The Great Apostasy

[Teancum18]

What I was referring to is that they actually have a line of bishops going back all the way to the apostles. They can actually show name by name a line of bishops going all the way back to the apostles. That is waht I was referring to. This has me deeply confused because if they the apostles ordained other men and they ordained other men and so on and so forth then the church has continued till this day. Or am I wrong? Please explain to me what I am getting wrong here.

I have your answer!! There are estimated records of the Priesthood Lineage in the Catholic Church. HOWEVER!!! Because of their lack of understanding about the Priesthood, they don't see the huge flaw in that lineage. According to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, no Priesthood position can be ordained by someone holding the same position or one below it. They are not in Authority. In other words, A Bishop today in our church cannot ordain another Bishop. Only a Stake President or General Authority holds the Keys to do so.

Shortly after the Apostles were martyred, the highest ranking Priesthood position was Bishop. Two of them tried to ordain another as a Bishop. It was believed at the time that the Authority was passed down because of that ordination. However, we know today that it wasn't. Ergo, this is where the Authority was lost in the RCC's recorded lineage. So they do have one, but within the record is the account of how the Authority was lost. They just didn't know it and kept ordaining people.

They meant well, but The Great Apostasy was prophesied of. Check out "The Great Apostasy" by James E. Talmage.

[prisonchaplain]

As FYI, even most Protestants believe that the Great Apostasy is yet to come. We see it happening when many will bow in worship and pledge allegiance to the anti-Christ system. Furthermore, the "clear teaching about apostolic succession," is not so clear to those of us outside the Roman Catholic church. :-)

[jadams_4040]

What I was referring to is that they actually have a line of bishops going back all the way to the apostles. They can actually show name by name a line of bishops going all the way back to the apostles. That is waht I was referring to. This has me deeply confused because if they the apostles ordained other men and they ordained other men and so on and so forth then the church has continued till this day. Or am I wrong? Please explain to me what I am getting wrong here.

As for whether the apostles "let" the Church fall into apostasy or not, I don't really know what to believe about that but I suppose that they probably did the best they could to keep the church alive but yet it fell into apostasy anyway.

I have no comment about your last paragraph and agree with it.

Thank you for the suggestion of learning about Constantine. I will try and learn about him.

Anyway, I have another question for you all. What are some examples of the Great Apostasy? What I mean is, what are some examples of how doctrine changed from Biblical doctrines to unBiblical doctrines thereby showing that the Great Apostasy occurred that way? Thanks everyone for your help!

They may have a peice of paper that claims succesion, but the real truth is that when the last official prophet was still alive and doing his job on the earth, the catholic church just sort of "claimed" supposed control of the authority without any authority being given them, the only authority was in there hearts and minds, not truely of God. I dont understand how they claim the true authority when the last remaining true apostle was still alive and did not give any authority to them? they claim it, but the lord did not regognize it nor did he give it to any of them its simply wishfull thinking on there part. For them to have gained succession it would have been nessacery for it to be given and ordained, not simply claimed.:)

[Teancum18]

As FYI, even most Protestants believe that the Great Apostasy is yet to come. We see it happening when many will bow in worship and pledge allegiance to the anti-Christ system. Furthermore, the "clear teaching about apostolic succession," is not so clear to those of us outside the Roman Catholic church. :-)

With all due respect, how can most protestants still believe it is coming?? Wasn't the whole point of protesting (where your name comes from) against the Catholic Church suppose to be getting back to the truth that the RCC had fallen away from? Wouldn't the Protestants have broken off because the RCC was an Apostasy of sorts? So how could you guys believe that it is yet to come?

I mean no disrespect. I just fail to understand that. In fact I fail to understand anyone's religion except the Catholics and The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. However, that is my issue and mine alone.

[Francine]

I do not believe the keys of apostolic authority were removed from the earth with the death of the last apostle, St. John.

Paul and Barnabas, for example, were commissioned as apostles to the Gentiles by members of the original twelve, and they were not of the original twelve:

Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

[prisonchaplain]

With all due respect, how can most protestants still believe it is coming?? Wasn't the whole point of protesting (where your name comes from) against the Catholic Church suppose to be getting back to the truth that the RCC had fallen away from? Wouldn't the Protestants have broken off because the RCC was an Apostasy of sorts? So how could you guys believe that it is yet to come?

Excellent question! The Protestant Reformation was not an accusation of a Great Apostasy, leveled at the Roman Catholic Church. Rather, it was disagreement over some doctrines, and many corrupt practices within the church. Ultimately, hierarchy demanded that Luther drop his vocal insubordination or be excommunicated. He would not recant, and so Lutheranism was born.

The confusion comes in distinguishing disagreement over certain teachings or practices with the belief that the church as a whole had/has lost its authority. Most Protestant churches contend that authority rests in the Scriptures, not in church hierarchy. Therefore, any coming Great Apostasy, would not be a failure of an institution, but rather a large-scale abandoning of Christ. Thus, we see such occuring during the Tribulation, when many "Christians," will abandon the faith and join the Antichrist system.

[Teancum18]

Excellent question! The Protestant Reformation was not an accusation of a Great Apostasy, leveled at the Roman Catholic Church. Rather, it was disagreement over some doctrines, and many corrupt practices within the church. Ultimately, hierarchy demanded that Luther drop his vocal insubordination or be excommunicated. He would not recant, and so Lutheranism was born.

The confusion comes in distinguishing disagreement over certain teachings or practices with the belief that the church as a whole had/has lost its authority. Most Protestant churches contend that authority rests in the Scriptures, not in church hierarchy. Therefore, any coming Great Apostasy, would not be a failure of an institution, but rather a large-scale abandoning of Christ. Thus, we see such occurring during the Tribulation, when many "Christians," will abandon the faith and join the Antichrist system.

Excellent answer! That made a lot of sense to me. I am pretty familiar with the history of it all, just unclear on the distinction I was inquiring about. However, you answered my inquiry very well and it makes much more sense to me now! Thank you.

Secondly, addressing the ideas you offered as an opening explanation of what Protestants believe to be a "great apostasy," the interesting this is that very pattern of which you speak of has happened since the days of Adam and Eve. Then again with Noah and Moses. Elijah and then even after Christ. So I am inclined to agree with you because the pattern general apostasy has repeated itself since before the Bible started. Right on, PrisonChaplin!

If you look at the word "apostasy," it is has part of the word, "apostle" in it. Great Apostasy could be considered "great" because the act of killing Apostles of the Lamb would be far worse than just general falling away from truth and Christ. That is what happened after Christ's crucifixion. And there was a falling away from truth because the new Christians were mixing Christian beliefs with Jewish practices. There was evidence of that happening in Galatians 1 and 2. Paul was trying to address that very issue in his epistle to the Saints at Galatia. However, I'm sure you and I are in complete agreement about this. Whether or not these events are considered the "Great Apostasy" is what we differ on. =)

[prisonchaplain]

We have understanding...a wonderful thing. The cyclical repentance, service, falling away, judgment, repentance, forgiveness pattern of the Hebrews could be viewed as repeated apostasies. On the other hand, there was always a remnant of believers who remained true. At one point a prophet thought no one was left, and God told him there were still several thousand.

So, IMHO, apostasy is mostly individual, and can rise to the level of congregation. Israel, in a sense, was a congregation--and suffered as a whole, in spite of the remnants of true believers.

As for what happened to the Apostles, that was not at the hands of the church, but rather, God gifted them with the blessing of martyrdom. Their reward is great, and I'm hard-pressed to believe that God's reward to the church for the sacrifice of its leaders, would have been to remove spiritual authority.

[Francine]

As for what happened to the Apostles, that was not at the hands of the church, but rather, God gifted them with the blessing of martyrdom. Their reward is great, and I'm hard-pressed to believe that God's reward to the church for the sacrifice of its leaders, would have been to remove spiritual authority.

I do not consider it unfortunate that the apostles were killed. By keeping to their testimony of our risen Lord even through torture and death, these martyrs fertilized the ground with their blood, and from it sprang a Church so vibrant and true that it overthrew and supplanted the greatest empire that had ever been seen on the face of the Earth.

[prisonchaplain]

I do not consider it unfortunate that the apostles were killed. By keeping to their testimony of our risen Lord even through torture and death, these martyrs fertilized the ground with their blood, and from it sprang a Church so vibrant and true that it overthrew and supplanted the greatest empire that had ever been seen on the face of the Earth.

Your answer is more poetic and vibrant than mine.

The question we grappling with, then, is whether the church you laud is:

1. The Roman Catholic or Orthodox Church

2. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

3. True Christians found throughout the various Christian church communities (sometimes called the universal church--or catholic with a small-c)

4. Something else

What say you?

[Moksha]

Your answer is more poetic and vibrant than mine.

The question we grappling with, then, is whether the church you laud is:

1. The Roman Catholic or Orthodox Church

2. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

3. True Christians found throughout the various Christian church communities (sometimes called the universal church--or catholic with a small-c)

4. Something else

What say you?

Would choice 4 be the continued teachings of Jesus throughout the communities of this ancient world, that pre-dated any specific church or does this blend into choice 3?

[Francine]

Your answer is more poetic and vibrant than mine.

The question we grappling with, then, is whether the church you laud is:

1. The Roman Catholic or Orthodox Church

2. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

3. True Christians found throughout the various Christian church communities (sometimes called the universal church--or catholic with a small-c)

4. Something else

What say you?

Since we are talking about the martyrdom of the Apostles in the Middle Eastern Church, not the Church comprised of Nephites and converted Lamanites, I am referring to the Christian Church of the Eastern Hemisphere that remained unified until the Great Schism was finalized in 1054 AD. There were other schisms afterward, but they do not aid in identifying this Church.

[prisonchaplain]

So Moksha says #4 with a good deal of blending with #3. Francine seems to be pointing towards #1, perhaps changing the word "or" to AND.

[Teancum18]

Your answer is more poetic and vibrant than mine.

The question we grappling with, then, is whether the church you laud is:

1. The Roman Catholic or Orthodox Church

2. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

3. True Christians found throughout the various Christian church communities (sometimes called the universal church--or catholic with a small-c)

4. Something else

What say you?

The Church that fell with the Apostles is the same church that exists today. It is the Church of Jesus Christ. It was restored in 1830 and is now known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The RCC was the result of apostasy. It didn't even exist back in the days of the apostles. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the same church as the one at the time of Christ; just restored. Option 3 was the result of an Apostle-less church. From 98 a.d., to 325 a.d., Jewish and Christian practices and doctrine were wrongfully meshed together. So all of those churches between that time period that comprise option 3 are not associated with the Church of Jesus Christ. Option 4?? There is no something else in my mind. The Apostles died for the Church of Jesus Christ and it has been restored in our day. There's nothing else about it. It's the same church.

When there is no prophet to lead the church, apostasy and schism is the result. When man is left to his own intellect to interpret the Bible, divisions are formed. Christ said, "If ye are not one, ye are not mine." (New Testament; help with reference?)

I am sorry, PrisonChaplin. You know I like you. I just fail to understand other churches because of how much I feel our church is supported by the Bible. But, that's the who reason for discussion, now isn't it.

Please don't take any of this personally, and I apologize if I'm over doing it with using this site as an outlet.

[prisonchaplain]

The Church that fell with the Apostles is the same church that exists today. It is the Church of Jesus Christ. It was restored in 1830 and is now known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Great. We had #1, #3 covered--so you captured #2.

The RCC was the result of apostasy. It didn't even exist back in the days of the apostles.

Of course you know that the RCC ties its linneage to Peter, and would dispute the notion that apostolic succession broke down.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the same church as the one at the time of Christ; just restored.

Option 3 was the result of an Apostle-less church.

One understanding of the word "apostle" is missionary. Of course, such an understanding goes against the idea that there was meant to always be only 12. In fact, #3 depends heavily on the belief that our relationship with God is first personal, and then corporate. The RCC, Orthodox, and LDS all argue for the reverse--that our relationship with God only happens through our relationship with the Church and its hierarchy.

From 98 a.d., to 325 a.d., Jewish and Christian practices and doctrine were wrongfully meshed together. So all of those churches between that time period that comprise option 3 are not associated with the Church of Jesus Christ.

There were problems with "Judiazers" even during the NT era. Yet, the Apostles merely attacked their practices. They did not declare them excommunicated.

When there is no prophet to lead the church, apostasy and schism is the result. When man is left to his own intellect to interpret the Bible, divisions are formed. Christ said, "If ye are not one, ye are not mine." (New Testament; help with reference?)

The Protestant view (with a Pentecostal flavoring): We do believe that God speaks prophetically today--both through the Holy Spirit-anointed preaching of the Word, and through the gift of prophecy, and of tongues with interpretation.

Further, I'm skeptical of the notion that Christian unity requires a singular human organization. We are united in Christ. That seems to be enough.

I am sorry, PrisonChaplin. You know I like you. I just fail to understand other churches because of how much I feel our church is supported by the Bible. But, that's the who reason for discussion, now isn't it. Please don't take any of this personally, and I apologize if I'm over doing it with using this site as an outlet.

You are learning and understanding...you're just not agreeing. Nevertheless, you're doing fine. Passion about faith and God is healthy.

[Francine]

The Church that fell with the Apostles is the same church that exists today. It is the Church of Jesus Christ. It was restored in 1830 and is now known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

That means that for about 1400 years, the Church of Jesus Christ did not exist. In other words, the gates of hades prevailed against it. That means Jesus Christ could not keep his promise to Peter that the gates of hades would never prevail against his Church.

[Teancum18]

That means that for about 1400 years, the Church of Jesus Christ did not exist. In other words, the gates of hades prevailed against it. That means Jesus Christ could not keep his promise to Peter that the gates of hades would never prevail against his Church.

1) I think you need to look closer at that promise.

----> Additionally, you need to cross-reference that particular passage with multiple passages in the Bible to gain a better understanding of that promise.

2) It wasn't Peter's Church. I'm not saying that you said it was. But consider that fact on a larger scale and you will have your answer.

3) To say that Christ couldn't fulfill a promise because of 1400 years of apostasy is very tunnel-vision and limited in understanding.

----> On an Eternal scale, 1400 years is such a short, short time. If you promise a friend that you will do her hair, but don't get to it right away, does that mean you couldn't fulfill a promise to her? Or does it mean that you just got to it when you knew you could? God knows when all things must be done.

----> An apostasy does not constitute a prevailing of the "gates of hades" against the church

----> There were 4 major apostasies in the Old Testament and Christ's church still went on.

----> The act of a restoration proves that Christ is continually true to His promises (And I'm not just talking about the one in 1830. Just as there were apostasies in the Old Testament, there were restorations as well.)

----> God's promises can only be fullfilled if the Saints live worthy to receive them.

You can't just pick apart any one thing. It's too limited. Only through comprehensive considerations and full understanding can debates and topics be logically and academically analyzed.

[Teancum18]

I do not believe the keys of apostolic authority were removed from the earth with the death of the last apostle, St. John.

Paul and Barnabas, for example, were commissioned as apostles to the Gentiles by members of the original twelve, and they were not of the original twelve:

Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

You're right, but your dates are off, or you're just not familiar with them. All those events happened before the mass martyrdoms. Chronology is very important. Plus, the killing of the 12 were not the only ones.

[Teancum18]

Great. We had #1, #3 covered--so you captured #2.

Of course you know that the RCC ties its linneage to Peter, and would dispute the notion that apostolic succession broke down.

One understanding of the word "apostle" is missionary. Of course, such an understanding goes against the idea that there was meant to always be only 12. In fact, #3 depends heavily on the belief that our relationship with God is first personal, and then corporate. The RCC, Orthodox, and LDS all argue for the reverse--that our relationship with God only happens through our relationship with the Church and its hierarchy.

There were problems with "Judiazers" even during the NT era. Yet, the Apostles merely attacked their practices. They did not declare them excommunicated.

The Protestant view (with a Pentecostal flavoring): We do believe that God speaks prophetically today--both through the Holy Spirit-anointed preaching of the Word, and through the gift of prophecy, and of tongues with interpretation.

Further, I'm skeptical of the notion that Christian unity requires a singular human organization. We are united in Christ. That seems to be enough.

You are learning and understanding...you're just not agreeing. Nevertheless, you're doing fine. Passion about faith and God is healthy.

Hey PrisonChaplin! Yeah, I definitely think we disagree on a few points of views. Having said that, I really like how logical you are about everything. You really push me to think and I really like that as well.

It's hard for anyone to discuss doctrine with scriptures when the participating parties have different interpretations of the scriptures in question. I know you know this already and I believe it's one reason you are so sound and insightful with your posts. However, you will see me continue to respond, and at times disagree, with your posts. It's just because I get fulfillment out of our discussion. So please, keep it up!

:D:D

[Francine]

To say that Christ couldn't fulfill a promise because of 1400 years of apostasy is very tunnel-vision and limited in understanding.

Christ died in 33 AD, and the last time there was a valid Apostleship, according to Mormonism, was in 98 with the death of John. That means with the Church founded directly by Christ in the Middle East, people attained to the Celestial Kingdom only during a window for 65 years. All the Apostles that were appointed to replace the ones Christ chose, and all of their Apostles, are disqualified by the Mormon Church as apostate. Even the Church Christ founded in the Western Hemisphere became apostate and ceased to exist.

All the Apostles appointed by the man Joseph Smith have died as well, but the ones they appointed to replace them are considered valid by the Mormon Church. Somehow a mere man has done in North America what the Son of God himself could not do on any continent...establish a Church that did not fail.

[Teancum18]

Christ died in 33 AD, and the last time there was a valid Apostleship, according to Mormonism, was in 98 with the death of John. That means with the Church founded directly by Christ in the Middle East, people attained to the Celestial Kingdom only during a window for 65 years. All the Apostles that were appointed to replace the ones Christ chose, and all of their Apostles, are disqualified by the Mormon Church as apostate. Even the Church Christ founded in the Western Hemisphere became apostate and ceased to exist.

All the Apostles appointed by the man Joseph Smith have died as well, but the ones they appointed to replace them are considered valid by the Mormon Church. Somehow a mere man has done in North America what the Son of God himself could not do on any continent...establish a Church that did not fail.

See, now you're just being argumentative. Either that or your understanding of Mormon Doctrine is inaccurate. Which ever the case, this response is not adequate enough to my previous post. Technically, you still haven't addressed the majority of previous post. In fact, I fail to understand the context of your logic. I think this discussion is over.

Forgive me, I am just highly intellectual and need to be challenged logically. If I am not, I lose interest and view the discussions as unintelligent.

[Francine]

I think this discussion is over. Forgive me, I am just highly intellectual and need to be challenged logically. If I am not, I lose interest and view the discussions as unintelligent.

I will honor your judgment that my argument is not intellectual enough to retain your interest, and I will not waste any of your time again.

[Teancum18]

I will honor your judgment that my argument is not intellectual enough to retain your interest, and I will not waste any of your time again.

Well, you have a lot of humility. That is certainly undeniable. Furthermore, you have much more than me... much more!

[rameumptom]

Christ died in 33 AD, and the last time there was a valid Apostleship, according to Mormonism, was in 98 with the death of John. That means with the Church founded directly by Christ in the Middle East, people attained to the Celestial Kingdom only during a window for 65 years. All the Apostles that were appointed to replace the ones Christ chose, and all of their Apostles, are disqualified by the Mormon Church as apostate. Even the Church Christ founded in the Western Hemisphere became apostate and ceased to exist.

All the Apostles appointed by the man Joseph Smith have died as well, but the ones they appointed to replace them are considered valid by the Mormon Church. Somehow a mere man has done in North America what the Son of God himself could not do on any continent...establish a Church that did not fail.

Apostasy has occurred many times in earth's history. We need to note that the LDS Church does not say that all the truth was lost or that there was an absolute apostasy from every vestige of truth. We teach that many of the plain and precious things were lost, including priesthood authority. LDS views and definitions on salvation and exaltation must be considered when discussing what has happened to those people living during the Dark/Middle Ages. Peter noted that the dead from the Great Flood were preached to in the spirit prison, an event that occurred 2000 years before him and included many that did not hear Noah's preaching.

In Protestant vernacular, all those billions that have lived without hearing Jesus' name, would be condemned to hell, even though they didn't have a chance to accept him. LDS teachings give all those people who did not hear the fullness of the gospel, the chance to listen and consider accepting it. IMO the LDS teaching is more "Christ-like" in giving all the same opportunity to embrace Jesus. Claiming that one is saved if he accepts Jesus, is not comforting to the person rotting in hell simply because he was born in the wrong place and time. And then there are those Christians that would put extra delimiters on what it means to accept Jesus, as many claim Mormons will burn in hell alongside those who never had a chance to hear the gospel.

The original church of Christ could have continued on, had it not been for a few historical problems. First, we see that Judas was replaced in the 12, when they gathered and prayerfully selected Matthias as his replacement. But once the 12 scattered over Europe and Asia, there was no way for them to call new apostles, or even know who had been killed.

Secondly, the apostasy did not start immediately upon John's demise. Paul, Peter and John all write about apostates in their day trying to take over the Church. After the death of the apostles, there were huge schisms in the Church. Proto-orthodox, Gnostics, and other groups all vied for preeminence. Many changed sacred writings, or penned pseudepigrapha (false writings, or writings supposedly written by a prophet or apostle), in order to promote their version of the gospel. Until the Nag Hammadi library was discovered in Egypt in 1947, most of what we knew about the Gnostics was written by the proto-orthodox apologists (Origen was preeminent among them). Dozens of books were written supposedly by Paul, Peter, Thomas, Phillip, Melchizedek, Abraham, Seth, etc. New revelations were being claimed by the leaders of the various sects. The proto-orthodox Church came to a conclusion: the only way to fight these insurgents was to canonize the writings, toss out anything suspicious, and eliminate new revelation. St Jerome was foremost in putting together today's list of books. Hebrews and Revelation were almost tossed out, and only were kept in because the Western Church insisted on it. Many other books that were used extensively (Shepherd of Hermas, Enoch, etc.) were eliminated, because of questionable teachings or provenance.

So, we ended up with a Church in stasis. There was no more revelation allowed. With a completed Bible, creeds came in to answer questions that were not answered in the Bible, and could not be answered by non-existent revelation: is baptism by immersion or sprinkling? what is the nature of God? do the bishops all share power equally, or does the bishop in Rome/Jerusalem/Constantinople hold preeminence?

In 325 AD, bishops met in Nice to discuss the nature of God. Three major views were then extant. Athanasius promoted the Hellenistic Trinitarian position that was growing in influence since the 2nd century AD. Arius promoted the idea of three separate beings, but since there is only one God, Jesus is not God, but Lord. Some, like the historian Eusebius, promoted Origenism, which taught that all three are separate Gods, but Jesus was subordinate to the Father (also known as subordinationalism). The battle ended up being between the two extremes (Athanasius and Arius). Using political clout (Constantine was behind him), we had Athanasius winning out, with opponents being exiled and/or excommunicated.

So, it wasn't a sudden apostasy. It grew slowly, spreading out over the many churches in Paul and Peter's day, and then spinning quicker out of control once the guidance of the apostles was gone. From there, revelation ended and the scriptures were placed in stasis. Finally, creeds were established to answer questions that could not be answered in the Bible, but were based on the philosophies of men (like St Jerome and St Augustine) and not on revelation.

In each prior instance of apostasy, God has had to restore the truths through a prophet. Reformation was never sufficient, as we see in the Josian Reforms that occurred prior to the destruction of the First Temple and Jerusalem in 600 BC. It required new prophets, like Jeremiah and others to attempt to restore as much of the gospel as the people were ready for.

And in our case, the Lord allowed the apostasy, because the people were no longer looking upward for revelation, but were philosophizing their way through the scriptures. A Restoration of all the precious and plain parts that had been lost was necessary to prepare the world for the 2nd Coming of Christ.