Did the True Church Apostasized?

I voted yes. And I guess I'm the only one who has voted so far.

I also voted yes, but I really don't want to debate this with Catholics because I think it is insulting to their faith. I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of any Christian who isn't Catholic and does not believe that the church apostasized. I would say that if there was no Apostasy then the Catholic church has God's truth and authority.

Yes, I agree. What is the point of a protestant who still thinks the catholic church didn't apostasise? That's just admitting that the catholic church is the true church, but that they don't care enough to follow it, becaus ethey don't like it.

I voted yes. Interesting that all who have voted on this thread so far are LDS. The apostacy is crucial if we are to believe our church is true.

Funny how all the Latter-day Saints jumped on this one! I just added my vote, so that accounts for the four votes cast for the affirmative so far.

:biglaugh: what if we were the only ones to answer? If soyleche jumped in here, and deepshadow too, and then the thread just died? :biglaugh:

Most all churches have to say something to justify their existense. Since most all can't deny much of history they can at least say "they wen't wrong somewhere". Trying to prove this thru history is rather difficult. The only ones (in my opinion) who can truly squabble all night about this is Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. This may offend some of you, but it's truth. You can't look at history and not see it.

~Victor

Did the True Church Apostasize? I think that is an oxymoron! Truly, if a Church is the True Church, how can it be called an apostate Church. It is True particularly because it is NOT Apostate, because it has not altered the Apostolic Tradition which it received. To suggest that Christ's Church apostasized, is to say that Christ is proved a liar when He said "the gates of hell shall not prevail against My Church". Truly, there is the historical Church, and no, it has not fallen victim to Apostasy. In reply to "defense-of-truths" second question, I don't think the Church apostasized, I believe she is the One holy, catholic and apostolic Church--the Orthodox Church.
To those LDS, or Protestant denominations who would suggest that the Church did apostasize, because their beliefs depend on it, I would certainly have to ask, with all due respect (and I'm certainly not judging the faith of anyone, I'm sure many of your sincerely love the Lord Jesus Christ), how do you reconcile your belief that the Church disappeared for 15 centuries, only to be somehow "rediscovered" by Martin Luther, and then later, in full by Joseph Smith, a man who created his own home-grown Scriptures, that are not in the least bit historically canonical, to the words of the Lord who says, NO, the gates of hell, of heresy, of apostasy, shall not prevail against My Church? To suggest that there was apostasy and no True Church for 15 centuries is to argue just that, and I think it makes a mockery and a liar out of our Lord.

In Christ, the least,
Theodore (Ted)

Aqualung said:

:biglaugh: what if we were the only ones to answer? If soyleche jumped in here, and deepshadow too, and then the thread just died? :biglaugh:

Click to expand...

Jump :bounce

Paul prophesied of the apostacy. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3:

document.write(drawVerse(1,97872)); 1&nbsp1 NOW we beseech you, brethren, by• the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

document.write(drawVerse(2,97873)); 2&nbsp2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or• be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter• as from us, as that the day• of Christ is at hand.

3&nbsp3 Let no man deceive you by any means: afor• that day shall not come, except there come a bfalling• away first, and that cman of dsin be revealed, the son of perdition;

The Thessalonians were anxious for the return of Christ and Paul was letting them know there would be a "falling away first" of the Church before he comes again.

Christ is not a liar by saying "The Gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Why do you think having a gap makes him so? In the end, hell doesn't stand a chance.

Thank you nutshell! I haven't been spreading my frubals around very well...

Victor said:

Most all churches have to say something to justify their existense. Since most all can't deny much of history they can at least say "they wen't wrong somewhere". Trying to prove this thru history is rather difficult. The only ones (in my opinion) who can truly squabble all night about this is Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. This may offend some of you, but it's truth. You can't look at history and not see it.

~Victor

Click to expand...

Interesting you would say that, Victor. I am absolutely not offended by your statement. Since you have narrowed the contenders for the title of "the one true Church" down to two, here (from The Strength of the Mormon Position by Orson F. Whitney) is another point of view on the subject:

"Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well-acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue's end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me: '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's 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 the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days.' "

Okay, let's get a few things straight. St. Paul predicted an apostasy, certainly, and we live in times of St. Paul's apostasy, when vain men and women don't want to heed the sound doctrine of the Church, but rather heap up to themselves their own teachers, their own fables. St. Paul believed and taught for the Church, it was not his belief that the Church would apostasize, but rather predicted that in those terrible times, people would apostasize from the Church. He never said the Church would apostasize, but that people would reject the True Teaching, that One Faith (Ephesians 4:4), and they would begin to alter and pick---this smorgasbord Christianity, where I will do it my way, chooose what i believe, what i don't believe, what i teach and don't teach. It is absolutely undeniable that one could not be a Christian in the first century, unless one believed certain things, and this was called doctrine, or in Greek, dogmata. We read in Acts 16, that after the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem had settled the issue of the circumcision, we read that the Apostles went out and gave to the people, the DECREES, (DOGMATA, greek) they were to keep (Acts 16:4). One could not be, in a "doing" sense, a Christian, unless one believed what the Church, the pillar and ground of Truth (1st Timothy) had come to, under guidance of the Holy Spirit. So, it is the keepers of sound doctrine who are the Church. Those who apostasize, are quite simply, no longer the historic Church....they have, through their pride and innovation, removed themselves from that One Faith, that sound doctrine. St. Paul was talking about this "My Way" nonsense, denominational splits, and reconfigurations, as apostasy from the historic sound doctrine. Where egos get in the way, and Christianity is whatever "the Lord lays on my heart", because we don't come in a nature of humility, but in a nature of wanting to call the shots. Sermons are "whatever Jesus lays on my heart"...Apostolic Councils? Who needs them, right?! I got the Holy Spirit leading me. Interesting though, the guy beside you, who is teaching things absolutely opposite to your views, makes the same claim--that' he's "on fire with the Spirit". So, this is the situation--the Holy Spirit, He guides in One Truth. Either He is schizophrenic (which heaven forbid we should think this), guiding others in one way, and others in another, in discord and not concord, or He guides the Church that was always the ground of Truth. The Church received the teachings of Christ long before New Testament Scritpures were even finalized.

And on a final note, I will use that point. The Holy Scriptures that LDS, and numerous other denominations use, were only finalized in the early 4th century. The New Testament was not finalized until the 4th century. Surely the Holy Writings, (that's what they called them then), existed in the most ancient churches, but there were also other apostolic gospels which were gnostic, which did not conform to what the Church, the Pillar and Ground of Truth, had always taught of Christ. Why do we read the Gospel of John in our Bibles, and not the Gospel of Thomas? Because the Gospel of John CONFORMED to what THE CHURCH had always taught. We have to get the order right. And LDS or any other denomination can not have a Scripture unless they trust THE CHURCH that ratified what that Holy New Testament Scripture is. If they don't trust what the Church has ALWAYS TAUGHT, from the beggining, what was believed always and by all, how do they trust the Church to have gotten the Books of the New Testament write. It is undeniable that the list, the New Testament canon that we all read was ratified by BISHOPS of the One, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. If we believe that the Church is wrong and in apostasy, how can we be so sure about the Biblical books that they chose as TRUE TESTIMONIES TO THE ONE TEACHING OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST? We can't have our cake and eat it too. No Protestant will argue against the books of the New Testament. Well there is no doubt that these books were ratified as TRUE, by the Holy Church, by the bishops of the ONE HOLY CHURCH. If we don't trust the Church, or if they are in apostasy, how can we trust their selections?

But we trust the Church, because it is a Living Tradition, and yes, after the Apostles, the teaching went on in those bishops and presbyters and deacons that they ordained, and the Apostolic Faith continued to spread in DUE ORDER, not this chaotic smorgasbord, spout off what you want, authority or not.

Forgive if this offends, it is surely not my intention.
--Ted

Moreover to agree that the True Church apostasized is to say that there is no True Church. This is something that not even LDS with any sense would argue. Surely you all are LDS because you believe it is the True Church. If this is so, how could you possibly agree that the True Church has apostasized, without saying that your church is not the True One, that the True ONE is gone, is in apostasy?
Surely you guys see the silliness in agreeing with something like that, right?
Forgive,
Ted

Did the True Church Apostasize? I think that is an oxymoron! Truly, if a Church is the True Church, how can it be called an apostate Church. It is True particularly because it is NOT Apostate, because it has not altered the Apostolic Tradition which it received. To suggest that Christ's Church apostasized, is to say that Christ is proved a liar when He said "the gates of hell shall not prevail against My Church". Truly, there is the historical Church, and no, it has not fallen victim to Apostasy. In reply to "defense-of-truths" second question, I don't think the Church apostasized, I believe she is the One holy, catholic and apostolic Church--the Orthodox Church.
To those LDS, or Protestant denominations who would suggest that the Church did apostasize, because their beliefs depend on it, I would certainly have to ask, with all due respect (and I'm certainly not judging the faith of anyone, I'm sure many of your sincerely love the Lord Jesus Christ), how do you reconcile your belief that the Church disappeared for 15 centuries, only to be somehow "rediscovered" by Martin Luther, and then later, in full by Joseph Smith, a man who created his own home-grown Scriptures, that are not in the least bit historically canonical, to the words of the Lord who says, NO, the gates of hell, of heresy, of apostasy, shall not prevail against My Church? To suggest that there was apostasy and no True Church for 15 centuries is to argue just that, and I think it makes a mockery and a liar out of our Lord.

In Christ, the least,
Theodore (Ted)

Click to expand...

Actually, I dont believe the Church disappeared. I believe it was driven underground (and in many ways still is underground) much like during the time of the Romans through (no offense meant) the intolerate and blind traditions of the Catholic church of that time. The Church is not of this world and therefore really should not have a politic presence. No politic presense equals disappearence from history. History is, afterall, written by whoever has political power. Just because something is done in such a way throughout history doesnt make it correct. If that is the argument, then paganism is more correct than either Judaism or Christianity because it is far older. Ultimately however, it is not anyone's place to pass judgment. That is only God's place. We all have our personal opinions and that is all they are. To pass that opinion as Truth is incorrect. Only God can say what is Truth and what is not.

ted1234 said:

Okay, let's get a few things straight. St. Paul predicted an apostasy, certainly, and we live in times of St. Paul's apostasy, when vain men and women don't want to heed the sound doctrine of the Church, but rather heap up to themselves their own teachers, their own fables. St. Paul believed and taught for the Church, it was not his belief that the Church would apostasize, but rather predicted that in those terrible times, people would apostasize from the Church. He never said the Church would apostasize, but that people would reject the True Teaching, that One Faith (Ephesians 4:4), and they would begin to alter and pick---this smorgasbord Christianity, where I will do it my way, chooose what i believe, what i don't believe, what i teach and don't teach. It is absolutely undeniable that one could not be a Christian in the first century, unless one believed certain things, and this was called doctrine, or in Greek, dogmata. We read in Acts 16, that after the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem had settled the issue of the circumcision, we read that the Apostles went out and gave to the people, the DECREES, (DOGMATA, greek) they were to keep (Acts 16:4). One could not be, in a "doing" sense, a Christian, unless one believed what the Church, the pillar and ground of Truth (1st Timothy) had come to, under guidance of the Holy Spirit. So, it is the keepers of sound doctrine who are the Church. Those who apostasize, are quite simply, no longer the historic Church....they have, through their pride and innovation, removed themselves from that One Faith, that sound doctrine. St. Paul was talking about this "My Way" nonsense, denominational splits, and reconfigurations, as apostasy from the historic sound doctrine. Where egos get in the way, and Christianity is whatever "the Lord lays on my heart", because we don't come in a nature of humility, but in a nature of wanting to call the shots. Sermons are "whatever Jesus lays on my heart"...Apostolic Councils? Who needs them, right?! I got the Holy Spirit leading me. Interesting though, the guy beside you, who is teaching things absolutely opposite to your views, makes the same claim--that' he's "on fire with the Spirit". So, this is the situation--the Holy Spirit, He guides in One Truth. Either He is schizophrenic (which heaven forbid we should think this), guiding others in one way, and others in another, in discord and not concord, or He guides the Church that was always the ground of Truth. The Church received the teachings of Christ long before New Testament Scritpures were even finalized.

And on a final note, I will use that point. The Holy Scriptures that LDS, and numerous other denominations use, were only finalized in the early 4th century. The New Testament was not finalized until the 4th century. Surely the Holy Writings, (that's what they called them then), existed in the most ancient churches, but there were also other apostolic gospels which were gnostic, which did not conform to what the Church, the Pillar and Ground of Truth, had always taught of Christ. Why do we read the Gospel of John in our Bibles, and not the Gospel of Thomas? Because the Gospel of John CONFORMED to what THE CHURCH had always taught. We have to get the order right. And LDS or any other denomination can not have a Scripture unless they trust THE CHURCH that ratified what that Holy New Testament Scripture is. If they don't trust what the Church has ALWAYS TAUGHT, from the beggining, what was believed always and by all, how do they trust the Church to have gotten the Books of the New Testament write. It is undeniable that the list, the New Testament canon that we all read was ratified by BISHOPS of the One, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. If we believe that the Church is wrong and in apostasy, how can we be so sure about the Biblical books that they chose as TRUE TESTIMONIES TO THE ONE TEACHING OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST? We can't have our cake and eat it too. No Protestant will argue against the books of the New Testament. Well there is no doubt that these books were ratified as TRUE, by the Holy Church, by the bishops of the ONE HOLY CHURCH. If we don't trust the Church, or if they are in apostasy, how can we trust their selections?

But we trust the Church, because it is a Living Tradition, and yes, after the Apostles, the teaching went on in those bishops and presbyters and deacons that they ordained, and the Apostolic Faith continued to spread in DUE ORDER, not this chaotic smorgasbord, spout off what you want, authority or not.

Forgive if this offends, it is surely not my intention.
--Ted

Click to expand...

Regarding the apostacy, there seems to be a disagreement over the interpretation of what Paul was saying. You believe he was saying that individuals or perhaps groups would fall away, not the church. We believe he was saying it was the church and authority that was given to Peter that would fall away. I don't think we'll come to a resolution on this one as we are each set in our interpretations.

You make a good point about the Bible. It's a point I completely agree with. LDS understand and believe that many of the plain and precious truths of the Bible have been lost. Joseph Smith taught that we believe the Bible to be the word of God as long as it is translated correctly. He even produced an inspired translation that corrected some of the mistakes that had been made over time. Further, and perhaps most importantly, God has given us the Book of Mormon that acts as another testament of Christ. So, you see, we completely agree that the Bible has been manipulated and changed over time and recognize that a loving God has provided another means to come to Christ through additional scripture.

I also want to address what you call spouting off. You talk of the times we live in and say much of Christianity is a smorgasborg, with "Christians" choosing what they will and will not follow. I hope you don't believe LDS fall into this group. We strictly adhere to our teachings and the faithful do not pick and choose what they will or will not follow.

ted1234 said:

Moreover to agree that the True Church apostasized is to say that there is no True Church. This is something that not even LDS with any sense would argue. Surely you all are LDS because you believe it is the True Church. If this is so, how could you possibly agree that the True Church has apostasized, without saying that your church is not the True One, that the True ONE is gone, is in apostasy?
Surely you guys see the silliness in agreeing with something like that, right?
Forgive,
Ted

Click to expand...

No. The True Church did apostasize, but was restored. Just because it goes away does not mean it can't come back. One of the criteria of the True Church will be the priesthood being able to trace their authority back to Christ. Catholics claim this and so do the LDS. I know of no other denomination or group that claims the priesthood authority that was given to Peter by Christ. Do you?

First of All the true Church nedded no restoration nor reformation because it is alredy their. Second the Church did not apostasized and will never apostasized. Sure there is a grate falling away but remember CHrist's Church is a society of men guided and strengthen by THe Holy Spirit. Yes, I believe the World will apostasized but it does not mean that totally "ALL" of the Church members will apostasized. If all the members apostasized then Satan destroyed God's Church. THe purpose of the Church is to be here to teach the gospel. But if it disappeared it means the Church is destroyed and the gates of hell did prevail against it! Prevail is a present tense wich means that it will last till the end of time. If we read in Jesus' Acension in heaven we read that "And I Will be with you till the close of age." It means that Christ Church was, not and will benot apostasized forever and ever. Because Christ built his Church upon a rock (a.k.a parable of the foolish and wise men who built their houses in rocks and sand) THe Church of CHrist or the Roman Catholic Church is not founded, reformed of restored by human beings like Martin Luther, John Calvin and Joseph Smith. The Holy SPirit s helping the CHurch forever and ever. AMEN.

From my perspective, the True Church was a parasitic gentile fiction increasingly at odds with its tenuous Jewish roots.