Can we accurately say/prove there was an Apostasy?

[TOmNossor]

Me: â??Natural revelationâ? is generally reserved for what one can discern about God via His creation (see Rom. 1:20). As for â??supernatural revelationâ?, I have found it useful to sub-divide this category into: public, private, and official. Public = Sacred Scripture; private = to the individual; and official = the guidance given to Church in itâ??s official capacity (i.e. Ecumenical Councils and ex cathedra promulgations).

I think those divisions work well. I am also quite aware of the fact that â??natural revelationâ? when used by anyone but me means something different.

I am trying to communicate that â??official Revelationâ? appears differently in its reception.

I make a distinctions between:

Public Revelation â?? for more than just the individually and in its most important manifestation for the entire church / entire world.

Private Revelation â?? for the individual to guide them in their walk with God.

I think the above distinction is well accepted within Catholicism and (though the terms are not used) Mormonism too.

Now, by natural vs. supernatural I am trying to make this distinction.

Your Public and Private Revelation in there most REPORTED and most bold forms involve supernatural contact with humans. Visions and voices and â??being taken up to heavenâ? and â?¦ accompany Public and Private Revelation making them supernatural revelation in my categorizing.

The â??official revelationâ? you speak of comes in a far more natural way. Councils debate an issue. They consult scripture and earlier writings. They come to a consensus that is not usually described as miraculously unanimous due to divine revelation. Instead, from a Catholic POV it appears to be good and spiritual men with apostolic authority coming to the solution that they come to. As a Catholic, I would suggest that this solution is not MERELY human weighing of the evidence. Too frequently the solution has IMO not been the most clear read of the preceding historical data (as we possess said data today of course). If all of these decisions were perfect, then clearly God was involved. To be Catholic is to believe that these debates, exhortations, and even excommunications of dissenters PERFECTLY defined truth. For that to be true, God must be involved. (This IMO is a HUGE blow to conservative Protestantism).

So, I am at a loss as to how to describe â??natural revelationâ? in contrast to â??supernatural revelationâ? without using the already claimed term â??natural revelation.â?

I should also note that most of my private revelation is more natural than supernatural. And I assume much of the revelation claimed today by LDS is natural. However, I do understand that within the Twelve and First Presidency they claim that after natural revelation guides them in discussion/debate, they have a â??miraculously unanimousâ? convergence â??due to divine revelation.â?

Perhaps â??dialectic revelation?â?

Me: IMHO Dunnâ??s fundamental working premise is unproven (i.e. unresolved conflict between the Twelve and their Jewish disciples, with Paul and the Gentile disciples).

I am just beginning Dunnâ??s book. I was more thinking it would be about Covenental Nomism vs. unadorned â??faith alone.â? But, it does seem that some of Dunnâ??s ideas hang upon the motivation associated with Paulâ??s conflict with Judaizers. I suspect there are other NPP folks that do not require quite as much to be hung upon HUGE conflict.

I would say that â??unresolvedâ? is certainly â??unproven,â? but conflict is present. The resolution of said conflict within the Bible is present in some instances, but I do not think the Bible offers evidence of a complete resolution. The Council of Jerusalem solved some of these issues, but it seems that Paul continued to believe that serious problems remained (circumcision seems to be solved, but table fellowship for example). I do not see evidence in the Bible that Paul was at some point satisfied that these problems had been satisfactorily addressed. The best evidence (that I see) that they were is that ultimately there was one church, but this one church emerged out of a great deal of silence concerning these issues and Peter and Paulâ??s conflict.

Have I missed anything?

Charity, TOm

[David Waltz]

Hi Tom,

You posted:

>>I would say that â??unresolvedâ? is certainly â??unproven,â? but conflict is present. The resolution of said conflict within the Bible is present in some instances, but I do not think the Bible offers evidence of a complete resolution. The Council of Jerusalem solved some of these issues, but it seems that Paul continued to believe that serious problems remained (circumcision seems to be solved, but table fellowship for example). I do not see evidence in the Bible that Paul was at some point satisfied that these problems had been satisfactorily addressed. The best evidence (that I see) that they were is that ultimately there was one church, but this one church emerged out of a great deal of silence concerning these issues and Peter and Paulâ??s conflict.

Have I missed anything?>>

Me: You never miss much Tom, you reflect a very balanced viewâ??kinda reminds me so someone elseâ?¦

The BoM states that there, â??must be oppositionâ?, and with this I concur. We should not expect to find complete unity in the NT, nor in the subsequent ageâ??the point I am trying to make is that even with the all too apparent diversity, there still exists a unity. IMHO, the same can/must be said of of 21st century Catholicism, but also of 21st century Mormonism.

Grace and peace,

David

[3DOP]

John Larsen

Where does it say that Apostles had to continue for the Church to remain Christ's Church? CFR.

cdowis

Will be happy to oblige.

Eph 4 [11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

[12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

[13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

[14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Pretty clear to me that we not yet "in the unity of the faith", and we are still "tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine".

John Larsen

Reasonable people may interpret that scripture different than you do. In fact, most people do.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This John, reflects my biggest problem in popular LDS polemics against my faith. They are too confident that the Scriptures reasonably teach LDS doctrine and LDS doctrine only. My position as a Catholic is that the Scriptures can be plausibly interpreted so as to support many doctrines that are in conflict with the Catholic faith. I certainly acknowledge that the passage in Eph. 4 that cdowis cited can be understood in the way he thinks it means. It is a possible correct interpretation. A Catholic would suggest that the Apostolic works, the faith with which they left us continues to operate in protecting the faithful from the "cunning craftiness" of those who would lead us astray.

It has been asserted on the other hand, that Catholics cannot point to a passage of Scripture that proves the Apostolic office was discontinued. Of course, the most certain proof that the office was supposed to end with those who had sojourned with Christ is found in the fact that the Apostles didn't have any urgency about ordaining replacements. By the way, there is little reason to assume this was a transferrable office as LDS seem to do. What evidence do Mormons offer to conclude that Christ's Apostles become such by any ritual ceremony? Mathias was chosen by lots and simply "numbered" among the eleven. St. Paul doesn't appeal to any ceremony, as he naturally would have if that is how he became an Apostle, when he justifies his authority to the Corinthians. No, he refers to having seen Christ, signs, wonders, and mighty deeds as evidence. Mormons offer a ceremony without the evidence St. Paul cites. Latter day Saints, in condemning us for not having apostles seldom seem to consider that if the office was supposed to continue, the only ones who could continue it, were the Apostles themselves! Catholics don't suppose that the Apostles were derelict.

I have brought this up before, and it will perhaps be pooh poohed again or ignored from the LDS side. If they respond, they are reduced to saying that the people were so evil that God told the Apostles to stop ordaining. It is at this point that they completely lose me. The post-apostolic era is a history of the miraculous conversion from paganism to Christianity of a pagan empire that persecuted the saints to the death in the most ghastly ways, and I am supposed to believe that God told the Apostles to stop ordaining because of the wickedness of the Church? Besides being an unjustified indictment against the earliest followers of the Apostles, and heroes themselves for Christ's kingdom, it promotes a myopic provincialism that would prompt someone to claim that the LDS are the most persecuted church on earth because a handful of disaffected Mormons and evangelicals disagree with them vocally or with hand painted signs.

3DOP

[3DOP]

Joseph Antley

In the first century, there were Apostles. After that, there were no Apostles.

3DOP

I don't consider this problematic. The Apostles ordained bishops, not apostles. Since you have a problem with that, whose fault would it have been?

Joseph Antley

In the first century, there was continuing revelation through authorized servants of God. After that, revelation ceased.

3DOP

Aside from Joseph Smith's translations of books from ancient times, has there been much continuing revelation in your church? I wonder if it could be fair to say that in the beginning of the Restoration, there was continuing revelation through one authorized servant of God for about 20 years until they came to Utah. After that revelation ceased. Wouldn't that be pretty fair to say? What do you have that comes after Joseph Smith, and what does Joseph Smith have that wasn't from nearly 2,000 years ago? It seems like if you are going to dismiss us out of hand because we claim that the coming of Christ is the climax and completion of the cycle of redemption and revelation history, then you ought to be able to produce something that is more contemporary than translations of some ancient plates and papyrus.

God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days hath spoken to us by his Son

---Heb. 1:1

Taken with the apostles clear historical mission of ordaining bishops as their successors rather than apostles, we think it is natural that now the Son of God has appeared, and Christ is revealed to man, we have our own mission and mandate laid out before us.

Joseph Antley

In the first century, doctrines were clarified by the voice of God. After that, doctrines were "clarified" by councils of men and written in creeds.

3DOP

Councils of men clarified the will of God in Acts 15. What is your point? Is it wrong to categorically tell what we believe in a creed?

Joseph Antley

In my opinion, the greatest evidence for a Great Apostasy is the fact that the Bible only includes writings up to the end of the first century A.D. God did not quit speaking 2,000 years ago; his works are endless and his words never cease.

3DOP

But what does your Bible contain that includes writings beyond the 4th Century AD? Your modern day prophets and apostles bare little resemblance to the biblical Apostles and not much resemblance to Joseph Smith. If these so-called apostles were healing people and foretelling the future they would give us something to think about. If they even resembled Joseph Smith, sharing heavenly visitations and meditations that are taken down as Holy Scripture, we would have to give pause for consideration. But I don't think Joseph Smith himself, or his followers in his lifetime would recognize the visionless, canonically mute Utah community which now claims him as their founder. If it is "the greatest evidence for a Great Apostasy that the Bible only includes writings up to the end of the first century", how much better off are you when about 99% of your own Scripture comes through the ministry of one man?

It is necessary, you say, to have apostles. But when they don't perform miracles and don't write Scripture, when they don't have the signs of an Apostle, when they send out young boys to do their jobs of taking the Gospel to the ends of the earth, when the only proof to be pointed to for their apostleship is a ritual ceremony, it is not difficult to reject their claims.

3DOP

[3DOP]

TOm, commenting on Dave's rejecttion of Dunn's premise, that there were unresolved conflicts in the early church

I would say that â??unresolvedâ? is certainly â??unproven,â? but conflict is present. The resolution of said conflict within the Bible is present in some instances, but I do not think the Bible offers evidence of a complete resolution. The Council of Jerusalem solved some of these issues, but it seems that Paul continued to believe that serious problems remained (circumcision seems to be solved, but table fellowship for example). I do not see evidence in the Bible that Paul was at some point satisfied that these problems had been satisfactorily addressed. The best evidence (that I see) that they were is that ultimately there was one church, but this one church emerged out of a great deal of silence concerning these issues and Peter and Paulâ??s conflict.

Have I missed anything?

3DOP

You refer to this supposed conflict between Peter and Paul:

But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

---Gal. 2:11-14

I guess the author of this book on Paul thinks St. Peter remained stedfast in his position against St. Paul? The Scripture says he was "fearing them of the circumcision". This implies an unhealthy respect of persons that was unbecoming of a Christian, much less the chief apostle. I could not entertain the idea that this was the beginning of a great feud between the apostle to the Gentiles and the apostle to the circumcision. I had supposed Peter was probably humbled and contrite about it. Clearly this practise in which Peter indulged did not take root in the Church and Paul's condemnation was accepted as warranted. Silence does not imply feuding, but resolution. When the neighbors next door are quiet for years on end do we assume they are fighting or getting along with each other? It seems reasonable to assume that no feud erupted.

3DOP