• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Apostasy

RichardBurger

New Member
Apostasy:
This writing is offered as a study of Apostasy and is to be considered the view of the writer, me. If it offends any I am sorry, but just as I give others the right to believe and write as they see it I claim that same right for myself. This writing is not a claim, by me, that I know everything. It is my effort to try and understand the truth.

Evidence of a great doctrinal apostasy
This is the background of Christ's instruction to Gentiles (through Paul) during the dispensation of grace (that's us):

1 Cor 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me [Paul], as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon...

1 Cor 4:14-16 For I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. [the Kingdom Gospel? No, the Grace Gospel? Yes.] Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers [of whom? All the apostles? No...] of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

1 Cor 11:1-2 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as [who? Peter? John? James? No...] I delivered them to you.

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given [to who? All the apostles equally? No...] to me for you...

Phil 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and observe them which walk according to the pattern you have in us...

Phil 4:9 Those things which you have learned and received and heard and seen [in who? the circumcision apostles? No...] in me, practice these things, and the God of peace shall be with you.

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil [Gr. pleroo, complete] the word of God;

2 Tim 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Finally...

2 Tim 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
***

Looking at the record of history...did "faithful men" continue Paul's teaching? ------ Judge for yourself after examining the doctrines that cropped up soon after the apostolic era.

THE LORD'S SUPPER

Three of the "church fathers" --Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus--said the Lord’s Supper had some positive mystical influence on your spirit and physical body when you ate it. Ignatius went as far as to call the bread “The medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but have life forever in Jesus Christ.”

These folks weren’t into transubstantiation as we know it, but they had an early form of it (more like consubstantiation).

QUESTION: Is that what Paul taught?

Paul clearly taught that it’s a memorial (1 Cor 11:23-26)...an important, solemn memorial, yes, but it’s still just bread and wine with no mention of any mystical presence of the Lord. So who was right -- these early church "fathers," or Paul?

SALVATION, SUFFERING AND PERSERVERENCE

Ignatius longed for animals to tear him to bits because he seemed to have believed that suffering and martyrdom would prove his Christianity and ensure his salvation. He seems to have exhibited an attitude of "I must endure to the end to be saved." While Kingdom saints had to believe such dreadful truths (Matt. 24:13), Paul never did.

THE MYSTERY

Did Ignatius really have a grasp on the Mystery? He knew that the body of professing believers was comprised of Jews and Gentiles, but that was a fact clearly evident even to unbelievers. As to Paul's Mystery, he saw it as something else entirely:

"Ye are associates in the mysteries with Paul, who was sanctified, who obtained a good report, who is worthy of all felicitation..." (Eph. 12)

That's as close as can be found that Ignatius got to mentioning Paul's mystery revelation. But he did go into detail on this:

"And hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord---three mysteries to be cried aloud--which were wrought in the silence of God." (Eph. 19)

Ignatius did not have a clue regarding the Pauline revelation, judging by what he wrote. Yet he considered the virgin birth and the death of Messiah to have been hidden from Satan. But they weren’t hidden, for both were prophesied in the O.T. What WAS hidden from Satan (and from the whole world) was the full scope of the Cross (1 Cor 2:6-8), which was not known until Christ revealed it to Paul as part of the Mystery. Timothy knew it. Titus knew it. The Ephesians knew it. But Ignatius appears to never have understood it. That scope being that through the atonement work of the cross mankind can be saved by the grace of God based on faith in what God (Jesus) did on the cross to pay for their sins.

WATER BAPTISM

This early doctrinal slide is most grossly evident when one examines these writer's opinions of water baptism. Ignatius wrote:

"It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or hold a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and valid." (Smy. 8)

"Let your baptism abide with you as your shield... (Poly. 6). Elsewhere he said, "...as your arm..."

What Ignatius meant by "shield" is clear - it's a reference to defense, possibly spiritual armor. However, Paul gave water baptism no such significance. Ignatius is paving the way for a ritualistic, salvational approach to baptism [i.e., Rome's] which is with us to this day, especially when he says only the bishop can perform it or approve of it.

Justin also said that one could believe but wasn’t actually saved until he/she was dunked. That’s a form of baptismal regeneration, from as early as 150 A.D. (some say they used the terms “baptism” and “regeneration” interchangeably). But did Paul EVER teach this? No! These Gentile philosophers sound far more familiar with Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 than with Eph 4:5.

NOTE: The point of this post is that all this doctrinal confusion happened within ONE GENERATION of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles and dispenser of the mystery. Not 100 years after his death, gross doctrinal distortion had already set in and the Church believed, and practicing a mix of two dispensations, as well as things not even found in the Bible.

One thing is certain from what I’ve read -- the Asian fathers largely failed to acknowledge the uniqueness of the revelation Christ gave to Paul. Why? Because, as Paul himself wrote, Asia had already turned away from him even while he was yet alive. Those in Asia were even then “turning aside unto myths.” These church “fathers,” with their compounded mythical doctrines, are only the fruit of the apostasy that began in the first century before Paul died.
2 Tim 1:15
15 This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
(NKJ)
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I hate to see threads with no responses. So here's mine... I, too, believe there was an apostasy early in the history of the Christian Church. I guess I'm not going to be able to be much fun to debate.
 

EverChanging

Well-Known Member
You use scripture to condemn beliefs different from yours, but you don't provide a scriptural reference listing which books belong in the canon of the Bible, and even if you did, such "proof" would be circular reasoning. In other words, you accept the truth of your particular canon of the Bible based on tradition, not scripture, just as the "apostates" accept the beliefs you condemn based on tradition. Looks like you're in the same boat with those "apostate" Roman Catholics. ;)
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Ignatius makes reference to the gospels, he names Mary and since he claims she was a virgin he could not have gotten that from reading Mark, but most likely Matthew as you suggest. Paul died before the gospels were written and makes no mention of Mary, Joseph, Judas, or Pontius Pilate. Ignatius is drawing from a written gospel while Paul was receiving all his material through revelations of a risen Christ and through interpreting his ancient scriptures, so it's understandable that their beliefs differ.
 

JohnAmes

Member
Luke 22: Peter Disowns Jesus
22:61 "Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times."

1John 2: Warning Against Antichrists
2:22 "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the anti-christ-"

Mark 14 Peter Disowns Jesus
14:72 " Before the rooster crows twice you will disown me three times."

Matthew 26 Peter Disowns Jesus
26:72 ", with an oath:"I don't know the man!""

John 18 Peter's First Denial
18:17 " I am not"
Peter's Second and Third Denials
18:27 "Again Peter denied it, and at that moment a rooster began to crow."
 

JohnAmes

Member
1John 2: Warning Against Antichrists

2: 19 "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us."

2: 22 "Who is the liar?"
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Apostasy:
This writing is offered as a study of Apostasy and is to be considered the view of the writer, me.

I do not view apostasy as doctrine or beliefs contrary to the Bible.

I view apostasy as a turning away from the message of salvation. For instance churches that accept homosexuality are apostate because they accept sin instead of believing that a person should be saved from it.

How can a person ask God to be Lord and Savior and then turn around and tell him, no, thanks, I don't want to be saved from that?
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
I do not view apostasy as doctrine or beliefs contrary to the Bible.

I view apostasy as a turning away from the message of salvation. For instance churches that accept homosexuality are apostate because they accept sin instead of believing that a person should be saved from it.

How can a person ask God to be Lord and Savior and then turn around and tell him, no, thanks, I don't want to be saved from that?
Are you denying your homosexuality?
 

Smoke

Done here.
NOTE: The point of this post is that all this doctrinal confusion happened within ONE GENERATION of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles and dispenser of the mystery. Not 100 years after his death, gross doctrinal distortion had already set in and the Church believed, and practicing a mix of two dispensations, as well as things not even found in the Bible.
Consider these facts:

1) The very next generation after Paul interpreted his teachings differently than you do.

2) The men who gathered the Bible, who decided what was canonical scripture and what was not, interpreted the teachings of Paul differently than you do.

Doesn't it stand to reason that:

1) Paul's meaning may not be as obvious as you think.

2) If those men were apostates, your own doctrine relies on an anthology collected by apostates. That seems to put you on some rather shaky ground yourself.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Apostasy:
This writing is offered as a study of Apostasy and is to be considered the view of the writer, me. If it offends any I am sorry, but just as I give others the right to believe and write as they see it I claim that same right for myself. This writing is not a claim, by me, that I know everything. It is my effort to try and understand the truth.

Evidence of a great doctrinal apostasy
This is the background of Christ's instruction to Gentiles (through Paul) during the dispensation of grace (that's us):

1 Cor 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me [Paul], as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon...

1 Cor 4:14-16 For I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. [the Kingdom Gospel? No, the Grace Gospel? Yes.] Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers [of whom? All the apostles? No...] of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

1 Cor 11:1-2 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as [who? Peter? John? James? No...] I delivered them to you.

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given [to who? All the apostles equally? No...] to me for you...

Phil 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and observe them which walk according to the pattern you have in us...

Phil 4:9 Those things which you have learned and received and heard and seen [in who? the circumcision apostles? No...] in me, practice these things, and the God of peace shall be with you.

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil [Gr. pleroo, complete] the word of God;

2 Tim 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Finally...

2 Tim 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
***

Looking at the record of history...did "faithful men" continue Paul's teaching? ------ Judge for yourself after examining the doctrines that cropped up soon after the apostolic era.

THE LORD'S SUPPER

Three of the "church fathers" --Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus--said the Lord’s Supper had some positive mystical influence on your spirit and physical body when you ate it. Ignatius went as far as to call the bread “The medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but have life forever in Jesus Christ.”

These folks weren’t into transubstantiation as we know it, but they had an early form of it (more like consubstantiation).

QUESTION: Is that what Paul taught?

Paul clearly taught that it’s a memorial (1 Cor 11:23-26)...an important, solemn memorial, yes, but it’s still just bread and wine with no mention of any mystical presence of the Lord. So who was right -- these early church "fathers," or Paul?

SALVATION, SUFFERING AND PERSERVERENCE

Ignatius longed for animals to tear him to bits because he seemed to have believed that suffering and martyrdom would prove his Christianity and ensure his salvation. He seems to have exhibited an attitude of "I must endure to the end to be saved." While Kingdom saints had to believe such dreadful truths (Matt. 24:13), Paul never did.

THE MYSTERY

Did Ignatius really have a grasp on the Mystery? He knew that the body of professing believers was comprised of Jews and Gentiles, but that was a fact clearly evident even to unbelievers. As to Paul's Mystery, he saw it as something else entirely:

"Ye are associates in the mysteries with Paul, who was sanctified, who obtained a good report, who is worthy of all felicitation..." (Eph. 12)

That's as close as can be found that Ignatius got to mentioning Paul's mystery revelation. But he did go into detail on this:

"And hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord---three mysteries to be cried aloud--which were wrought in the silence of God." (Eph. 19)

Ignatius did not have a clue regarding the Pauline revelation, judging by what he wrote. Yet he considered the virgin birth and the death of Messiah to have been hidden from Satan. But they weren’t hidden, for both were prophesied in the O.T. What WAS hidden from Satan (and from the whole world) was the full scope of the Cross (1 Cor 2:6-8), which was not known until Christ revealed it to Paul as part of the Mystery. Timothy knew it. Titus knew it. The Ephesians knew it. But Ignatius appears to never have understood it. That scope being that through the atonement work of the cross mankind can be saved by the grace of God based on faith in what God (Jesus) did on the cross to pay for their sins.

WATER BAPTISM

This early doctrinal slide is most grossly evident when one examines these writer's opinions of water baptism. Ignatius wrote:

"It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or hold a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and valid." (Smy. 8)

"Let your baptism abide with you as your shield... (Poly. 6). Elsewhere he said, "...as your arm..."

What Ignatius meant by "shield" is clear - it's a reference to defense, possibly spiritual armor. However, Paul gave water baptism no such significance. Ignatius is paving the way for a ritualistic, salvational approach to baptism [i.e., Rome's] which is with us to this day, especially when he says only the bishop can perform it or approve of it.

Justin also said that one could believe but wasn’t actually saved until he/she was dunked. That’s a form of baptismal regeneration, from as early as 150 A.D. (some say they used the terms “baptism” and “regeneration” interchangeably). But did Paul EVER teach this? No! These Gentile philosophers sound far more familiar with Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 than with Eph 4:5.

NOTE: The point of this post is that all this doctrinal confusion happened within ONE GENERATION of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles and dispenser of the mystery. Not 100 years after his death, gross doctrinal distortion had already set in and the Church believed, and practicing a mix of two dispensations, as well as things not even found in the Bible.

One thing is certain from what I’ve read -- the Asian fathers largely failed to acknowledge the uniqueness of the revelation Christ gave to Paul. Why? Because, as Paul himself wrote, Asia had already turned away from him even while he was yet alive. Those in Asia were even then “turning aside unto myths.” These church “fathers,” with their compounded mythical doctrines, are only the fruit of the apostasy that began in the first century before Paul died.
2 Tim 1:15
15 This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
(NKJ)
Not sure what you mean by "gross doctrinal distortion." There was disagreement from the very beginning. The gospels make it clear that not even the Twelve caught on to what Jesus was about. Besides, it seems to be very clear that the gospel was based entirely in praxis than in belief. So differences of "doctrine" seem rather insignificant. I'd be more concerned about those Xians who possess "right" doctrine, but who refuse to do what Jesus said do. That would constitute an apostasy, IMO.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I do not view apostasy as doctrine or beliefs contrary to the Bible.

I view apostasy as a turning away from the message of salvation. For instance churches that accept homosexuality are apostate because they accept sin instead of believing that a person should be saved from it.

How can a person ask God to be Lord and Savior and then turn around and tell him, no, thanks, I don't want to be saved from that?
I view apostasy as a turning away from the message of salvation. For instance, churches that do not accept homosexuals are apostate because they accept the sin of inhospitality instead of believing that Christ draws all people to himself.
 

Wotan

Active Member
Apostasy is the teaching of false doctrines. It's as simple as that.

AND it is much ado about nothing.


As can be seen in this thread where even the basic understanding of what doctrine IS is . . . apostasy.

You guys don't any idea WHAT you believe. But you are damn certain that whatever it is the rest of us ought to at least act we believed it also.
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
from the OP:

"NOTE: The point of this post is that all this doctrinal confusion happened within ONE GENERATION of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles and dispenser of the mystery. Not 100 years after his death, gross doctrinal distortion had already set in and the Church believed, and practicing a mix of two dispensations, as well as things not even found in the Bible."


I agree with the opening post, this is a matter of fact, it's nothing to get worked up over.

BTW 'apostasy' is the abandonment of past loyalties, not a teaching of false doctrines. Within a generation people had abandoned Paul's gospel to the gentiles.
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
BTW 'apostasy' is the abandonment of past loyalties, not a teaching of false doctrines. Within a generation people had abandoned Paul's gospel to the gentiles.
Okay, let me clarify... Apostasy is the abandonment or 'falling away' from what one previously believed it. The gospel Paul taught was the gospel of Jesus Christ. When people began to abandon the doctrines that Jesus Christ taught and to embrace other doctrines instead, the Church He had established fell into apostasy. (I admit, my first answer was misleading.)
 

Wotan

Active Member
And what "guys" might you be referring to? I know exactly what I believe. [/color]

Those claiming to be Christians. And the proof of that is in the posts on this thread. What YOU personally claim to know exactly as "true Christianity" other good and devout Christians consider apostasy.

And ALL of you are apostates according to the Muslims.

You guys have NO IDEA what you believe. You can't even agree on WHO this JC guy really WAS. But you all are SO quick to write your ignorance into public law that the rest us have to follow.:(

And YOUR Church is one of the worst offenders in this regard.:p
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Those claiming to be Christians. And the proof of that is in the posts on this thread. What YOU personally claim to know exactly as "true Christianity" other good and devout Christians consider apostasy.

And ALL of you are apostates according to the Muslims.

You guys have NO IDEA what you believe. You can't even agree on WHO this JC guy really WAS. But you all are SO quick to write your ignorance into public law that the rest us have to follow.:(

And YOUR Church is one of the worst offenders in this regard.:p
I don't know what posts you're reading or what in the world you are on about, but Paul predates the gospels so it's understandable that things changed after the gospels were written. The OP is comparing Christianity as it was prior to the gospels being written and after. Ignatius is the first known believer, he's the first to provide information that he could only have received from the gospels and his writings date to approx. 117 CE. Things changed, the abandonment of previous beliefs and ways is referred to as apostasy, what's to be upset about? It is what it is. I didn't read of the OP condemning anyone.
 
Top