The apostasy

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by Saxon

The early church fathers were not the inspired writers of the Bible. They were wrong on the baptism for salvation. See the Bible.

When did the apostasy occur?

[Christian]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

When did the apostasy occur?

Which one? The one where brigham young left joseph smith's church to make his own out in utah?
Or one of the other 150+ MORMON apostasies?

NO complete apostasies have happened or ever will happen in CHRIST'S UNSHAKABLE CHURCH. You just belong to the wrong apostates. . .

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by Christian

[B][COLOR=#0000FF]NO complete apostasies have happened or ever will happen in CHRIST'S UNSHAKABLE CHURCH.

Then why the need for the Reformation? Why the accusation the Early Church Fathers were wrong?

Obviously--if it were bad enough for the Reformers to start numerous new denominations--with a whole new theology--then the apostasy must have been deep.

[Christian]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Then why the need for the Reformation? Why the accusation the Early Church Fathers were wrong?

Obviously--if it were bad enough for the Reformers to start numerous new denominations--with a whole new theology--then the apostasy must have been deep.

The roman religion needed reformation, not CHRISTIANITY. What 'accusation' by whom are you talking about?

There is nothing new about our theology.

THE MORMON apostasies (all 150+ of them) however have resulted in about 150 DIFFERENT THEOLOGIES in the mormon religion. Perhaps you could 'explain' THAT?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View PostThen why the need for the Reformation? Why the accusation the Early Church Fathers were wrong?

Obviously--if it were bad enough for the Reformers to start numerous new denominations--with a whole new theology--then the apostasy must have been deep.

Originally Posted by Christian

The roman religion needed reformation, not CHRISTIANITY.

The Reformers did not reform the Roman Catholic church--if they did--then why did they leave the Roman Catholic church--and start a whole new set of denominations--with a whole new theology--sola fide?

What 'accusation' by whom are you talking about?

This one, for example---

Originally Posted by Saxon View Post The early church fathers were not the inspired writers of the Bible.

There is nothing new about our theology.

Again--sola fide is not a Roman Catholic theology.

THE MORMON apostasies (all 150+ of them) however have resulted in about 150 DIFFERENT THEOLOGIES in the mormon religion. Perhaps you could 'explain' THAT?

How does that differ from the thousands of splinter groups of Protestantism? Splinter groups were even a reality for the NT church. The difference between the splinter groups in the NT--and what God accepted as His own church--was it was founded on the living, mortal apostles and prophets:

Ephesians 2:20King James Version (KJV)
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

[Christian]

dberry posted:
The Reformers did not reform the Roman Catholic church--if they did--then why did they leave the Roman Catholic church--and start a whole new set of denominations--

You mean like the mormons did? The reorganized lds, the community of christ, the fundamentalists, the utah mormons? Like that?

Let's see now. . .if you leave something and don't want to be confused as part of them any more, HOW do you let folks know?

OH YES, by what you call yourselves. CHRISTIAN Baptist, Lutherans, Presbyterians,

Why did brigham young leave joseph smith's church to make one of his own? To re-form joseph smith's church? Or to invent a new one? Why are YOU part of the utah religion and not part of the church joseph smith started, where his wife stayed, and as he claimed, HIS SON later became president of?

Again--sola fide is not a Roman Catholic theology.

Nope, it is a CHRISTIAN theology instead.

Why does YOUR religion believe in only one wife? Joe smith's religion didn't believe that; HE and bringum yung both took MULTIPLE WOMEN as wives. Smith even took the wives of other LIVING MEN as 'wives' for himself.

How does that differ from the thousands of splinter groups of Protestantism? Splinter groups were even a reality for the NT church. The difference between the splinter groups in the NT--and what God accepted as His own church--was it was founded on the living, mortal apostles and prophets:

Ephesians 2:20King James Version (KJV)
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Perhaps you should RE-READ that one before you start bleating your religion's party-line about the apostles having to be physically alive and here. JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF would be in the SAME BOAT AS THE APOSTLES IF THAT WERE THE TRUTH.

SO

Unless you have a PHYSICALLY ALIVE AND MORTAL JESUS CHRIST, your whole case that requires physical 'apostles' to be alive here on the earth falls into the toilet, just like so many OTHER mormon theorologies do.

AND

SO FAR, no 'complete apostasy,' 'lost authority' or 'removal from the earth' in CHRIST'S CHURCH that has existed alive and well now for about 2,000 years!

SO FAR no complete apostasy, no authority for joey smith from God, and nothing ever actually 'restored' by smitho.

SO FAR, NO EXCUSE FOR CALLING MORMONISM "christun" in any REAL WAY. They are as much 'from God' as the muslims, white supremecists, branch davidians and other non-Christian religions are.

[Christian]

bump for dberrie

[dberrie2000]

dberrie---Again--sola fide is not a Roman Catholic theology.

Originally Posted by Christian

Nope, it is a CHRISTIAN theology instead.

Two points here:

1) If sola fide is not a Roman Catholic theology--then the Reformation did not reform the Catholic Church--it started a whole new theology. That is more of a restoration--since the gospel does not need reforming. What are you claiming was reformed in the Reformation? Obviously--the Reformers believed there had been an apostasy--and a deep one.

2) "Sola Fide"(faith alone) might be considered a "Christian" religion to the faith alone--but don't confuse that "Christianity" with the true Christianity of the Biblical text:

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Christian--that is the ONLY occurrence of the term "faith alone" that is found in the Biblical text. The one and only occurrence.

[alanmolstad]

When you are member of a CULT that stands against the teachings of the Bible...you tend to attack the people that live by the bible....

[Christian]

dberry posted:
Two points here:

1) If sola fide is not a Roman Catholic theology--then the Reformation did not reform the Catholic Church--it started a whole new theology.

The reformation did not start any 'new theology.' Those who LEFT during the time referred to as 'the reformation' simply went back to the ORIGINAL theology, leaving the 'new theology' of the rcc. Sorry berry, I know you are confused. . .

That is more of a restoration--since the gospel does not need reforming. What are you claiming was reformed in the Reformation?


NOTHING was reformed in reality. The rcc didn't get reformed; those 'reformers' simply had to leave it in its apostate state.

THEY went back to the ORIGINAL beliefs, though some still held to what they had been taught by the apostate rcc in some instance, in matters not having to do with Salvation.

Like those who leave the smithite churches (rlds, fundamentalist, lds, etc) do, they have to LEARN FROM THE WORD OF GOD (the BIBLE) the TRUTH and leave the lies behind.

Obviously--the Reformers believed there had been an apostasy--and a deep one.

Yep, the ROMAN religion had left the fold. But the fold REMAINED. Jesus' church has NEVER failed.

2) "Sola Fide"(faith alone) might be considered a "Christian" religion to the faith alone--but don't confuse that "Christianity" with the true Christianity of the Biblical text:

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Christian--that is the ONLY occurrence of the term "faith alone" that is found in the Biblical text. The one and only occurrence.

The word 'eternity' is found ONLY ONE TIME in the kjv Bible. So what? It says we CHRISTIANS (not mormons or smithites) receive ETERNAL life.

MORMON, LDS, and SMITHITE are all COMPLETELY FOREIGN TO THE BIBLE.

And your misunderstanding of the p***age you RIP OUT OF ITS CONTEXT demonstrates the pathetic nature of your sad little argument.

STILL NO COMPLETE apostasy in CHRIST'S church, no 'lost scriptures,' no 'lost authority' to speak/act for God either.

Sorry berry, but you are still following a false prophet, a liar, an adulterer, a conman who tried to shoot his way out of jail.

[theway]

Originally Posted by Christian

The roman religion needed reformation, not CHRISTIANITY. What 'accusation' by whom are you talking about?

What a naive statement.
The first problem with your position is that the "roman religion" was never reformed. In fact, they even persecuted and put to death anyone who attempted to do so. That means "The Reformation" was a misnomer as there was no reformation that ever took place. What happened was that the Protestants tried to reform the Orthodox Church; when they found out they couldn't, they formed their own belief systems based on their differing opinions of the Bible The problem with that was they no longer could claim a line of Authority; which meant no Priests, baptisms, or any other rites. That's when they were forced to invent the theory that Authority of God was not needed, or they gave everybody the same authority thereby making authority a meaningless claim.
Also, where was this Christian Church which existed outside of the few Orthodox Churches before Protestants came along?

Originally Posted by Christian

There is nothing new about our theology.

Really?
Let's just start with baptism.
Modern Christian Churches claim it is not necessary. Where did you get this idea from?
Because from the Bible, to the very first Christian writings, to EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN FATHERS, to even most of the Protestant Fathers, they have all stated that baptism is a requirement of salvation. Baptism as a requirement is even still a belief among the majority of Christians today...
So it begs the question, where do Faith Aloners get the idea that baptism is not a requirement?

Originally Posted by Christian

THE MORMON apostasies (all 150+ of them) however have resulted in about 150 DIFFERENT THEOLOGIES in the mormon religion. Perhaps you could 'explain' THAT?

Easy... Unlike what you believe, Mormons DO believe in apostasy. As the LDS Church was set up, the order of succession and authority in the Lord's Church was set up and agreed upon by all those within the LDS Church. Anyone who tried to take leadership in any other way that was different than the way which is clearly spelled out in the D&C... are apostates. It doesn't even matter if all their "theologies" were exactly the same as the LDS Church, they would still be apostates.

[Christian]

[QUOTE=theway;161648]

Originally Posted by Christian The roman religion needed reformation, not CHRISTIANITY. What 'accusation' by whom are you talking about?

What a naive statement.
The first problem with your position is that the "roman religion" was never reformed. In fact, they even persecuted and put to death anyone who attempted to do so. That means "The Reformation" was a misnomer as there was no reformation that ever took place.

The TRUTH is that a bunch of ROMAN CATHOLIC MEMBERS tried to reform the catholic church, couldn't, then left it. The TRUTH is that the rcc was never reformed. Neither was genuine CHRISTIANITY.

joey smith lied.

What happened was that the Protestants tried to reform the Orthodox Church; when they found out they couldn't, they formed their own belief systems based on their differing opinions of the Bible.

STILL wrongo. They tried to reform the roman religion, found out they couldn't, pursued GENUINE Christianity as the Bible taught. No new belief systems; just different levels of understanding the Bible.

Just as mormons have different levels of their followers understandings of THEIR religious books.

The problem with that was they no longer could claim a line of Authority; which meant no Priests, baptisms, or any other rites.

That was joey smith's theory, but the REALITY is that GOD HAS TOLD US THAT ALL CHRISTIANS EVERYWHERE HAVE THAT AUTHORITY:
1 Peter 2:7-10
7 Therefore, to you who believe, (That would include EVERY CHRISIAN EVERYWHERE) He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"
8 and
"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
NKJV
As you can plainly see, joey smith lied to you.

That's when they were forced to invent the theory that Authority of God was not needed, or they gave everybody the same authority thereby making authority a meaningless claim.

Where do you think joey smith got HIS supposed 'authority?' Oh yes, he and ollie cowdery went out into the woods to play 'religion,' ordained each other and baptized each other, pretending God authorized it. A little like it would be if you and I went out into the woods and ordained each other into the roman catholic religion and baptized each other into it. All the while NEITHER of us were catholics.

Also, where was this Christian Church which existed outside of the few Orthodox Churches before Protestants came along?

All over the world in such groups as the Montanists, the Donatists, Patterins, Waldenses and others.

Where were the mormons? Oh yes, joey smith had not INVENTED them yet!

Originally Posted by ChristianThere is nothing new about our theology.

Really?
Let's just start with baptism.
Modern Christian Churches claim it is not necessary. Where did you get this idea from?

Not 'necessary' for WHAT? Salvation? The BIBLE indicates baptism is not necessary to be saved. It even gives the example of the thief on the Cross as one who was saved, but not baptized.

"Necessary" because Jesus commanded BELIEVERS to be baptized (Matt 28:19-20)? Of COURSE we are baptized for EXACTLY THAT REASON. NOT to 'get saved,' BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN saved.

Because from the Bible, to the very first Christian writings, to EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN FATHERS

(The ecf's are not part of the Bible NOR were they 'inspired by God.' They put their pants on just like the rest of us, one leg at a time.

to even most of the Protestant Fathers, they have all stated that baptism is a requirement of salvation.

Perhaps a few AS THEY LEFT THE RCC, since they still had more study to do before they knew the Bible as well as we do today. They still held vestiges of their rcc beliefs until they later shed them.

BUT I NOTE that you cannot CITE any of them stating baptism is a requirement of salvation. NOT ONE citation. Just empty OPINIONS and SPECULATIONS of course.

Baptism as a requirement is even still a belief among the majority of Christians today...

For church membership, not for salvation. Your false prophet (profit?) lied to you about this too, it appears..

So it begs the question, where do Faith Aloners get the idea that baptism is not a requirement

I note that you leave THE WORD OF GOD (THE BIBLE) completely out of your own equation here. The BIBLE is where we see that FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST is what saves us, counts us as righteous before God, NOT BAPTISM, NOT 'PRIESTHOOD AUTHORITY', NOT GOING TO THE RIGHT BUILDING TO WORSHIP.

joey smith has led you down the path in the direction of He**.

Easy... Unlike what you believe, Mormons DO believe in apostasy.

EXCEPT that they redefine it (pretending it means COMPLETE apostasy by Christ's church) AND THEY IGNORE THE TRUTH THAT THEY HAVE HAD THE SAME KIND OF APOSTASIES IN THEIR OWN RELIGION including brigham young apostasizing and taking much of smith's religion west, away from the original body.

As the LDS Church was set up, the order of succession and authority in the Lord's Church was set up and agreed upon by all those within the LDS Church.

Yep, joey smith invented his own 'order of succession and authority (which brigham young and company ignored), and NOBODY but the lds believe the lds have ANY authority from God in any way at all.

Anyone who tried to take leadership in any other way that was different than the way which is clearly spelled out in the D&C... are apostates. It doesn't even matter if all their "theologies" were exactly the same as the LDS Church, they would still be apostates.

That is part of one of the most common cultist tactics; tell folks that YOU are the 'true religion of god,' and everyone else is wrong or apostate.

joey smith's religion has nothing from God at all, and leads its folks to hell. Its supposed 'authority' was simply 'made up' by joey smith. It is only the mechanism by which the lds are 'held in line' within the lds religion. It has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by Christian

[B][COLOR=#0000ff]The TRUTH is that a bunch of ROMAN CATHOLIC MEMBERS tried to reform the catholic church, couldn't, then left it. The TRUTH is that the rcc was never reformed. Neither was genuine CHRISTIANITY.

Then what was reformed?

They tried to reform the roman religion, found out they couldn't, pursued GENUINE Christianity as the Bible taught.

If there was not "GENUINE Christianity" to be had--then the only way would be through a restoration. Christian--the gospel of Jesus Christ does not need reforming.

No new belief systems; just different levels of understanding the Bible.

But that still exists today--just within additional denominations. How are you claiming the Reformation cured that?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by Christian

[COLOR=#0000FF]The reformation did not start any 'new theology.' Those who LEFT during the time referred to as 'the reformation' simply went back to the ORIGINAL theology,

If they had to "go back"--then there was an apostasy. If there was an apostasy--and salvational doctrines were lost or changed, or both--then it had to be restored.

One can't restore a "faith alone" theology as a Biblical doctrine:

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

[Saxon]

Only the Bible writers were inspired writers of scripture. This is because there is no word of God before the books of the Bible or after it. There is no apostacy that you are trying to dream up.

[theway]

Originally Posted by Saxon

Only the Bible writers were inspired writers of scripture. This is because there is no word of God before the books of the Bible or after it. There is no apostacy that you are trying to dream up.

Which Bible?

[Saxon]

The only Bible. Which Bible; don't even pretend to be ignorant!

[theway]

Originally Posted by Saxon

The only Bible. Which Bible; don't even pretend to be ignorant!

You appear to be ignorant.
"Bible" simply means a collection of books.

The Jews have a Bible, the Catholics have a Bible, Orthodox Christians have another, the Protestants have several Bibles, and the early Christian had dozens of different combinations in their Bibles.

You will have to state which Bible God gave his final approval to, before we can see who you believe the heretics are?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by Christian View Post The reformation did not start any 'new theology.' Those who LEFT during the time referred to as 'the reformation' simply went back to the ORIGINAL theology,

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

If they had to "go back"--then there was an apostasy. If there was an apostasy--and salvational doctrines were lost or changed, or both--then it had to be restored.

One can't restore a "faith alone" theology as a Biblical doctrine:

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Originally Posted by Saxon

Only the Bible writers were inspired writers of scripture. This is because there is no word of God before the books of the Bible or after it. There is no apostacy that you are trying to dream up.

Hi Saxon.

I believe you are ignoring the elephant in the room. Again--if there was no apostasy--then why the need for a Reformation? If they "simply went back to the ORIGINAL theology,"--then the original theology must have been lost to begin with.

IMO--it's not an honest approach when we ignore the obvious to promote our own theology--that amounts to little less than boundary maintenance.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by Saxon

The only Bible. Which Bible; don't even pretend to be ignorant!

Saxon--the faith alone cannot comport their theology to the Biblical NT. They have precious little in common with the Biblical NT. What is found in the Biblical NT, as far as core salvational doctrines are concerned--is also found in the LDS church. It is absent in the faith alone theology--they preach a salvation through a faith without any acts of obedience to Jesus Christ. That is a false doctrine:

2 John 1:9---King James Version (KJV)
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

[Saxon]

When you stop ignoring "not of works" then we can continue.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

[Christian]

[[COLOR=#0000FF]berrie posted:

Originally Posted by Christian[B]The TRUTH is that a bunch of ROMAN CATHOLIC MEMBERS tried to reform the catholic church, couldn't, then left it. The TRUTH is that the rcc was never reformed. Neither was genuine CHRISTIANITY

Then what was reformed?

In reality, nothing. The roman religion continued to be apostasied, those who left began reverting to SCRIPTURAL Christianity.

[quote] They tried to reform the roman religion, found out they couldn't, pursued GENUINE Christianity as the Bible taught. [/quote]

If there was not "GENUINE Christianity" to be had--then the only way would be through a restoration. Christian--the gospel of Jesus Christ does not need reforming.

Why would you and dopey joey smith BLINDLY ***UME there was not "GENUINE Christianity" to be had OUTSIDE of AND NOT PART OF the rcc?

The Gospel of Jesus Christ has existed for about 2,000 years now. It never 'got lost.' Why would you BLINDLY ***UME that it had 'gotten lost' or 'gotten removed' when the romans apostasized from CHRISTIANITY?

When brigham young apostasized from smith's church, did young 'lose' YOUR 'gospel?'

No new belief systems; just different levels of understanding the Bible.

But that still exists today--just within additional denominations. How are you claiming the Reformation cured that?

"Cured' WHAT? That different CHRISTIANS exist at different levels of Christian maturity and have different levels of understanding the Bible?

No 'reformation' of that is needed. Continued teaching, discipling, and spiritual growing are happening all of the time.

"Denominations?" Different parts of the SAME STUFF? Like ones, fives, tens, etc are denominations of American currency?
And of course, they all spend. . .

But the ones are not french, the fives are not Spanish, and the tens are not Greek. They are all AMERICAN currency, legal tender HERE.

Presbyterians, Baptists, Nazarenes, and ***emblies of God are like that. . .all CHRISTIAN groups, parts of CHRIST'S church.

Jesus did NOT build a religious ORGANIZATION such as the rcc, coptics, orthodox, mormons, or branch davidians. He built a CHURCH, a CONGREGATION OF PEOPLE who can be found ALL OVER THE WORLD in the democrat, republican, libertarian, etc ORGANIZATIONS, but the ORGANIZATIONS are not Christ's CHURCH. CHRISTIANS are.

Perhaps if you READ the Bible instead of simply let yourself be 'told' about it by other spiritually blind folks, you would learn the TRUTH. . .that joey smith has lied to you.

[Saxon]

You are definitely in a vacuum when it comes to the Jew-Christian books.

[Christian]

berrie posted:
If they had to "go back"--then there was an apostasy.

Yep, there have in reality been MANY apostasies. The mormon religions have had even MORE APOSTASIES in their less than 200 years of existance than Christianity had in ITS first 200 years.

In about 180 years, the mormon religion has split into over 150 DIFFERENT smithite religions.

If there was an apostasy--and salvational doctrines were lost or changed, or both--then it had to be restored.

Let's see now. . .DO Christians 'lose' or 'change' their doctrines when heathens leave?

Nope. There is no reason for an HONEST MAN to blindly ***ume so.

IF MORMONS lost or changed their doctrines when brigham young apostasied from the church joey smith built, that is THE MORMON'S PROBLEM.

I <snipped> your 'faith alone' junk. It was off-subject and NOT part of this thread, and you have been shown MANY times that YOUR misinterpretation of James is junk theology. So I won't bother 'going there' to be distracted from the OP by your attempted diversion.

WHY HAS JOEY SMITH'S RELIGION apostasied 150+ times? Might it be because your deck of cards house cannot stand?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by Saxon

When you stop ignoring "not of works" then we can continue.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Hi Saxon. I believe what you mean is--ignore your take on that--IE--that works has nothing to do with salvation?

The Biblical text disagrees:

Hebrews 5:9---King James Version (KJV)
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

No one is arguing against salvation is not of works. That is agreed upon. Not of faith, works, belief, trust, endurance, etc. Agreed.

It's by God's grace.

That leaves but one question to answer, IMO--who does God give this grace to?

Romans 2:5-11---King James Version (KJV)
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.