Jason Posted May 11, 2005 Report Share Posted May 11, 2005 I just want to know what your opinion is. You need not provide any evidence. Just what you think justifies your personal belief is this. Thanks. PS. I've no intention of turning this into a debate thread. Just wanna hear your private views. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted May 12, 2005 Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 Tough to choose. The Church, I think, believes that the apostacy really happened early on, certainly well before the close of the 1st century (200 CE) - So what we think of when pondering the apostacy are really the effects of the apostacy, not the causes and of the effects... for heaven's sake, take your pick. - No line of succession from Peter to the "first" Bishop of Rome. -The foundational direction and support given the church institution by the mass-murder/serial killer Constantine. - The papacy as a corrupt political institution from the middle of the 8th century until the Council of Trent in 1545. -Indulgences -Simony -Non blibical doctrine -The cessation of revelation. -Evil Renaissance Popes. -etc If the question is about 'causes,' then I would have to think that Heleniztion was a primary culprit. Maybe that was influened by the persecution and murder of the original disicple and those that remained were either motivated to make the doctrine/philosophy more appealing to those in power, or maybe those left just didn't know any better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted May 12, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 Interesting. Thanks Snow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenda Posted May 12, 2005 Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 What is Simony? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted May 12, 2005 Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 Originally posted by Jenda@May 11 2005, 05:46 PM What is Simony? It most typically means the purchasing of ecclesiastical office....granted I don't use the word a lot but I am reading a biography on Pope John XXIII by Thomas Cahill. It contains a treatment of the history of the papacy prior to John so.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted May 12, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 What is Simony? The term originated with Simon Magus, who tried to purchase the power of conferring the Holy Spirit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Taoist_Saint Posted May 12, 2005 Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 11 2005, 03:00 PM I just want to know what your opinion is. You need not provide any evidence. Just what you think justifies your personal belief is this. Thanks. PS. I've no intention of turning this into a debate thread. Just wanna hear your private views. :) The apostacy started when Christ died...in my opinion. No one has a complete understanding of his teachings...in my opinion.He never personally wrote that he was a god, or son of God...it was written by his disciples, who were probably either mistaken or decieving people for a good cause...in my opinion.If I am wrong...if Christ did indeed believe He was the son of God, then I believe He was inspired by something...but decieving himself...or maybe lying for a good cause...in my opinion. In that case there was never an apostacy, because his teacings were a myth...meaning all churches are equal...though based on a myth.However, regardless of His nature, His teachings were the best thing to ever hit the Middle East. No offense...you asked...Why do I believe this? Because I don't believe in a Theistic God that could have a "son".As for evidence, I have none. I am sure most of you disagree, and I respect that. I am just sharing this opinion, because some people say I provide a unique alternative perspective and I didn't want to let them down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted May 12, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 Tao, As always, interesting reply. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Taoist_Saint Posted May 12, 2005 Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 12 2005, 12:15 PM Tao, As always, interesting reply. Thanks. Your welcome...and thanks for emphasizing that this is not a debate thread...or I wouldn't have dared to reply! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pushka Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 LOL Tao...your logic makes a lot of sense...as usual! Thanks for posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@May 12 2005, 10:20 AM Why do I believe this? Because I don't believe in a Theistic God that could have a "son". What is a theistic God?A godly god?What is it about a godly god, specifically one who created the universe and intervenes in the affairs of his creation, that would preclude said god from having a son? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted May 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 A godly god? I suppose that's better than the "manly Man" of Mormonism! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Hi, I felt Martin Luther didn't reform the church but left the church in apostasy. I doubt his Justification by faith alone was the early Christian Gospel. Sincerely, Dale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Taoist_Saint Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by Snow@May 12 2005, 07:06 PM What is a theistic God?A godly god?What is it about a godly god, specifically one who created the universe and intervenes in the affairs of his creation, that would preclude said god from having a son? A theistic god is a god that is a "being". Like Zeus, Odin, Ra, or Yahweh. A non-theistic god is a god that is beyond "being", or as John Shelby Spong describes it, "the ground of all being". This would be closer to what is referred to as Tao, Brahman, Ultimate Reality, etc. Therefore only a Theistic god can literally have a son.I don't know why people use the word "theistic" that way. I first heard it when reading a book by Spong. You're right...it does sound redundant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderFire Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 For me, I like to keep it simple. A group is in apostasy when their hearts long for other things besides the Lord... In Christ I Serve, Thundefire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted May 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Thunder, Would you say then that a group can make it's way out of apostasy by turning back to the Lord? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderFire Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 13 2005, 12:38 PM Thunder, Would you say then that a group can make it's way out of apostasy by turning back to the Lord? Hello Jason,By all means YES! The mercy and redeeming nature of the Lord is beyond my minds ability to comprehend. He is to be our first love and it is his promise that we can "watch" him pull us from the fire of sin and out of apostasy, if we simply repent and ask. In Christ I Serve,Thunderfire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenda Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Jason, time for me to ask you a couple of questions. First, what is your definition of apostasy? And second, do you not believe there is a difference between God removing his blessing from an institution as opposed to people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted May 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 First, what is your definition of apostasy? That's a tough one. I've still got a lot of my Mormon paradigm in me, so Im hesitant to really say. I suppose if I had to answer right now, I'd simply state that apostasy is rejecting the Gospel of Christ. As a side note, I don't believe that changes in the organization of the Church constitutes apostasy (unlike some of my LDS friends), simply because there isn't an organization or Church on earth that hasn't undergone change. We know that the organization of the Church changed from Christ's lifetime to the Apostolic age, and again during the sub-Apostolic age. Overall since then, not much has changed in the Greek (Eastern Orthodox) Church. (Nothing of note anyway.) And second, do you not believe there is a difference between God removing his blessing from an institution as opposed to people? Im not sure I understand your question. Let me see if I can respond anyways: Im not positive that there was an institution called the "Church" (used loosely by the way) in Old Testament times. God had his chosen people, and he would punish those people from time to time according to their faithfulness to his word. He sent prophets to his chosen people to chastise and remind them to do their duty. Sometimes these prophets were received by the people, other times they were not. (It might be a good time to mention that they were never "voted" on.) Fast forward to Christ and the beginning of the last days. Christ fulfilled many prophecies that in the last days, a "prophet" like Moses (a great law-giver and teacher) would be raised up, and that all men who rejected that prophet would be real sorry. The Apostles often spoke of apostasy, warning various churches who were straying to get themselves back in line with the true teachings and sacraments of the Gospel. Yet, as Christ's bride, the Church was never in danger of death. Christ will not abandon His bride! I see apostasy as an ever occuring, on going, part of the life of the Church. Whether individuals or groups of churches (Coptics, Assyrians, Roman Catholics, etc) apostatize, the Great Church will continue on until the Bridegrooms return. Not sure if I answered your question or not. Let me know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenda Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 13 2005, 01:21 PM First, what is your definition of apostasy? That's a tough one. I've still got a lot of my Mormon paradigm in me, so Im hesitant to really say. I suppose if I had to answer right now, I'd simply state that apostasy is rejecting the Gospel of Christ. As a side note, I don't believe that changes in the organization of the Church constitutes apostasy (unlike some of my LDS friends), simply because there isn't an organization or Church on earth that hasn't undergone change. We know that the organization of the Church changed from Christ's lifetime to the Apostolic age, and again during the sub-Apostolic age. Overall since then, not much has changed in the Greek (Eastern Orthodox) Church. (Nothing of note anyway.) And second, do you not believe there is a difference between God removing his blessing from an institution as opposed to people? Im not sure I understand your question. Let me see if I can respond anyways: Im not positive that there was an institution called the "Church" (used loosely by the way) in Old Testament times. God had his chosen people, and he would punish those people from time to time according to their faithfulness to his word. He sent prophets to his chosen people to chastise and remind them to do their duty. Sometimes these prophets were received by the people, other times they were not. (It might be a good time to mention that they were never "voted" on.) Fast forward to Christ and the beginning of the last days. Christ fulfilled many prophecies that in the last days, a "prophet" like Moses (a great law-giver and teacher) would be raised up, and that all men who rejected that prophet would be real sorry. The Apostles often spoke of apostasy, warning various churches who were straying to get themselves back in line with the true teachings and sacraments of the Gospel. Yet, as Christ's bride, the Church was never in danger of death. Christ will not abandon His bride! I see apostasy as an ever occuring, on going, part of the life of the Church. Whether individuals or groups of churches (Coptics, Assyrians, Roman Catholics, etc) apostatize, the Great Church will continue on until the Bridegrooms return. Not sure if I answered your question or not. Let me know. Can I state with some degree of accuracy that you believe that apostolic succession is important? I only ask because you went from one institution that believes in apostolic authority to another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted May 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Can I state with some degree of accuracy that you believe that apostolic succession is important? I only ask because you went from one institution that believes in apostolic authority to another. Yes. As the Creed states: "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenda Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 13 2005, 01:39 PM Can I state with some degree of accuracy that you believe that apostolic succession is important? I only ask because you went from one institution that believes in apostolic authority to another. Yes. As the Creed states: "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." Oh, well, that doesn't mean anything, at least according to our friends on CF (namely the owner.) He doesn't have to believe in the apostolic church, but I do, for some reason. I just wanted to know because you seem to believe that people can go in and out of apostasy, but never responded about the church, itself. Yet in the D&C it is stated D&C 3:16a Behold, this is my doctrine: Whosoever repenteth and cometh to me, the same is my church; (RLDS (it is somewhere in the LDS D&C B) )).It is my opinion that the organization can go into apostasy by altering the beliefs and ordinances and all the other stuff I listed on the other board (or in other words, denying the truth of the gospel), but that individuals cannot. That is just the opposite that you believe.God kept "the church", His bride, from danger by allowing individuals to come to Him throughout the ages whether or not the institutional church was receiving His blessings or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted May 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 It is my opinion that the organization can go into apostasy by altering the beliefs and ordinances and all the other stuff I listed on the other board (or in other words, denying the truth of the gospel), but that individuals cannot. That is just the opposite that you believe. That's an interesting way of looking at things, Dawn. Would you be willing to elaborate more on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenda Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 13 2005, 02:16 PM It is my opinion that the organization can go into apostasy by altering the beliefs and ordinances and all the other stuff I listed on the other board (or in other words, denying the truth of the gospel), but that individuals cannot. That is just the opposite that you believe. That's an interesting way of looking at things, Dawn. Would you be willing to elaborate more on this? Well, I think that it is obvious in the LDS church, as well as my church, and the Catholic church, as well as most man-made organizations, that people in leadership positions alter the beliefs and ordinances to whatever suits them, but even so, God calls individuals to Him despite the inaccurate teachings that are espoused.That D&C scripture that I posted in the above post was given before the church was organized, so therefore, it was not referring to an organized church structure. The same thing is stated in the Bible. John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.I have come to the belief that the Kingdom of God is not going to be built by a church, but by those who hear His voice and respond with their hearts. Do we need an organized church? Yes, because it is through such that God's authority is bestowed, but God can withdraw His authority from an organization when they cease following His commandments and teachings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderFire Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by Jenda@May 13 2005, 03:08 PM It is my opinion that the organization can go into apostasy by altering the beliefs and ordinances and all the other stuff I listed on the other board (or in other words, denying the truth of the gospel), but that individuals cannot. That is just the opposite that you believe. How is an organization different than individuals? It seems you may have this backward because an organization cannot change a thing, only the individuals involved can make any change. But then, who is to say that since "you" didn't change you were then the one in apostasy because you didn't follow? Such a conundrum of sorts! Everyone accuses the other of being in apostasy, when they of course are notIn Christ I Serve,Thunderfire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.