Did the true church ever vanish or completely fall away?

[*Paul*]

Iti s the basis of many sects and cults that the Christian church fell into apostasy, and their founder/prophet/teacher was given special insight or revelation to restore it, could this be true?
Jesus said He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it, so for me if what these great latter day prophets surmised to be true, Jesus must have been wrong. Charles Taze Russel, Ellen G White, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Bahá'u'lláh, all taught in one way or another that what Jesus started became corrupted and that the bible had also become corrupted or very badly translated or parts lost from it, so they came up with their correct words of God, koran,nwt,book of mormon, pearl of great price,the great controversy and Bahá'u'lláhs writings etc.

My position is there has always been a faithfull true remnant of Christians even through the so called dark ages who adhered to simple biblical faith. I know that many departed from the faith and that heresy and apostasy have been wide spread throughout christendom at times but my question is did it completely vanish?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Iti s the basis of many sects and cults that the Christian church fell into apostasy, and their founder/prophet/teacher was given special insight or revelation to restore it, could this be true?

No.

Jesus said He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it, so for me if what these great latter day prophets surmised to be true, Jesus must have been wrong.

I agree. This would include Protestants in my opinion, who try to divide the indivisible body of Christ.

Charles Taze Russel, Ellen G White, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Bahá'u'lláh, all taught in one way or another that what Jesus started became corrupted and that the bible had also become corrupted or very badly translated or parts lost from it, so they came up with their correct words of God, koran,nwt,book of mormon, pearl of great price,the great controversy and Bahá'u'lláhs writings etc.

We could include here the Protestant canon, which cuts out Church Tradition and several books of the Catholic Canon.

 

[James the Persian]

I'm sorry, but I can't answer this poll. The reason is that I expect that by Catholic Church you mean Roman Catholic and it is Orthodox belief that Rome fell away from the Church in the Great Schism. I don't believe that it is possible for the whole Church to fall into Apostasy and I am certain that the One True Church is still visibly present on earth (though I hasten to add, this does not imply that all those outside of Her are destined to damnation), it's just that our Church (the Orthodox Church, which westerners so often fail to realise even exists) is neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant, was founded by the Apostles and not by anyone later so I cannot answer yes to any of your options. The first would be closest, so long as by Catholic you mean the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church and not he RCC.

James

 

[James the Persian]

We could include here the Protestant canon, which cuts out Church Tradition and several books of the Catholic Canon.

Which, in turn, cuts out several books of the Orthodox canon. Neither Rome nor the Protestants have the complete contents of the Greek Old Testament used by the early Church.

James

 

[*Paul*]

I'm sorry, but I can't answer this poll. The reason is that I expect that by Catholic Church you mean Roman Catholic and it is Orthodox belief that Rome fell away from the Church in the Great Schism. I don't believe that it is possible for the whole Church to fall into Apostasy and I am certain that the One True Church is still visibly present on earth (though I hasten to add, this does not imply that all those outside of Her are destined to damnation), it's just that our Church (the Orthodox Church, which westerners so often fail to realise even exists) is neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant, was founded by the Apostles and not by anyone later so I cannot answer yes to any of your options. The first would be closest, so long as by Catholic you mean the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church and not he RCC.

James

Sorry about that James, I was thinking roman catholic I 've never met an orthodox person before excpet briefly at a local chippy. But you make the same claims as does the RC, that you are the one true church which is the church that Jesus Christ started. I also do not believe it is possible for the whole church to fall into apostasy, even for one hour.

 

[James the Persian]

Sorry about that James, I was thinking roman catholic I 've never met an orthodox person before excpet briefly at a local chippy. But you make the same claims as does the RC, that you are the one true church which is the church that Jesus Christ started. I also do not believe it is possible for the whole church to fall into apostasy, even for one hour.

Don't worry about. Believe me, I'm used to people forgetting about us. In fact I get it doubly, because not only do westerners tend to forget about the Orthodox Church even though it's the second largest one after Rome, but Orthodox always seem to forget about the Romanian church, even though it's the second largest local Orthodox church after Russia. Evidently, being second largest is never memorable!

Yes, our claims are very similar to the Roman Catholic ones. I just happen to believe that they are far more historically convincing (or I'd be RC as I'm an adult convert). In other respects, though, our ecclesiology is very different. As for the whole Church falling into Apostasy, I've still never heard a convincing argument from any of the restorationists as to how such a belief can avoid making a liar out of Christ. That doesn't mean they won't try, though.

James

 

[!Fluffy!]

Paul, what's a local chippy?


Just curious.

 

[James the Persian]

Paul, what's a local chippy?


Just curious.

Well, we can certainly see that you're not from England! A chippy is slang for a fish and chip shop, which I imagine you are probably familiar with (the idea of what one is, I mean). In case you, or others, aren't, it's a take away that sells fish deep fried in a batter and chips, which are what you across the pond call French fries.

James

 

[!Fluffy!]

Well, we can certainly see that you're not from England! A chippy is slang for a fish and chip shop, which I imagine you are probably familiar with (the idea of what one is, I mean). In case you, or others, aren't, it's a take away that sells fish deep fried in a batter and chips, which are what you across the pond call French fries.

James

Oh thanks, sounds like our Long John Silver's! Yumm... we put malt vinegar on ours, and they come with hush puppies.

 

[James the Persian]

Oh thanks, sounds like our Long John Silver's! Yumm... we put malt vinegar on ours, and they come with hush puppies.

Malt vinegar's normal here too (on both fish and chips, though I personally don't like it on the chips). What on earth are hush puppies, though? Here they're shoes so your answer made me smile as I pictured a portion of fish and chips in a shoe! When I was small they used to come wrapped in old newspaper but they've stopped that now because it's unhygienic - old shoes would definitely be worse, though!

James

 

[!Fluffy!]

Malt vinegar's normal here too (on both fish and chips, though I personally don't like it on the chips). What on earth are hush puppies, though? Here they're shoes so your answer made me smile as I pictured a portion of fish and chips in a shoe! When I was small they used to come wrapped in old newspaper but they've stopped that now because it's unhygienic - old shoes would definitely be worse, though!

James

LOL no james, the shoe was definitely named after the food, which is small balls of cornbread deep-fried. As the legend goes in old Charleston, cooking was done in a lean-to or cookhouse outside of the main house (because of the heat, and the danger of fire in a densely populated area). So the slaves had to carry the food across the yard to serve in the main dining room. To prevent them from eating the food off the plates, the maids were ordered to whistle while carrying the heavy trays.

Well the whistling brought the dogs running and barking. So they carried these balls of fried cornbread in their aprons to toss at the dogs. Hence the term "hushpuppy". I heard this story when we were on a carriage tour in Charleston years ago.



P.S.: Paul, sorry for the hushpuppy hijack! I answered #3 to the poll btw, no matter what tribulation the true church goes thru there has always been a remnant to survive and carry on.

 

[FatMan]

As the legend goes in old Charleston, cooking was done in a lean-to or cookhouse outside of the main house (because of the heat, and the danger of fire in a densely populated area). So the slaves had to carry the food across the yard to serve in the main dining room. To prevent them from eating the food off the plates, the maids were ordered to whistle while carrying the heavy trays.

Well the whistling brought the dogs running and barking. So they carried these balls of fried cornbread in their aprons to toss at the dogs. Hence the term "hushpuppy". I heard this story when we were on a carriage tour in Charleston years ago.

Close, but the real story is that since they cooked the food across the yard, they were located close to the area where the dogs were kept. The smell of the food attracted the dogs (not the whistling), and so to keep the dogs from barking while they begged, they threw them the fried pieces of cornmeal.

And generally while they were tossing the fried pieces, they were silently saying "Hush puppies".

 

[!Fluffy!]

Close, but the real story is that since they cooked the food across the yard, they were located close to the area where the dogs were kept. The smell of the food attracted the dogs (not the whistling), and so to keep the dogs from barking while they begged, they threw them the fried pieces of cornmeal.

And generally while they were tossing the fried pieces, they were silently saying "Hush puppies".

Thanks for clearing that up FatMan.

Guess you never know where a thread is going to end up!

 

[FatMan]

Thanks for clearing that up FatMan.

Guess you never know where a thread is going to end up!

I guess I contributed to this one going to the dogs!!

 

[!Fluffy!]

I guess I contributed to this one going to the dogs!!

:biglaugh:

Stop it! (throws a Hush Puppy and a hushpuppy at FatMan)


(while whistling and whispering at the same time)

 

[sojourner]

:reminiscing: Ah!...to be strolling through Regent's Park on a foggy evening with my nose stuck in a newspaper cone of fish and chips...

I voted "catholic church," because, to me, the term "catholic" means "universal"...all of us.

 

[Katzpur]

Iti s the basis of many sects and cults that the Christian church fell into apostasy, and their founder/prophet/teacher was given special insight or revelation to restore it, could this be true?
Jesus said He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it, so for me if what these great latter day prophets surmised to be true, Jesus must have been wrong. Charles Taze Russel, Ellen G White, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Bahá'u'lláh, all taught in one way or another that what Jesus started became corrupted and that the bible had also become corrupted or very badly translated or parts lost from it, so they came up with their correct words of God, koran,nwt,book of mormon, pearl of great price,the great controversy and Bahá'u'lláhs writings etc.

My position is there has always been a faithfull true remnant of Christians even through the so called dark ages who adhered to simple biblical faith. I know that many departed from the faith and that heresy and apostasy have been wide spread throughout christendom at times but my question is did it completely vanish?

Well I voted for option 4 (Yes until my religion/denominations founder restored it.) but that doesn't mean I don't also accept option 3 as correct (No there has always been a Godly remnant.) There has always been a godly remnant. Today there are over 30,000 different godly remants. But Jesus Christ did not establish a bunch of godly remnants; He established His Church. Unfortunately, I've got to go to work now, and won't be able to participate on this great topic until later this evening. But watch for me then. :yes:

 

[*Paul*]

What a wonderful conversation. I'll try to lay off the slang, i'm just so common though.

 

[*Paul*]

Well I voted for option 4 (Yes until my religion/denominations founder restored it.) but that doesn't mean I don't also accept option 3 as correct (No there has always been a Godly remnant.) There has always been a godly remnant. Today there are over 30,000 different godly remants. But Jesus Christ did not establish a bunch of godly remnants; He established His Church. Unfortunately, I've got to go to work now, and won't be able to participate on this great topic until later this evening. But watch for me then. :yes:

So what did this Godly remnant believe that was so different to the commonly held beliefs by the church that joseph smith said had fallen into apostasy?
For me the remnant was still the church, sometimes their numbers were diminished through persecution and mass murder and at other times they flourished.

 

[Katzpur]

So what did this Godly remnant believe that was so different to the commonly held beliefs by the church that joseph smith said had fallen into apostasy?

That would all depend upon which remnant you're talking about. Which is the whole point. You don't have to spend much time here on RF to figure out that Roman Catholic doctrine is different from Baptist doctrine and that believers in Eastern Orthodoxy do not see eye to eye with the Pentacostals. There's the doctrine of sola fida, which some Christians insist is true and which others positively decry as false. Many Christians believe that once a person is saved, his salvation is absolutely guaranteed; to others, this is absolute nonsense. What about sola scriptura? Ask a Roman Catholic and you'll get an entirely different answer than if you ask a Lutheran. There are numerous different opinions on the topic of baptism alone: Is is essential for salvation? Who should receive it and at what point? How should it be performed? Why may officiate? Speaking of who may officiate (i.e. perform a baptism, for instance), is God-given authority actually necessary, or is the authority Christ gave His Apostles now distributed equally among all Christians. I could go on and on. These doctrines don't just separate the Latter-day Saints from mainstream Christianity. They separate Catholics from Protestants and Protestants from each other. And most of them aren't minor issues.

For me the remnant was still the church, sometimes their numbers were diminished through persecution and mass murder and at other times they flourished.

In a very real sense, the remnant always was and still is "the church." There have been "true Christians" since the beginning, even though, as you pointed out, "sometimes their numbers were diminished." But the fact that there have been devout Christians who were united by their love for Jesus Christ and their recognition that He is their Savior does not change the fact that two contradictory beliefs cannot both be true. Sola scriptura is either correct or it's not. Sola fida is either a true doctrine or a false doctrine. Now if it's possible for the "true Church" to be teaching "false doctrines," then I guess the Church Jesus Christ established never fell into apostasy. I don't see that as an option myself.