best left for another discussion.

 

[fatboys]

Mormons claim that the authority of the Church was lost with the death of the Apostles, but what they don't realize is that the Apostolic Fathers themselves testified that they taught and carried the same Gospel.

St. Ireaneus writes:

"Polycarp, a man who had been instructed by the apostles, and had familiar intercourse with many that had seen Christ, and had also been appointed bishop by the apostles in Asia, in the church at Smyrna, whom we also have seen in our youth, for he lived a long time, and to a very advanced age, when, after a glorious and most distinguished martyrdom, he departed this life. He always taught what he had learned from the apostles, what the church had handed down, and what is the only true doctrine." (Irenaeus, book 3 against heresies, also Eusebius Book 4, chapter 14)

In another place, Ireanus describes the intimacy of John and Polycarp. The historian Pressense writes:

"Like St. Peter and St. Paul, Ignatius came to his end obscurely. Nothing is more remote from the melodramatic than the death of the saints. He left behind him, in Asia Minor, a young man, raised, perhaps by John himself, to the office of elder in the Church of Smyrna, and destined to exercise a great influence over the Christians in those countries. This young man was Polycarp. Ignatius had already noted in him remarkable steadfastness in the faith. He was planted upon the rock of apostolic teaching. The Church which he governed was one of the most flourishing in Asia Minor, and is exhibited to us in the Revelation as displaying courageous fidelity under persecution. Polycarp had been the immediate disciple of St. John, and ever cherished his sacred memory. It was the constant theme of his conversation and preaching. Irenaeus, who was the disciple of Polycarp, writes: "I could point out the spot where the blessed Polycarp sat to teach. I could describe his gait, his countenance, all his habits, even the clothes he was accustomed to wear. I could repeat the discourses which he delivered to the people, and recall all that he said of his intimacy with St. John, and the narratives he used to relate about those who had seen the Lord upon earth. His memory was constantly dwelling on that which they had told him of the words, the miracles, the doctrine of Christ.’ This valuable testimony shows how eminently qualified was Polycarp, for effecting the transition from the apostolic to the following age. He delighted to be the docile, almost passive echo of the apostles. It is not surprising, therefore, that he should not have displayed much originality, though commanding such universal respect. He was the living tradition of the Church." (Pressense, The Martyrs And Apologists, Hodder And Stoughton, London, 1870, 246-247. See also Eusebius Book 5, Chapter 20.)

Eusebius, careful to separate fact from fiction, tells us more of Polycarp and his studies under St. John. He also points out that St. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, had not actually know the apostles personally, though had many conversations with those Presbyters who were their immediate disciples. (Some scholars refute this, saying that some of the "Presbyters" may have been other apostles such as Andrew.)

"About this time, Polycarp flourished in Asia, an intimate disciple of the apostles who received the episcopate of the church at Smyrna, at the hands of the eyewitnesses and servants of the Lord. At this time, also, Papias was well-known as bishop of the church at Hierapolis, a man well-skilled in all manner of learning and well-acquainted with the Scriptures. Ignatius, also, who is celebrated by many even to this day as the successor of Peter at Antioch, was the second who obtained the episcopal office there....Of those who flourished in these times, Quadratus is said to have been distinguished for his prophetic gifts. There were many others also noted in these times who held the first rank in the apostolic succession. These, as the holy disciples of such men, built up the churches where foundations had been previously laid in every place by the apostles....As it is impossible for us to give the numbers of the individuals who became pastors or evangelists during the first immediate succession from the apostles in the churches throughout the world, we have only recorded those by name in our history, of whom we have received the traditional account as it was delivered in the various comments on the apostolic doctrine still extant....There are said to be five books of Papias, which bear the title Interpretation of Our Lord’s Declarations. Iranaeus also made mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following terms: "These things are attested by Papias, who was John’s hearer and the associate of Polycarp, an ancient writer, who mentions them in the fourth book of his works. For he has written a work in five books.’ So far Irenaeus. But Papias himself, in the preface to his discourses, by no means asserted that he was a hearer and an eyewitness of the holy apostles but informed us that he received the doctrines of faith from their intimate friends, which he stated in the following words: ‘I shall not regret to subjoin to my interpretations, also for your benefit, whatsoever I have at any time accurately ascertained and treasured up in my memory, as I have received it from the elders, and have recorded it in order to give additional confirmation to the truth, by my testimony. For I have never, like many, delighted to hear those that tell many things, but those that teach the truth, neither those that record foreign precepts, but those that are given from the Lord, to our faith, and that came from the truth itself. But if I met with anyone who had been a follower of the elders anywhere, I made it a point to inquire what were the declarations of the elders. What was said by Andrew, Peter or Philip. What by Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord; for I do not think that I derived so much benefit from books as from the living voice of those that are still surviving." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapters 36-37, 39.)



We also possess records of questionable authorship that testify of Apostolic authority:

"In the third year of Claudius Caesar, Simon Cephas departed from Antioch to go to Rome. And as he passed on he preached in the divers countries the word of our Lord. And, when he had nearly arrived there, many had heard of it, and went out to meet him, and the whole church received him with great joy....And after these years Nero Caesar seized him and shut him up in prison. And he knew that he would crucify him; so he called Linus, the deacon, and made him bishop in his stead in Rome." (The Teaching of Simon Cephas In The City Of Rome, from The Memoirs Of Edessa And Ancient Syriac Documents, Ante-Nicean Fathers 8:673-675.)

Though this record is today considered apocryphal, it nevertheless demonstrates the common understanding that authority was passed on, and has been preserved in the Catholic Church.

There is also another testimony of authority not yet discussed. These records are rarely discussed, but in themselves point towards a faithful church blossoming in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries. Besides those things just described, we have the testimony of the Church that various persons, intimately acquainted with Christ and His Apostles, were still living! According to the early Church Fathers, the saints resurrected with our Lord, continued on with the Church for quite some time (see St. Matthew 27:52-53):

"St John the Evangelist had a famous disciple, St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (died in 156). St. Polycarp, in turn, had a celebrated disciple, the great St. Irenaeus ( c. 130-220) who became Bishop of Lyons. Irenaeus know the early Church very well, east and west; as a famous apologist for the Church, he wrote five influential volumes entitled Against the Heresies. In that work Irenaeus says, "Some persons that were dead have been raised again and have continued among us many years." (Father Albert J. Hebert, Raised From The Dead, 33.)

"Quadratus addressed a discourse to him [Aelius Hadrian] as an apology for the religion that we profess because certain malicious persons attempted to harass our brethren. The work is still in the hands of some of the brethren, as also in our own, from which anyone may see evident proof, both of the understanding of the man and of his apostolic faith. This writer showed the antiquity of the age in which he lived in these passages: ‘The deeds of our Savior’, said he, ‘were always before you, for they were true miracles; those that were healed, those that were raised from the dead, who were seen, not only when healed and when raised, but were always present. They remained living a long time, not only while our Lord was on earth, but likewise when he had left the earth. So that some of them have also lived to our own times.’ Such was Quadratus. (Eusebius, Book 4, Chapter 3.)

It seems rather incredible that those who had been raised from the dead, would then teach false doctrines, or allow those around them to preach that which was never taught. In this, if nothing else, we can be assured that the Church preserved and guarded those teachings, called the Deposit of Faith, well into the first few centuries. Proving that it continues to this day is question best left for another discussion.

FB: Jason what else are they going to say? "Well the last apostle is dead the church is no longer here?" They did the best they could. They had power to rule only their area they were called to. There is no biblical support to suggest they had apostolic power. And if this power was to be so important to pass on apostolic power then wouldn't it be recorded by apostles? Or even at best accepted and placed in the Canon of scriptures by non apostles. Say the gospel according to the bishop of Rome.

 

[RufustheRed]

FB: Jason what else are they going to say? "Well the last apostle is dead the church is no longer here?" They did the best they could. They had power to rule only their area they were called to. There is no biblical support to suggest they had apostolic power. And if this power was to be so important to pass on apostolic power then wouldn't it be recorded by apostles? Or even at best accepted and placed in the Canon of scriptures by non apostles. Say the gospel according to the bishop of Rome.

So you are claiming that the church fell into apostacy because??? The apostles didn't delegate their authority to others?

Now do not misunderstand me here. I do not necessarily adhere to the practice of laying on of hands to promulgate the continuity of the Church of the Lamb, but isn't this exactly what you, as a Mormon, do? When I was in your theological/cultural club, I remember upon becoming an elder, someone gave me a card that told me my "priesthood" lineage to Joseph Smith, Jr.

You are implying that this extremely important ordinance of your church had NO POWER past the generation of the original apostles, but does today. This makes no sense what so ever.

Of course, you know that I believe that there was no total apostacy, therefore, no need for a restoration, other than to inflate Smith's incredible case of narcissism. So, in my view, the whole case is moot.

 

[fatboys]

So you are claiming that the church fell into apostacy because??? The apostles didn't delegate their authority to others?

FB: Because of the times, the apostles did not have a full quorum and could not act for the whole of the church unless there was a full quorum. In our church the first Presidency is made up of the Prophet and his councilors. If the Lord wants to give us revelation, it would go through the prophet first, the councilors would pray about it and if they feel the same it is brought before the quorum which does the same thing. When a vacancy happens, the same process happens. At the time of the apostles, they were killed, and travel was very slow, and many times they were not accepted and put in prison. All who were available could make descions but when they finally were killed off that left no one with the same power as the apostles. Apostles can call other apostles as a group. Bishops were never meant to be a group or to be in a council to decide for the whole of the church. Although they did hold the priesthood, they did not have the power to call other bishops. They had the power to call those of a lesser office, but that is it.

Now do not misunderstand me here. I do not necessarily adhere to the practice of laying on of hands to promulgate the continuity of the Church of the Lamb, but isn't this exactly what you, as a Mormon, do? When I was in your theological/cultural club, I remember upon becoming an elder, someone gave me a card that told me my "priesthood" lineage to Joseph Smith, Jr.

FB: This is how the priesthood and callings were passed on. One has to have the proper authority. I guess what many misunderstand is that you have to have this authority to believe in Jesus Christ and gain salvation. That is false. One has to believe in Christ, obey the laws of God and repent and be baptised. As for the lineage the person ordaining you to be an Elder sometimes would give their priesthood lineage which the importance of it is that it follows it back to Jesus Christ because Christ gave this authority to Peter, James and John. Notice that it was just not Peter or James or John, it was all three together, where as the Aaronic Priesthood was given by John the Baptist.

You are implying that this extremely important ordinance of your church had NO POWER past the generation of the original apostles, but does today. This makes no sense what so ever.

FB: I think you left the church to soon. I did not say they didn't have authority. What they did not have was the Keys. In each office in the priesthood there are keys attached to these offices. A bishop is an office in the priesthood. They would not have the same keys as those called to a higher office such as apostle.

Of course, you know that I believe that there was no total apostacy, therefore, no need for a restoration, other than to inflate Smith's incredible case of narcissism. So, in my view, the whole case is moot.

FB: Yeh I knew, but I disagree

 

[MormonFriend]

Yet you seem to ignore the fact that even the LDS Church has fallen prey to this exact same thing, bringing about at least one major offshoot (RLDS) and more than a few minor offshoots, and all of these in just a short span of less than 200 years. Check your premises...if we must assume Christianity apostasized early on because of the presence of division over certain doctrines or who had true authority, then me must assume the same for the Mormon Church...

Not so. There is a major difference. We do not recognize those apostate groups as "part of the body." There always has been, and always will be apostates. What they do with their free will is protected by the foundation of our beliefs and laws of God. But they have severed themselves from the true Body.

Please correct me if I am wrong on this. Christians consider Catholicism as part of the Body, but the Pope considers Protestantism apostate. On that parallel, as the Catholic Church claims to be the one original and true Church that Christ established, with sole authority of God, so would the LDS Church be considered the root of Christ's Restored Church. Off shoots are dead in the Spirit of understanding and authority.

Once again, just because people disagree over doctrine (depending on how truly essential the doctrine is), does not inherently denote the presence of the Spirit, just a lack of true understanding of Scripture.

Where do you think a true understanding of Scripture comes from? This is the backbone of my evidence! Scripture is a "thing of God." The things of God are understood by the Spirit of God."
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 2:11)

The fact that many understood God's doctrines and precepts differently (and divided as a result) can only conclude that all but possibly "one" were wrong and did not have the Spirit to understand. Who was that "one" that understood by the Spirit, if he even existed at all?

 

[MormonFriend]

The chance that the early Church was LDS is so small it is laughable . Please show some historical evidence.

You need a little brush up on some basics of the LDS position.

 

[MormonFriend]

When asking for Biblical references, keep in mind that if there was an apostasy (which there was in my pov), that the Spirit of God, which is necessary to understand Biblical references, was lost with everything else. There lies the real issue of our disagreements. Therefore, pray to God for the answer to this question. He is Faithful to answer the honest in heart.

I did, thanks. That is why I am no longer LDS. .

Great! I would never hint that a person should act contrary to an answer he or she receives from God. I prayed and asked also. The answer I received is opposite to yours, and understanding of Scripture was opended to me (partially and increasing gradually) in a way I never expected. Obviously, one of us (or potentially both of us) has been deceived. I am not here to point fingers and condemn you and your beliefs. Personally, the only worse thing I can think of other than losing my soul, is to cause another to lose their soul. That is why I beg that everyone ask God for themselves, and study fervently those scriptures that teach where understanding comes from, how to get it, and what things can block understanding. The Bible is rich with this information.

 

[CrownCaster]

You need a little brush up on some basics of the LDS position.

Then could you provide that brush up please? About the only thing I can think that may resemble the early church is your claiming to have apostles but then there are many churches that claim such a thing and I do not believe that an apostle is anyone that was not with Jesus during His earthly ministry, hence the call of Matthias to fulfill the prophecy that one would lose his apostleship and another would take his place.

I have heard the idea that because your church is called of His name it is a point of your being the true church but then I have to look in the phone book under churches and can by this reasoning locate many one and only true churches. Also, the early church name changed several times. It was the church of Christ, the church of the latter day saints, the church of Jesus Christ and then became the coJColds at a later date. Why was God so vacillating in the name He wanted?

Anyway, please post those brush ups. interested to hear them. Asked earlier but was pointed to fair or farms of which I will not go. Thanks.

 

[neocon]

.................Because your simply asking something that is much to vast to post on a message board.

Nice dodge to a legitimate question.

 

[stauron]

The apostasy was the "going out" that occurred when the Jews rejected Christ and chose to follow the weak and beggerly elements of the OC that was fading away.

It occurred in John's day and is equated with the antichrist.

Those that understood the promises to the fathers (that would be the OC fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, et al.) understood that Christ was the crown of God's plan and gladly accepted Him. The rest called down His blood on them and on their children.

They were called blind guides of the blind, brood of vipers, white-washed sepulchres, children of the devil, children of Hagar, the synagogue of satan, those that went out from us proving they were never of us, the harlot, etc, etc, etc.

2:18 Children, it is the last hour, and just as you heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. We know from this that it is the last hour. 2:19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us, because if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But they went out from us to demonstrate that all of them do not belong to us.

So, the church was never in danger of "losing authority" because the apostates went out from the church.

In addition, those that trusted Christ as a prophet fled when they saw the signs and were saved and protected when those rebels were destroyed. The christians never disappeared. Of course that is God's promise, not to remove us from every trial or problem, but to deliver us by causing us to persevere or to provide a way out.

This answers all of the claims that the LDS make about a falling away, but also neatly undoes any force they have in extending it untill the 19th century or whenever. It was totally covenant related and ended when the OC ended.

 

[Jason of Wyoming]

The apostasy was the "going out" that occurred when the Jews rejected Christ and chose to follow the weak and beggerly elements of the OC that was fading away.

It occurred in John's day and is equated with the antichrist.

Those that understood the promises to the fathers (that would be the OC fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, et al.) understood that Christ was the crown of God's plan and gladly accepted Him. The rest called down His blood on them and on their children.

They were called blind guides of the blind, brood of vipers, white-washed sepulchres, children of the devil, children of Hagar, the synagogue of satan, those that went out from us proving they were never of us, the harlot, etc, etc, etc.


So, the church was never in danger of "losing authority" because the apostates went out from the church.

In addition, those that trusted Christ as a prophet fled when they saw the signs and were saved and protected when those rebels were destroyed. The christians never disappeared. Of course that is God's promise, not to remove us from every trial or problem, but to deliver us by causing us to persevere or to provide a way out.

This answers all of the claims that the LDS make about a falling away, but also neatly undoes any force they have in extending it untill the 19th century or whenever. It was totally covenant related and ended when the OC ended.

Nice Post.

 

[Jason of Wyoming]

FB: Jason what else are they going to say? "Well the last apostle is dead the church is no longer here?" They did the best they could.

Actually, nobody ever questioned the Bishop's authority until heresy came along in the mid to late 2nd century. They never had to prove their authority, because nobody ever questioned it. It wasnt until a few heretics came along claiming a "secret" knowledge that they then demonstrated that they both held the apostles authority, and taught the same doctrine.

(PS. In case you didn't know, Bishops hold the same authority as the Apostles did. That's been the understanding of the Church since the 2nd century.)

They had power to rule only their area they were called to.

I know it's a common belief with Mormons, but I've yet to see anyone offer support for this. Do you have anything, or are you just repeating the mormon party-line?

There is no biblical support to suggest they had apostolic power.

What do you mean by "apostolic power"? Are you talking about priesthood authority, or what? Furthermore, if you could show me that they didn't, I'd appreciate it.

And if this power was to be so important to pass on apostolic power then wouldn't it be recorded by apostles?

Why would it? They often talked about those they left in charge, and those Bishops ordained by the Apostles often recorded their ordinations and then continued on. Have you ever read Eusebius?

Or even at best accepted and placed in the Canon of scriptures by non apostles. Say the gospel according to the bishop of Rome.

Who do you think it was that established the Canon of the Bible in the first place?

 

[CrownCaster]

Why cant I get an answer to the question I have of the statement that has been made so many times? What exactly are the similarities between the lds church and the early church of Christ?

 

[A New Dawn]

Not so. There is a major difference. We do not recognize those apostate groups as "part of the body." There always has been, and always will be apostates. What they do with their free will is protected by the foundation of our beliefs and laws of God. But they have severed themselves from the true Body.

I'm sorry, but this is reallllllllllllllly off-topic (sort-of).

I have to chuckle when you (and others) say this because we (the RLDS) consider ourselves the heirs to the restored church, and don't consider you (the LDS) part of the body. That you have severed yourselves from the true Body by following someone who didn't have the authority to lead the church and by officially incorporating those practices that were not original to the church when it was restored by Christ.

It is just a arrogance that I find amusing. Sorry for the distraction.

 

[A New Dawn]

Why cant I get an answer to the question I have of the statement that has been made so many times? What exactly are the similarities between the lds church and the early church of Christ?

I can't tell you what the similarities of the LDS church of today and the early church of Christ is, but I can tell you what the similarities of the early restoration church (circa 1830) and the early church of Christ are.

There is the priesthood, there are the 6 principles of the gospel that were the foundation of the early Christian church (faith, repentance, baptism by water for the remission of sins, laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit, resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment), there were multitudinous manifestations of the gifts of the Spirit (healings, angel visitations, speaking in tongues and interpretation of tongues, etc.) and there is the divine directive that was given to the church of bringing forth to pass the Kingdom of God on earth. Zion. The Kingdom is what Christ proclaimed throughout His entire ministry, and it is the call of the restored church. And what we, who feel we are the heirs to that church, seek to bring forth every day of our lives.

 

[Jason of Wyoming]

I'm sorry, but this is reallllllllllllllly off-topic (sort-of).

I have to chuckle when you (and others) say this because we (the RLDS) consider ourselves the heirs to the restored church, and don't consider you (the LDS) part of the body. That you have severed yourselves from the true Body by following someone who didn't have the authority to lead the church and by officially incorporating those practices that were not original to the church when it was restored by Christ.

It is just a arrogance that I find amusing. Sorry for the distraction.

I must agree with you on this.

 

[Jason of Wyoming]

I can't tell you what the similarities of the LDS church of today and the early church of Christ is, but I can tell you what the similarities of the early restoration church (circa 1830) and the early church of Christ are.

There is the priesthood, there are the 6 principles of the gospel that were the foundation of the early Christian church (faith, repentance, baptism by water for the remission of sins, laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit, resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment), there were multitudinous manifestations of the gifts of the Spirit (healings, angel visitations, speaking in tongues and interpretation of tongues, etc.) and there is the divine directive that was given to the church of bringing forth to pass the Kingdom of God on earth. Zion. The Kingdom is what Christ proclaimed throughout His entire ministry, and it is the call of the restored church. And what we, who feel we are the heirs to that church, seek to bring forth every day of our lives.

But I can't tell you what the similarities of the LDS church to the early church of Christ is.

Dawn,

I consider you're branch of Mormonism (RLDS/CoC) to be more Christian than the LDS branch. Don't know that that makes anything better between us, but I wanted you to know that.

 

[Fit4Christ]

Dawn,

I consider you're branch of Mormonism (RLDS/CoC) to be more Christian than the LDS branch. Don't know that that makes anything better between us, but I wanted you to know that.

But is being "more Christian than the lds" enough? Only God knows what's in one's heart. If one still claims Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and firmly believes they will confess such when standing before God on judgement day, I fear they shall be lost to the lake of fire, no matter how "more Christian" they are. For one cannot serve two masters. I would still pray for her to see the light!

 

[Zeddicus]

Not so. There is a major difference. We do not recognize those apostate groups as "part of the body." There always has been, and always will be apostates. What they do with their free will is protected by the foundation of our beliefs and laws of God. But they have severed themselves from the true Body.

Please correct me if I am wrong on this. Christians consider Catholicism as part of the Body, but the Pope considers Protestantism apostate. On that parallel, as the Catholic Church claims to be the one original and true Church that Christ established, with sole authority of God, so would the LDS Church be considered the root of Christ's Restored Church. Off shoots are dead in the Spirit of understanding and authority.

Ummm... last I heard the Catholic Church at Vatican II (and in the past as well) has stated that Protestants and many other Churches that are not directly connected to them are not apostates. They consider themselves to be the Church that God granted authority over the Church (including Protestants), but they do not consider Protestants to be apostates.

Where do you think a true understanding of Scripture comes from? This is the backbone of my evidence! Scripture is a "thing of God." The things of God are understood by the Spirit of God."
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 2:11)

You misunderstand me. I agree that true understanding comes from the Spirit. What I am saying is that just because, on certain doctrines unessential to salvation, some people have yet to have the true understanding of what the correct doctrine revealed to them yet does not make them apostate, simply just not as knowledgable as another as of yet.

The fact that many understood God's doctrines and precepts differently (and divided as a result) can only conclude that all but possibly "one" were wrong and did not have the Spirit to understand.

No it does not conclude that all the rest lacked the Spirit, just that they got caught up in the flesh, which inherently does not make one an apostate, just in need of some guidance. Just because you maybe wrong about say issues like predestination or whether or not the rapture will happen does not inherently make you apostate, just incorrect about certain doctrines.

Who was that "one" that understood by the Spirit, if he even existed at all?

Well, we will find out who was correct either by revelation from the Spirit here on earth or by revelation of the knowledge when we see Christ...though of course even the knowledge of the true doctrines will not help you if you are not already saved at that point, but that is another topic...

P.S.-just to make sure that I do not unintentionally, when I use the word "you" in this post, I am speaking generally in all but the first instance I use it..