Is there evidence of the Apostasy?

[1dc]

Sure, they were all true because they were all of the church that Christ had built.

Many (if not the vast majority) of Christian denominations see themselves the same way, as one part of the body of Christ.

Christ built His Church through apostles He sent and they did so by His authority . .even as Peter had. Unless one can rightfully claim such specific authority they are claiming righteousness in their own name . . they have no granted or inherited *right* to claim Christ's authority.

http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/10/40-41#40

LDS apostles carry His unbroken direct authority and ask you to receive them in Christ's name. A true Christian looks to His true messengers, covenants to live His gospel, and lives it.

Not only was authority lost, but some of the origional teachings had become perverted. Just as the apostles had warned in their epistles.

Where do the apostles warn about the loss of authority? And does the corruption of "some of the original teachings" mean "complete apostasy"?

The completeness of apostacy is not the loss of all faithful believers in Christ and God, or the loss of all truthful doctrine.

It is the loss of authority. IMO, to suggest anyone can set up their own church and call it Christ's is proof of total apostacy.

So what are thes basic principles? Becasue the LDS church teaches a lot of the same things others do, yet we are branded a cult.

In terms of moral teaching, the LDS church is basically Christian. But in terms of underlying theology and practice, there are huge differences.

And yet we ascribe our theology and practice to Christ rather than scholars interpretations of what was lost when the apostles died.

One faith, (not many), one Lord (one law giver with one set of teachings), one baptism (baptism representing entrance into the body or group of Christ. Not many but one. One body).

Christian denomination do share the same faith in the same Christ, and all Christian denominations practice baptism.

No, they don't. Christ for some will burn everyone else who doesn't share their same exact beliefs. Others have a Christ who allows his faithful to live a life of sin with no further repentence. Still others describe Christ as a manifistation of His Father rather than as a distinct person. Some proclaim baptism by spirit rather than as taught by Christ's own example.

Unity does not equal uniformity, is the bottom line.

And the bottom line does not include complaining about the desires of one's own mind.

The nature of God is a core issue.

Absolutely! Explains why Christ considered men's agreements among themselves about God's nature an abomination.

[juliann]

Sure, they were all true because they were all of the church that Christ had built.

Many (if not the vast majority) of Christian denominations see themselves the same way, as one part of the body of Christ.

Christ built His Church through apostles He sent and they did so by His authority . .even as Peter had. Unless one can rightfully claim such specific authority they are claiming righteousness in their own name . . they have no granted or inherited *right* to claim Christ's authority.

This is where I find Ignatius so troubling to those who think that one can just proclaim oneself to have created a body for Christ. There can be no mistake that Ignatius' entire appeal to his community was to prevent this very thing as he said over and over to not do anything that was not under the authority and direction of their bishop.

[William the Conqueror]

  The problem conventional Christians have is that they need the appeal to apostolic authority through lineage...but the lineage disappears.  The advantage LDS will always have is that we have no need to preserve anything through this period of invisibility.

What about the Waldensians and the Albigensians? Read W. A. Criswell's Trail of Blood. He and many believe the Anabaptists never did follow the apostolic line.

1 John 2:27

27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit

[juliann]

I wouldn't be using a verse about annointing...something rich with temple theology to support a Protestant point. My response to the Trail of Blood theory is that it is a faith based proposition. We all have them. They just don't help us out in situations like this one.

[William the Conqueror]

I wouldn't be using a verse about annointing...something rich with temple theology to support a Protestant point. My response to the Trail of Blood theory is that it is a faith based proposition. We all have them. They just don't help us out in situations like this one.

[SteubieU]

In Washington DC for the March for Life. I'll be back on Tuesday.

[juliann]

There is plenty of historical evidence for the anabaptists early on.

There is no proof of them before the Reformation. That is why the Trail of Blood was constructed...it stands in as the Baptist version of apostolic succession.

As for anointing (I John 2:27) being rich in temple theology, I guess you had better go back to Acts Chapter 7:  '...However the most High does not live in houses made by men...'

God lives in a heavenly temple. You need to read Revelation. Here is the problem (as seen by a sociologist) with trying to create an unbroken line of anything throughout Christianity:

The Christianity that triumphed over Rome was a mass social movement in a highly competitive environment.  The Christianity that subsequently left most of Europe only nominally converted, at best, was an established, subsidized state church that sought to extend itself, not through missionizing the population, but by baptizing kings and then canonizing them as national saints.  That is, the Christianity that prevailed in Europe was an elaborate patchwork of state churches that settled for the allegiance of the elite and for imposing official requirements of conformity, but that made little sustained effort to Christianize the peasant masses. . . . .Indeed, corruption and sloth, as well as power struggles and enforced conformity, became prominent features of the Christian movement in the fourth century, almost immediately upon its having become the official state church.  Thus, for example, Christian bishops no longer were leaders of a stigmatized, if rapidly growing sect, but were

[flavo]

Many (if not the vast majority) of Christian denominations see themselves the same way, as one part of the body of Christ.

So all churches are true and all will go to heaven?

I think you might be misunderstanding the whole "prevail" thing. Hell will never defeat the Church. But there will be some mighty big fights!

Defeat has nothing to do with a gate. The scripture very clearly says the "gates". How do you attack someone with a gate?

Lets look at prevail:

pre

[flavo]

Be careful that you don't set the bar so high that nothing can get over it. As long as imperfect human beings make up the church, there will be error.

Didn't Jesus say something about us being perfect even as our father in heaven?

If that is a bar that no one can get over, I don't know what is.

[rhinomelon]

Wow, a big response! I doubt I'll get to all this today.

So all churches are true and all will go to heaven?

You are confusing "church" with "people". Christ did not die for a church, he died for sinful human beings, which make up the Church. There is no "church", as in your definition, which will make it to heaven in its entirety.

The "gates" interpretation can go either way, as far as I'm concerned. It's not really that definitive, as the symbolism can be read to support my view or yours. Perhaps it depends on which side of the gates the Church is on...

Does a little bit of dirt corrupt the whole glass of clean pure water?

Absolutely. Can you still drink a glass of water with stuff in it? Unless you are a water-purifier kind of guy, you do it every day. A better question might be, "when does it get too dirty to be useful?"

The verses you use are the same old prooftexts that don't prove much. Yes, the Galatians had a big problem. But they do not represent the Church as a whole. Read almost all of Paul's letters, and the good churches far outnumber those that struggle. Paul commends the Philippians on the strength of their faith, for example, and tells the Colossians that the gospel is spreading all over the world, with more and more opportunities to share it all the time. Likewise, the Thessalonians, and even Paul's 2nd letter to the Corinthians shows a marked improvement in that church despite earlier sins. Let's face it, you are editing the good stuff out of your interpretation of the New Testament, in order to make the failure of the early Church a proven fact. That simply is not the case.

Where is apostasy "of" the church mentioned. Is it not always apostasy "from" the church? Indeed, this is also the general thrust you find in the early church fathers. There is not apostasy of the church, but there are plenty who leave it, plenty who want to destroy it, from within or without.

Why were they not apostles? No authority maybe?

Or maybe their teachings were in error, or maybe they didn't walk with Christ during his earthly ministry? There are, again, many interpretations possible here. And given that the churches addressed in Revelation are sometimes judged based on what doctrines they believe or hate, teaching would appear to be more of an issue than authority in the LDS sense.

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

Man is not the one setting the bar to high. If the way is narrow and few there are that find it, isn't that kind of limiting the number who will make it? It sounds like the concept of all faiths having it right is a broad way which composes many.

Again, confusing "church" with "people". The church does not matter, it is pointless, without the people. And with regard to setting the bar too high, I was referring to your criteria for a "true church", not to salvation for human beings. A church utterly without error and corruption does not exist, and will never exist as long as imperfect people are the only ones in there.

Also, I am not equating "the Church" with "all faiths". You also seem to assume this here:

In terms of moral teaching, the LDS church is basically Christian. But in terms of underlying theology and practice, there are huge differences.

Any more so than the counless other religions in their underlying theology and practice? I thought the one great underlying theology was faith in Jesus Christ? Or is that superfiscial?

In underlying theology, all the branches of Christendom have a great deal in common. Again, "all faiths" is not the issue, as Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, whatever don't have much of a bearing on the Christian Church. Also, faith in Christ is definitely a core belief of all Christians, but not the only one by any means.

I beg to differ that all Christian denominations practice baptism as a necessary ordinance that gains them entrance into the body of Christ. The Latter-day Saints teach it. I don't think the denominations that don't see it as necessary preach it fervently.

"Not preaching it fervently" is not the same thing as "rejecting it entirely". LDS don't preach fervently about salvation by grace alone much either, but that doesn't mean that it isn't taught or believed. Show me one denomination that completely rejects baptism, and doesn't practice it, then maybe you'll have a point here.

No, my foundation is built upon:

Ephesians 2:20

"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief ccorner stone;"

As is mine.

So God will conform his teachings to suit peoples desires and cultural differences? I can't by that. Man changes and conforms to God's will.

No, God's teachings will be taught and expressed differently by different peoples and cultures. It's the same teachings, but each person and culture brings a unique and invaluable perspective to the Church. I don't think the LDS church has that very much. It is very white, American, and middle-class in its theology and basic outlook. Christianity, on the other hand, is a vibrant tapestry, with people from all unique backgrounds actually looking at the same thing in their own way, seeing things other people won't see, offering that perspective to the rest of the body of Christ. It's one of the things about Christianity that I love most!

I could go on but you see that the scriptures teach we all should be as one. We should all conform to the will of God, not the other way around.

I absolutely agree. But I also reiterate that complete and perfect unity will always be impossible this side of heaven. The LDS church does not conform to the standard of unity you just mentioned, so why should I accept it as true as opposed to where I am now?

There is but one way. He set that bar. We must do as He has commanded. And you are really beginning to confuse me.

Sorry if I am confusing you It wouldn't be the first time. Sometimes I even confuse myself God did set a bar, but does not expect us to achieve that on our own. As you said, perfection is the bar, so everyone falls waaaaaaay short. God, in His grace, can put up with our foibles and failings, and does so every day. Likewise, He does so with errors and mistakes in His Church. Why assume that God's patience suddenly ran out after only a generation after Christ?

What instruments one uses to worship God is not. 

So which is it? Does it matter or does it not?

What instrument one uses to worship God does not matter at all. What matters is the heart doing the worshipping, and Who that worship is directed towards. Instruments of worship is a peripheral issue, that God really doesn't care about. And yet the LDS church makes it an issue, and makes an official doctrine/practice out of something that does not matter. This is an example, to me, of how the LDS church does not understand the wonders of God-given diversity.

Now I am done. I guess I did get to it all! Whew! Take care, everyone

[thesometimesaint]

rhinomelon

Eph. 5: 25

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

[T-Shirt]

Rhinomelon,

I would be very interested to see your detailed interpretaion of Revelation 12.

T-Shirt

[juliann]

The "gates" interpretation can go either way, as far as I'm concerned. It's not really that definitive, as the symbolism can be read to support my view or yours. Perhaps it depends on which side of the gates the Church is on...

Yes...it does. And the gates are absolutely irrelevant unless you are behind them....unless gates are loose and chasing people down. That is the entire point of hades. It was manned by Hades and the gates close after you enter. You were locked in. That is why the hero myths were popular...a god would go and rescue someone from behind those closed gates.

  A better question might be, "when does it get too dirty to be useful?"

There is no reason at all to assume that and every reason to assume that God would keep the level of authority consistent.

Yes, the Galatians had a big problem. But they do not represent the Church as a whole. Read almost all of Paul's letters, and the good churches far outnumber those that struggle.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that everyone has read the Bible. How you come to the conclusion that Paul's churches were not falling apart is puzzling. He died alone...only one member came to see him in his last imprisonment. This is astonishing and shows everything but "good". He had been discarded. Clement rails against the Corinthians.

  Let's face it, you are editing the good stuff out of your interpretation of the New Testament, in order to make the failure of the early Church a proven fact. That simply is not the case.

I think that it is you editing out what you don't want to hear.

  Where is apostasy "of" the church mentioned.

This has to be at least the third time I have been completely ignored. Where was "the church"before Nicaea? Who was at the head?

What matters is the heart doing the worshipping, and Who that worship is directed towards. Instruments of worship is a peripheral issue, that God really doesn't care about.

The Bible is the best testament against this "whatever goes" version of Christianity.

[T-Shirt]

This has to be at least the third time I have been completely ignored. Where was "the church"before Nicaea? Who was at the head?

Juliann,

I have asked this question many times and it has never been answered. The closest thing to an answer I have received was from the Catholics who claim the head was in Rome the whole time, he just didn't know he was the head for another five or six hundred years

I would like to see someone answer the question.

T-Shirt

[rhinomelon]

The Bible is the best testament against this "whatever goes" version of Christianity.

I would hardly call using guitars or drums instead of pianos and organs "whatever goes Christianity".

This has to be at least the third time I have been completely ignored. Where was "the church"before Nicaea? Who was at the head?

The bishops. The bishopric at Rome soon gained honor. Who was the one head of the church during the New Testament era? Is one person singled out as "President" or "Prophet"?

He died alone...only one member came to see him in his last imprisonment. This is astonishing and shows everything but "good". He had been discarded.

Cowardice is not apostasy. There is a big difference.

Perhaps an earlier post of mine might shed some light on where I am coming from, biblically speaking:

There have been several key verses that speak of apostasy in the early church. These the LDS church has been promoting and pointing out quite well, but only at the cost of ignoring a wealth of biblical testimony on the other side of the equation, several key verses of which have been posted here with no response by LDS. A quick summary of some verses:

First, speaking of the overall growth of the church: 2 Cor. 4:15 and Col. 1:5-6.

Second, speaking of more chances to spread the gospel (sometimes because of persecution!): 2 Cor. 2:12; Phil. 1:12-18.

Third, speaking of the health of the churches in various areas: Romans 1:8; I Cor. 16:9; 2 Cor 1:8-10; 2:12; 4:7-12, 15; 7:4, 8-16; 8:1-5; 9:12-15; 10:15-16; Eph. 1:15-16; Phil. 1:3-6, 12-14; 2:12; Col. 1:3-7; 2:5; I Thess. 1:2-10; 2:13-15; 3:6-9; 4:1; 2 Thess. 1:3-5; 3:1-3.

The above is not a complete list, but should be enough to bolster my point. The LDS position takes a few verses and interprets them far too strongly and pessimistically, in my opinion, and ignores the numerous positive signs of healthy churches. Of course there is apostasy along with the truth, that much is plain. Jesus himself said there would always be tares among the wheat. The mainstream Christian view can handle that. However, the LDS view cannot handle the fact that there is also always wheat among the tares! This is the situation we see in the NT, and then carried on throughout church history. Sometimes there are more tares than wheat, to be sure, but there is always wheat. And where the wheat is, there is the Church, the Body of Christ. Splitting the institution from the believers that make it up, as in the LDS system, is an artificial split forced on the text by later thinkers.

The LDS texts used to point to a "Great Apostasy", when examined in context and in light of other biblical testimony (like the above list), falls far short of providing evidence of a total apostasy. For instance, Zakuska's insistence on Paul's words in Acts (wolves not sparing the flock, etc.) being a prophecy of sure doom rather than a warning is a good example of LDS pessimism in this area. Even if Paul's words were a prophecy of some kind, even Zakuska will admit that prophecies of this nature are often conditional. Other texts that refer to some falling away obviously do not refer to a total apostasy. That's why the word "some" is there. Those prove nothing but wheat and tares, a perfectly acceptable mainstream Christian view.

And if these verses are to be seen as referring to total apostasy, then the LDS church must prove that none of their members ever go apostate, because if some members left, those verses would condemn the LDS church as apostate as well. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, in other words.

Take care, everyone

[juliann]

I would hardly call using guitars or drums instead of pianos and organs "whatever goes Christianity".

Now you are getting evasive.

This has to be at least the third time I have been completely ignored. Where was "the church"before Nicaea? Who was at the head?

The bishops. The bishopric at Rome soon gained honor. Who was the one head of the church during the New Testament era? Is one person singled out as "President" or "Prophet"?

I already answered your question....you have not answered mine. Apostles were head, apparently Peter at one point. Paul certainly deferred to him. Apostles were replaced. Until they weren't...is there a verse that states when apostles were no longer to be replaced? A bishop is not the head. Ignatius was a bishop (overseer) yet he still deferred to others.

Cowardice is not apostasy. There is a big difference.

Huh? They were certainly there for him before. Clement was not lecturing about "cowardice".

The LDS position takes a few verses and interprets them far too strongly and pessimistically, in my opinion, and ignores the numerous positive signs of healthy churches. Of course there is apostasy along with the truth, that much is plain.

You continue to put the cart before the horse. LDS look at the results. Where was the head of the church before Nicaea? Please name someone who was the final word on disputes.

[rhinomelon]

I think that it is you editing out what you don't want to hear.

Not at all. I am simply trying to see a balanced interpretation of all of the evidence. This kind of interpretation I see lacking in the LDS view. To LDS, apostasy at Galatia equals total apostasy everywhere. Struggles in Ephesus mean struggles everywhere, with total defeat of the church inevitable. Any sign of sin or weakness in any church is seen as proof positive of irreversable apostasy. Could they have repented? Nope, once they start there is apparently no hope for change. Could they have avoided apostasy? No, because they were just too weak, or God just gave up and abandoned them.

See the verses in my last post. There are quite a few. Could it be that you might be doing a little editing yourself? I fully acknowledge sin and failure and apostasy in the early church. But I also acknowledge faithfulness, perserverance, and holiness as well, which negates a claim to total apostasy of the Church. In a church peopled by fickle, wayward, struggling human beings, there will always be a mix of the two.

There is no reason at all to assume that and every reason to assume that God would keep the level of authority consistent.

The level of authority or the purity of truth? I was speaking about the latter, while you seemed concerned about the former.

Yes...it does. And the gates are absolutely irrelevant unless you are behind them....unless gates are loose and chasing people down. That is the entire point of hades. It was manned by Hades and the gates close after you enter. You were locked in. That is why the hero myths were popular...a god would go and rescue someone from behind those closed gates.

Just out of curiosity, what if the church is the one on the outside, battering down the gates to rescue those within? I'd be interested to hear your take on this. I haven't studied this particular passage much myself as of yet.

Take care, everyone

[juliann]

I have asked this question many times and it has never been answered. The closest thing to an answer I have received was from the Catholics who claim the head was in Rome the whole time, he just didn't know he was the head for another five or six hundred years

I would like to see someone answer the question.

That Catholics would go to the trouble to create a lineage for apostolic authority shows how vital this concept is. I don't think completely evading that or making it an LDS issue is a position of strength.

[juliann]

To LDS, apostasy at Galatia equals total apostasy everywhere.

No it doesn't. You have been around long enough to know that most think it happened in pieces, slowly and perhaps almost unnoticeable as stronger personalities dogpiled "the masses"....such as non-clerics like Origen until the government finally took over. LDS do not hold the position that others do not have some "truth". We do not see things as "either/or". Come on...you know that.

Just out of curiosity, what if the church is the one on the outside, battering down the gates to rescue those within? I'd be interested to hear your take on this. I haven't studied this particular passage much myself as of yet.

Why would an assembly of living beings be doing that? It was Christ's role to enable the resurrection (or release from hades).

[rhinomelon]

Now you are getting evasive. 

Not at all. Where does God say "pianos and organs only". He doesn't. Why, then, make that an issue? That was the only point I was trying to make earlier. I think you are making more out of it than was intended.

But I do believe it is clear that the Bible leaves a great deal of room for differing actions and convictions within the body of believers. One can follow their convictions (as in eating meat, for example), as long as it does not cause another brother to stumble. If playing a guitar to worship God would cause a brother or sister to stumble, I won't do it. But if it is a blessing to all in worship, then why not?

I already answered your question....you have not answered mine. Apostles were head, apparently Peter at one point. Paul certainly deferred to him. Apostles were replaced. Until they weren't...is there a verse that states when apostles were no longer to be replaced?

Where does it say that apostles must be replaced? If you are referring to Peter's words about replacing Judas, it states that this replacement issue only applies to Judas. Since the apostles never ordained other apostles (despite worthy contenders), and since apostolic tradition was laid out as the standard, it is quite logical to suppose that the apostolic duty was unique, and not ongoing.

Also, where does Paul defer to Peter? They get into quite a tizzy, if a recall. If there was an overall leadership structure, it is seen in the Jerusalem council.

Huh? They were certainly there for him before. Clement was not lecturing about "cowardice".

Perhaps you could clarify for me, as I don't have my books here. What passage in Clement are you referring to?

You continue to put the cart before the horse. LDS look at the results. Where was the head of the church before Nicaea? Please name someone who was the final word on disputes.

No one person was the final word. That isn't the way it was set up in the New Testament.

Ignatius was a bishop (overseer) yet he still deferred to others.

Did he not defer to other bishops?

Also, what of the weight that Ignatius (and Clement, and Polycarp, and others) gave to the apostolic writings and testimony? They took their duty as guarding the deposit of the faith very seriously.

You continue to put the cart before the horse. LDS look at the results. Where was the head of the church before Nicaea?

Again, no one person. But for another perpective, the Head of the Church was/is in heaven. Christ is the Head of the Church. All of us, regardless of position, are merely members of his body.

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

No it doesn't. You have been around long enough to know that most think it happened in pieces, slowly and perhaps almost unnoticeable as stronger personalities dogpiled "the masses"....such as non-clerics like Origen until the government finally took over. LDS do not hold the position that others do not have some "truth". We do not see things as "either/or". Come on...you know that.

Actually, in this area, LDS do have an "either/or" position. Either the Church was apostate or it wasn't.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but the prevailing view among LDS scholars at this point is that the apostasy was pretty much over with by the end of the first century, with the pieces falling for centuries afterward. In Nibley's words, the apostasy was like coming upon a car wreck. You don't know what happened, but because of all the junk and wreckage lying around, you know there was a mighty big wreck. Nibley, and others, thought it all happened in the first century. Which brings in some problems all its own, I think.

Anyway, I probably won't have a chance to respond anymore until tomorrow. I'm going up to Sundance tonight... Take care

[juliann]

Where does God say "pianos and organs only". He doesn't. Why, then, make that an issue? That was the only point I was trying to make earlier. I think you are making more out of it than was intended.

What is with the piano stuff? Lean over...I'm going to give you a big noogie. I was referencing your idea that churches don't matter...we just need to "believe".

Where does it say that apostles must be replaced? If you are referring to Peter's words about replacing Judas, it states that this replacement issue only applies to Judas. Since the apostles never ordained other apostles (despite worthy contenders), and since apostolic tradition was laid out as the standard, it is quite logical to suppose that the apostolic duty was unique, and not ongoing.

The apostles were replaced on more than one occasion. Isn't that how we use the Bible? It sets the standard based on what they did? The list of apostles is not even consistent which is quite interesting.

Also, where does Paul defer to Peter? They get into quite a tizzy, if a recall. If there was an overall leadership structure, it is seen in the Jerusalem council.

It is Peter who stands up to speak after "much debate" and the others keep silent. Other noncanonical texts also give Peter priority. But of most interest is the organizational information given in Acts 15. Of particular interest in v. 24 where the mention of those going out without instruction is made and remedied by sending out men who are authorized by the council. The Bible gives almost nothing as to organizational detail...yet the little that it does give us is almost ignored by conventional Christianity. I find that very odd.

Also, what of the weight that Ignatius (and Clement, and Polycarp, and others) gave to the apostolic writings and testimony? They took their duty as guarding the deposit of the faith very seriously.

Yet Ignatius says he prefers the living word. He had those he looked to for it. I doubt Ignatius was only a bishop...he obviously had some authority over the churches he was writing to.

[mormon fool]

Just a few doctrines I think are either more in the LDS corner or at least show LDS possibilities.

Creation ex materia (Creation Ex nihilo not Christian before Irenaeaus, Tertullian ~200 A.D.)

Deification (pre-Creation ex nihilo has no insurmountable creator/creature gap which puts this solidly in the LDS corner more than considerations about Marriage in Heaven)

Subordinationalist Godhead ("pre-Nicene orthodoxy was subordinationalist')

Anthromorphism (up to Tertullian with Augustine and Origen as reluctant witnesses)

Covenant based (vs. Natural law based see Reynolds latest essay in ECiD)

Definition of Apostasy (Rebellion against leaders vs. refusing creedal statements)

Temple ritual (this got repackaged into Mass)

Continuing Revelation/Open Canon

Living Apostles

Eternal Marriage (An implied belief of Jewish Christianity in the Jesus Sadduccee showdown, Origen as a reluctant witness, and gnostic texts)

Baptism for the Dead

Pre-existence (minority view, but still! Origen)

Anti-Philosophy (Justin uses it for defence only, Tertullian against it, Clement embraces it, but Origen use it to systemize theology)

Pessimistic about the continuation of the full church (Shepherd of Hermas, selected NT passages)

That's all I can think of for now. Some of these have been discussed already, but dealt with the question of whether a change from the LDS-like position was a fatal blow or not. Rather than using these as proof-doctrines, I would say these confer a measure of respectability for the LDS church. As David Waltz summarizes Barry Bickmore:

Before presenting his evidences from the early church fathers, Bickmore lays down some very important assumptions

[SteubieU]

That Catholics would go to the trouble to create a lineage for apostolic authority shows how vital this concept is. I don't think completely evading that or making it an LDS issue is a position of strength.

Just to be clear here, the Catholic Church didn't "create" the lineage; it has always been there. We didn't create it to win an argument against an LDS sect that didn't exist.

[rhinomelon]

What is with the piano stuff? Lean over...I'm going to give you a big noogie. I was referencing your idea that churches don't matter...we just need to "believe".

Ouch! Noogie accepted! Good one, too...

Oops, I must not have been too clear. I did not mean to imply that churches do not matter at all. That would definitely be contrary to the biblical witness as well as common sense. What I meant to say was that there are certain aspects of church life that can and should be different from place to place, culture to culture. Instrumentation in worship does not matter; what a church teaches and believes is vitally important.

I can completely understand where you are coming from in your critique, as evangelical ecclesiology is one of the weakest areas in evangelical theology. We do tend to boil things down to individual belief, which I believe swings too far in many cases. I believe that the church is indispensable to living the Christian life and growing in Christ. But the church can take various forms, in terms of certain areas of practice and cultural expression.

  The apostles were replaced on more than one occasion. Isn't that how we use the Bible? It sets the standard based on what they did? The list of apostles is not even consistent which is quite interesting.

Is there another instance of an apostle being replaced by another called an apostle, besides the replacement of Judas by Matthias early on in Acts? Perhaps you could fill out this point a bit more for me, as I think today is going to be a dense day all around for me...

It is Peter who stands up to speak after "much debate" and the others keep silent. Other noncanonical texts also give Peter priority. But of most interest is the organizational information given in Acts 15. Of particular interest in v. 24 where the mention of those going out without instruction is made and remedied by sending out men who are authorized by the council.

Good point, although I would point out that James also speaks, and seems to propose the solution himself, saying, "it is my judgment". As far as authorization goes, the question appears to be more with what the unauthorized people were saying to the believers, rather than their authorization by the council per se. There are other examples of people preaching and teaching without ever interacting with the council or apostles. Apollos comes to mind. The problem with him was not his authorization, but his inadequate teaching that was corrected by Priscilla and Aquila.

Yet Ignatius says he prefers the living word. He had those he looked to for it. I doubt Ignatius was only a bishop...he obviously had some authority over the churches he was writing to.

Could you perhaps give some places to look? I actually brought my copy of the apostolic fathers to work today. Just a little light reading...

More later, work is calling. Take care, everyone