Scriptural Defense: Those Who Say Mormons Aren'T Christian

[Gervin]

You could also spell out "Mormons are not Christian" or "Knoweth the Mormon is the Apostate Christian" Clever? Waste of time.

[CV75]

Inasmuch as Christ “hath purchased with his own blood” all mankind, a subset being His worldwide Church, the congregations and flocks therein, and the individual members of those congregations and flocks, I think the apostasy in Acts 20:29 aptly applies to “all the flock” and the “church of God” on a massive scale.

[Darren10]

Waste of time.

Only for those with no sense of humor.

[Darren10]

SELF DELETED.

I reposted myself instead of editing myself.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Darren10

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

Before deciding whether an Apostasy happened or not, we need an accurate definition of what we mean by the Apostasy. But before we start, you need to be aware that the Mormons were not the first came up with the idea of the Apostasy. The Protestants recognized it first. But they had a very distorted and false picture of it. To them the Catholic Church was the Apostasy. They called the Pope the Antichrist, and said the Catholic Church had turned the "bride of Christ" into the "whore of Babylon"! That is Protestantism--of which you are a part!

You've already confused the issue. Protestants did not come up with the term, or the idea, of apostasy in the church. The idea is already present in the New Testament warnings about Christians falling away. Protestant leaders who described the Pope as the Antichrist or the Catholic Church in the ways you mention had some grounds for their criticisms, but most Protestants today (including myself) regard those criticisms as overstated. You are correct, though, in saying that the definition of apostasy is a critical issue.

You wrote:

Our doctrine of the Apostasy is something very different. We define the Apostasy as the loss of the Apostolic and priesthood keys of the Church.... Apostasy does not mean that every Christian on earth lost his faith, became wicked, and stopped being Christian. It means that the priesthood and Apostolic authority of the Church was lost.

I've been expecting this line of argument. Your use of the passive here, "the loss of" and "was lost," leaves unanswered how these things were lost and more importantly who caused them to be "lost." If there were faithful Christians who had not lost their faith or become wicked, how did apostolic authority and the priesthood keys get lost? The standard LDS answer: God removed them from the earth. No other answer is possible, because as long as there were genuine Christians on the earth who loved God and were willing to follow his commandments there would be no reason humanly speaking why the church could not continue to exist. God could have kept the church going by calling some of those faithful Christians to be apostles and to maintain the priesthood in the church. But apparently, according to LDS doctrine, God chose not to do so.

This leads to the peculiar conclusion that the Great Apostasy occurred, not because savage wolves were "not sparing the flock," but because God did not spare the flock!

The rest of your post argues for your belief that the church needs living apostles, an issue perhaps best discussed separately. You are incorrect, however, in claiming that Protestants reject any need for apostolic authority, priesthood keys, or the sacraments (this last is an especially egregious misrepresentation). Protestants understand these things differently than you do. We see the apostolic authority of the church as the authority of the teaching of the apostles preserved in the New Testament. We see Jesus Christ as the living Head of the church who Himself holds priesthood authority (Heb. 5-8 ). And we view the proper implementation of the sacraments (baptism and the Lord's Supper) as regular functions of the church.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[CV75]

Protestants understand these things differently than you do. We see the apostolic authority of the church as the authority of the teaching of the apostles preserved in the New Testament. We see Jesus Christ as the living Head of the church who Himself holds priesthood authority (Heb. 5-8 ). And we view the proper implementation of the sacraments (baptism and the Lord's Supper) as regular functions of the church.

I understand this viewpoint to be that apostolic authority is authority that people grant the Biblical teachings by way of belief or faith. They allow the teaching to rule them. This is similar to “common consent” or “sustaining” living oracles in the LDS Church where in addition to this, apostolic authority is authority that people grant their leaders by way of belief or faith, and allow them to lead.

There is still a Higher Authority that endows both the teachings of the apostles (profitable for doctrine and instruction of the earth’s inhabitants) and the apostles themselves (for delivering the covenants, ordinances, sacraments, etc. to the inhabitants of the earth.) with priesthood authority.

I see a distinction between an inherent authority that is self-evident in true teachings (whatever the medium; the ultimate source is always God) that seekers of truth recognize and the priesthood authority that is individually bestowed upon God’s servants that may or may not be recognized by seekers of truth. The most essential of the first kind is fortunately presented on paper through scripture that is written or spoken by prophets, seers and revelators, and the second gives the prophets, seers and revelators the authority to do that in the first place, and also operating and performing other functions within a formal church structure. In both cases the apostolic authority comes from Jesus Christ, but scripture is only one authoritative fruit of the labor of His apostles. Without the apostles, no one could be baptized or partake of the Lord’s Supper with the necessary binding power between earth and heaven.

Of course these viewpoints among believers go beyond competing scholarly approaches to understanding ancient text, as some believers are scholars and some are not; some believers are led by scholars and some are not; and some believers are led by living apostles and some are not. Some believers are even living apostles!

[Darren10]

Rob Bowman;

I've been expecting this line of argument. Your use of the passive here, "the loss of" and "was lost," leaves unanswered how these things were lost and more importantly who caused them to be "lost." If there were faithful Christians who had not lost their faith or become wicked, how did apostolic authority and the priesthood keys get lost? The standard LDS answer: God removed them from the earth. No other answer is possible, because as long as there were genuine Christians on the earth who loved God and were willing to follow his commandments there would be no reason humanly speaking why the church could not continue to exist.

I believe Zerinus asnwered this for you. He said:

(1) The council of the Twelve Apostles were meant to be perpetuated in the Church. We know this because whenever a member of the council died, someone else was ordained to succeed him. Matthias was chosen to succeed Judas, and Paul was most likely ordained to succeed James, who had been beheaded by Herod. (2) The Twelve Apostles formed the governing council of the Church. Again we know this from Church history. When a serious doctrinal or procedural issue arose in the Church, it was taken before that council to be resolved, as was the case with the circumcision issue for example. And (3) The council of the Twelve Apostles was not perpetuated. That is what we call the Apostasy. The priesthood keys of the Church were lost.

You also said:

because as long as there were genuine Christians on the earth who loved God and were willing to follow his commandments there would be no reason humanly speaking why the church could not continue to exist

But who has the authority to govern God's church in its entirety? Do you have this authority?

God could have kept the church going by calling some of those faithful Christians to be apostles and to maintain the priesthood in the church. But apparently, according to LDS doctrine, God chose not to do so.

That's not exclusively LDS dcotrine. Who got this authority after the original Twelve Apostles (+ one replacement)? According to the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the Bishop or Rome did. According to LDS, nobody did for there were no more Twelve Apostles. I highly doubt you recognize the papal authority of the Catholic Church and thus, in your own way, behold a doctrine of apostasy.

Now, anyone who steps forwards and testifies of Chirist is an "apostle" but the apostles here are those who were blessed to witness of Christ first hand in special ways who are apostles known as "special witnesses". Who were these people after the original Twelve? This is where the authority to govern Christ's church ceased.

This leads to the peculiar conclusion that the Great Apostasy occurred, not because savage wolves were "not sparing the flock," but because God did not spare the flock!

For whatever particular reason, God deemed man unworthy to have His authority or to use His authority for a time. It was due to man's unworthiness/wickedness which God determined his authority rescinded from man.

We see the apostolic authority of the church as the authority of the teaching of the apostles preserved in the New Testament. We see Jesus Christ as the living Head of the church who Himself holds priesthood authority (Heb. 5-8 ). And we view the proper implementation of the sacraments (baptism and the Lord's Supper) as regular functions of the church.

My understanding is that even here Protestants view how these implementations are to take place. It is my understanding also that Protestants believe that one believe in Christ adthat faith in Christ and the teachngs of Christ as found in the Bible is the maner which God's authority is given to man. In this case, "belivieving Christians". The Roman Catholic Church believes their authority is more linear and can trace it back to the apostles who received it directly from Christ. I find this belief much stronger and convincing howbeit I believe that the authority ceased, not continued.

As I posted before, it's not like everything ofthe Christian Church disappeared but essential aspects did. Authority to govern the Church in its entirety was lost. Doctrines such as baptism for the dead and living revelation were quickly if not immediately lost in the Church. Said auithrotiy and said doctrines have been restored in our modern times. The manner of authority restoratin was particuarly dramatic:

68 We still continued the work of translation, when, in the ensuing month (May, 1829), we on a certain day went into the woods to pray and inquire of the Lord respecting ^abaptism for the ^bremission of sins, that we found mentioned in the translation of the plates. While we were thus employed, praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from heaven descended in a ^ccloud of light, and having laid his ^dhands upon us, he ^eordained us, saying:

69 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the ^aPriesthood of ^bAaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of ^cbaptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of ^dLevi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in ^erighteousness.

70 He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me.

71 Accordingly we went and were baptized. I ^abaptized him first, and afterwards he baptized me—after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic Priesthood, and afterwards he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same Priesthood—for so we were commanded.*

72 The ^amessenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this Priesthood upon us, said that his name was John, the same that is called ^bJohn the Baptist in the New Testament, and that he acted under the direction of ^cPeter, James and John, who held the keys of the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which Priesthood, he said, would in due time be conferred on us, and that I should be called the first ^dElder of the Church, and he (Oliver Cowdery) the second. It was on the fifteenth day of May, 1829, that we were ordained under the hand of this messenger, and baptized.

(Joseph Smith History 1)

[zerinus]

You've already confused the issue. Protestants did not come up with the term, or the idea, of apostasy in the church. The idea is already present in the New Testament warnings about Christians falling away.

That is not really true. They came up with the idea and term of the apostasy. They said that the whole of Christianity en masse (as represented by the Catholic Church) had gone apostate. If you believe that the New Testament teaches a complete apostasy of Christendom, what are we arguing about?

Protestant leaders who described the Pope as the Antichrist or the Catholic Church in the ways you mention had some grounds for their criticisms, but most Protestants today (including myself) regard those criticisms as overstated.

Then you are basically questioning the foundation of the Reformation. It was based on the idea that the Catholic Church was no longer God’s real Church on earth. It had transformed itself into the whore of Babylon. It either had or hadn’t. You can’t have it half and half.

I've been expecting this line of argument. Your use of the passive here, "the loss of" and "was lost," leaves unanswered how these things were lost and more importantly who caused them to be "lost." If there were faithful Christians who had not lost their faith or become wicked, how did apostolic authority and the priesthood keys get lost? The standard LDS answer: God removed them from the earth. No other answer is possible, because as long as there were genuine Christians on the earth who loved God and were willing to follow his commandments there would be no reason humanly speaking why the church could not continue to exist. God could have kept the church going by calling some of those faithful Christians to be apostles and to maintain the priesthood in the church. But apparently, according to LDS doctrine, God chose not to do so.

That is not a valid argument at all. The institution of the Twelve Apostles, holding the keys of the kingdom on the earth, had to be taken away because of the pervasiveness of the Apostasy—especially at the leadership levels. They had basically rejected the Apostles, and usurped the authority over the Church. This is made clear in the scriptures. For example Paul writes:

2 Timothy 1:

15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; . . .

Asia means Asia Minor, which is all the area where He had been doing his teaching and preaching. All of those “churches” that Paul wrote his epistles to (except Rome) were in Asia Minor. And if they had turned against him, that means they had turned against all the Apostles. So how could the Apostles lead and direct a Church which had rejected the Apostles? Here is another example:

Acts 20:

28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

This was said by Paul to people who had been made “overseers” over the Church of God. In other words, they were the leadership of the Church. They were bishops, and evangelists, and pastors, and whatever you want to call them. What he is saying is that the apostasy will take place form their own ranks—not just the lay membership. So if the leadership had apostatized, and taken the “flock” with them away from the Apostles, who are the Apostles going to rule over?

This leads to the peculiar conclusion that the Great Apostasy occurred, not because savage wolves were "not sparing the flock," but because God did not spare the flock!

Not at all. The wolves had taken themselves and the flock away from the Apostles, so the Apostles had no church to rule over.

The rest of your post argues for your belief that the church needs living apostles, an issue perhaps best discussed separately. You are incorrect, however, in claiming that Protestants reject any need for apostolic authority, priesthood keys, or the sacraments (this last is an especially egregious misrepresentation). Protestants understand these things differently than you do. We see the apostolic authority of the church as the authority of the teaching of the apostles preserved in the New Testament. We see Jesus Christ as the living Head of the church who Himself holds priesthood authority (Heb. 5-8 ). And we view the proper implementation of the sacraments (baptism and the Lord's Supper) as regular functions of the church.

They rejected the concept of the transmission of priesthood authority from one authorized representative to another. Instead they replaced it with the concept of the “priesthood of all the believers,” or the “priesthood of all the baptized”. That is not the concept of the priesthood that is taught in the New Testament, which teaches that “no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron” (Hebrews 5:4).

Edited May 31, 2012 by zerinus

[Vance]

If there were faithful Christians who had not lost their faith or become wicked, . . .

If they lost their faith or become wicked, then they aren't "faithful Christians".

. . .how did apostolic authority and the priesthood keys get lost? The standard LDS answer: God removed them from the earth.

God doesn't force people to be righteous and accept Him. It is against His nature. When the people rejected both the teachings of the Apostles and the Apostles themselves, the authority was taken from among them. So it is the people that caused the loss, not God.

No other answer is possible, . . .

Sure there is, see above.

. . . because as long as there were genuine Christians on the earth who loved God and were willing to follow his commandments there would be no reason humanly speaking why the church could not continue to exist.

And when there were no more "genuine Christians" for the true doctrine and authority to be passed on to, then the true doctrine and authority was lost to the world.

God could have kept the church going by calling some of those faithful Christians to be apostles and to maintain the priesthood in the church.

True, If and only if they were available. They were not.

But apparently, according to LDS doctrine, God chose not to do so.

There you go again, using false logic to get to your false representation of "LDS doctrine". God doesn't force people to be good. He calls, invites, encourages, and exhorts, but He NEVER forces people to do His will. The loss of true authority and doctrine was the result of the people rejecting it. They are to blame for its loss, not God.

This leads to the peculiar conclusion that the Great Apostasy occurred, not because savage wolves were "not sparing the flock," but because God did not spare the flock!

Another false conclusion based on faulty logic and premises. God allowing something to happen is not the same as God causing something to happen. Able was murdered. Did God cause that too? Or did He allow it? Does God cause wickedness or does He allow it?

Edited May 31, 2012 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Darren,

You wrote:

I believe Zerinus asnwered this for you.

I don't see an "answer" there in what you quoted from Zerinus. Here is the issue that I raised: how did apostolic and priesthood authority get "lost" and who is responsible for them being lost? In the paragraph you quoted, Zerinus argued that the council of the twelve apostles was "meant to be perpetuated" but that it "was not perpetuated." There's that passive again. Who meant it to be perpetuated? Presumably, God. Why was it not perpetuated, and who was responsible for it not being perpetuated? Zerinus didn't say.

You asked:

But who has the authority to govern God's church in its entirety? Do you have this authority?

No, I don't. Neither does any man living on earth. Jesus Christ alone is the head of the church (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col. 1:18; 2:10, 19). He alone governs his church in its entirety.

You wrote:

That's not exclusively LDS dcotrine. Who got this authority after the original Twelve Apostles (+ one replacement)? According to the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the Bishop or Rome did.

Sort of, but not exactly. Catholics do not view the Pope as an apostle, at least not in the same sense as the NT apostles. They do, however, in some sense see him as Peter's successor. In this, I humbly disagree with Catholics.

You wrote:

According to LDS, nobody did for there were no more Twelve Apostles. I highly doubt you recognize the papal authority of the Catholic Church and thus, in your own way, behold a doctrine of apostasy.

Let's not equivocate. I do hold to a doctrine of apostasy. The Bible does speak of "falling away." However, I do not hold to a restorationist doctrine of apostasy that claims that the church ceased to exist for centuries and needed to be restored de novo.

You wrote:

Now, anyone who steps forwards and testifies of Chirist is an "apostle" but the apostles here are those who were blessed to witness of Christ first hand in special ways who are apostles known as "special witnesses". Who were these people after the original Twelve? This is where the authority to govern Christ's church ceased.

I understand this to be the LDS doctrine, but it still doesn't address my point. Why didn't Christ appoint more people as apostles after the twelve began dying off? There were faithful Christians around who would have been honored and pleased to serve in that way, if the Lord had called them to it. But he didn't. Why not?

You gave something of an answer when you wrote:

For whatever particular reason, God deemed man unworthy to have His authority or to use His authority for a time. It was due to man's unworthiness/wickedness which God determined his authority rescinded from man.

This is not a credible explanation. During the first three centuries AD, the church grew by millions despite intense periods of persecution. Many thousands of men joyfully went to their deaths praising Jesus Christ and thanking God for the honor of dying for his name. The church spread the gospel in a dark, pagan culture, bringing the light of truth to millions. Christians during these centuries were renowned for their charity, their moral character, and their testimony to Jesus Christ. It makes no sense to claim that God withdrew the priesthood and the apostolate during these centuries because of the unworthiness of the people. Those centuries were among the brightest in the church's history.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

When the people rejected both the teachings of the Apostles and the Apostles themselves, the authority was taken from among them. So it is the people that caused the loss, not God....

And when there were no more "genuine Christians" for the true doctrine and authority to be passed on to, then the true doctrine and authority was lost to the world....

True, If and only if they {faithful Christians} were available. They were not.

See my response to Darren for why this is not a credible explanation. At least you are biting the bullet and stating categorically that there were no faithful Christians (apparently from the early second century until the early nineteenth century!) whom God could call to serve as apostles. That's nonsense, but at least it's consistent nonsense.

[Rob Bowman]

Zerinus,

You wrote:

That is not really true. They came up with the idea and term of the apostasy. They said that the whole of Christianity en masse (as represented by the Catholic Church) had gone apostate. If you believe that the New Testament teaches a complete apostasy of Christendom, what are we arguing about?

I've already been quite clear on this point. The NT does not teach a complete apostasy. It does not teach that the church ceased to exist. But there are other concepts of apostasy beside that extreme restorationist concept.

You wrote:

That is not a valid argument at all. The institution of the Twelve Apostles, holding the keys of the kingdom on the earth, had to be taken away because of the pervasiveness of the Apostasy—especially at the leadership levels. They had basically rejected the Apostles, and usurped the authority over the Church. This is made clear in the scriptures. For example Paul writes:

2 Timothy 1:

15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; . . .

Asia means Asia Minor, which is all the area where He had been doing his teaching and preaching. All of those “churches” that Paul wrote his epistles to (except Rome) were in Asia Minor. And if they had turned against him, that means they had turned against all the Apostles. So how could the Apostles lead and direct a Church which had rejected the Apostles?

The very passage you cite contradicts the claim of a total apostasy, since Paul immediately goes on to speak of Christians who faithfully supported Paul (2 Tim. 1:16-18). Timothy himself, of course, also supported Paul. Paul mentions other supporters at the end of the epistle (2 Tim. 4:11-12, 19-20).

You went on to cite Acts 20:29, but I have already thoroughly demonstrated from the context and language of the passage that this verse does not teach or imply a total apostasy.

You seem to take the same position as Vance, that there were no faithful Christians in the world soon after the death of the NT apostles. See my brief comments on this idea in my reply to Darren. It is not a credible claim.

[ncfarmerjoe]

if a child born of 2 parents is taught that a apple is truly an apple as we know it. then the child's Father dies.......the child's Mother remarries, and the child's Step Father teaches him that actually he was taught wrongly, than what he was taught as being an apple is actually a orange from this day forward, and the child accepts that as the truth?

that child will have a hard time getting a job sorting apples in his future, or until he is corrected and the truth made known to him once again.

[Vance]

During the first three centuries AD, the church grew by millions despite intense periods of persecution. Many thousands of men joyfully went to their deaths praising Jesus Christ and thanking God for the honor of dying for his name. The church spread the gospel in a dark, pagan culture, bringing the light of truth to millions. Christians during these centuries were renowned for their charity, their moral character, and their testimony to Jesus Christ. It makes no sense to claim that God withdrew the priesthood and the apostolate during these centuries because of the unworthiness of the people. Those centuries were among the brightest in the church's history.

This is not a credible explanation. The faithful were murdered or driven into hiding. The apostate and wolves took over. The apostate "church" spread its false gospel and adopted and perpetuated a dark, pagan culture, bringing the darkness to millions. "Christians" during these centuries were renowned for their arguing, their immoral character, and their lip service to Jesus Christ. It makes no sense to claim that God did not withdraw the priesthood and the apostolate during these centuries because of the unworthiness of the people. Those centuries were among the darkest in the apostate church's history.

After all, look at the description of the first century membership.

John 6: 66 his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Acts 20: 29 shall grievous wolves enter in among you.

1 Cor. 11: 18 there be divisions among you.

Gal. 1: 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him.

Gal. 3: 1 who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey.

1 Tim. 1: 6 some having swerved have turned aside.

1 Tim. 4:1 giving heed to seducing spirits.

2 Tim. 1: 15 all they which are in Asia be turned away from me.

2 Tim. 2: 18 Who concerning the truth have erred.

2 Tim. 3: 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power.

2 Tim. 4: 4 turn away their ears from the truth . . . unto fables.

Titus 1: 16 profess that they know God, but in works they deny him.

James 4: 1 From whence came wars and fightings among you.

2 Pet. 2:1 false prophets also among the people.

2 Pet. 3: 17 being led away with the error of the wicked.

1 Jn. 2: 18 now are there many antichrists.

1 Jn. 4: 1 many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Jude 1: 4 certain men crept in . . . denying the only Lord God.

Rev. 2: 2 which say they are apostles, and are not.

Rev. 3: 16 thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot.

Rev. 13:7 to make war with the saints.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I'm sorry, but your response was not a serious attempt to deal with the facts. Your opening paragraph parroted mine in reverse without actually engaging the historical realities. Your list of verses from the NT ignores context and also ignores all contrary evidence of faithful believers -- a practice known as cherry-picking. Imagine if I were to go through D&C and extract all of the negative statements that Joseph Smith made about people in his church in his day. The resulting picture would be far darker still, but to use such an approach to argue for a total apostasy of the church would be just bad reasoning.

[Vance]

Vance,

I'm sorry, but your response was not a serious attempt to deal with the facts. Your opening paragraph parroted mine in reverse without actually engaging the historical realities. Your list of verses from the NT ignores context and also ignores all contrary evidence of faithful believers -- a practice known as cherry-picking. Imagine if I were to go through D&C and extract all of the negative statements that Joseph Smith made about people in his church in his day. The resulting picture would be far darker still, but to use such an approach to argue for a total apostasy of the church would be just bad reasoning.

I'm sorry, but your previous response was not a serious attempt to deal with the facts. Your paragraph didn't actually engage the historical realities but rather was simple assertion. You ignore the context of the verses on the list from the NT and also ignore all contrary evidence of unfaithful so-called "believers", and the introduction of obviously false doctrine -- a practice known as cherry-picking.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

For fun I will post something I collected along the way. From where I couldn't say for sure, but it is fun.

Roger Williams, pastor of the oldest Baptist Church in America at Providence, Rhode Island, refused to continue as pastor on the grounds that

There is no regularly-constituted church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any Church ordinance: nor can there be, until new apostles are sent by the great Head of the Church, for whose coming I am seeking. (William Cullen Bryant (editor), Picturesque America, or the Land We Live In (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1872), 1:502.)

Williams also said,

"The apostasy... hath so far corrupted all, that there can be no recovery out of that apostasy until Christ shall send forth new apostles to plant churches anew." (Edward Underhill, "Struggles and Triumphs of Religious Liberty", cited in William F. Anderson, "Apostasy or Succession, Which?," 238–239.)

In a work prepared by seventy-three noted theologians and Bible students, we read:

...we must not expect to see the Church of Holy Scripture actually existing in its perfection on the earth. It is not to be found, thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom, or still less in any one of these fragments.... (Dr. William Smith, Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1896).)

Dr. Harry Emerson Fos****, prominent American Baptist clergyman and author, described the condition of the Christian churches of the first half of the twentieth century in these words:

A religious reformation is afoot, and at heart it is the endeavor to recover for our modern life the religion of Jesus as against the vast, intricate, largely inadequate and often positively false religion about Jesus. Christianity today has largely left the religion which he preached, taught and lived, and has substituted another kind of religion altogether. If Jesus should come back to now, hear the mythologies built up around him, see the creedalism, denominationalism, sacramentalism, carried on in his name, he would certainly say, 'If this is Christianity, I am not a Christian.' (Fos**** cited in Daniel H. Williams, “The Corruption of the Church and its Tradition”, in Williams, Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism (Eerdmans, 1999): 101–131.)

This broad selection of quotations provides clear support for the idea that the doctrines and practice of the Early Church of the apostles had been altered dramatically within a few centuries at most:

• Will Durant, "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated [new] life in the theology and liturgy of the Church." (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Volume 3: Caesar and Christ, (1944), 595.)
  

• Stuart Hall: “Fourth century orthodoxy is not the same as what Peter and Paul believed, any more than modern Roman Catholicism or Anglicanism is..." (Thomas Jefferson, cited in Norman Cousins, In God We Trust (Harper & Brothers, 1958), 162.)
  

• Thomas Jefferson, though surely not a cleric, was a great student of Christianity. Even he acknowledged the loss of the original gospel and said that he looked forward to "the prospect of a restoration of primitive Christianity. I must leave to younger athletes to encounter and lop off the false branches which have been engrafted into it by the mythologies of the middle and modern ages" (Stuart Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church, (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; New edition, 2005), 36. ISBN 0281055092. ISBN 978-0281055098.)
  

• Philip Smith: "The sad truth is that as soon as Christianity was generally diffused, it began to absorb corruptions from all the lands in which it was planted, and to reflect the complexion of all their systems of religion and philosophy.” (Phillip Smith, History of the Christian Church during the first ten centuries (Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007[1886]), 1:49. ISBN 1430455985. ISBN 978-1430455981.)
  

• J.W.C. Wand (former Anglican Bishop of London) “[t]he new Christian church was frankly national. The people were converted en bloc; the temples were turned into churches and the priests were ordained into the Christian ministry.”(J.W.C. Wand, A History of the Early Church to A.D. 500 (Methuen & Co Ltd, 1945), 244.)
  

• Robert Wilken, professor of the history of Christianity at the University of Virginia, wrote “only a few enterprising intellectuals, and only after more than one hundred years of Christian history, had begun to take the risk of expressing Christian beliefs within the philosophical ideas current in the Greco Roman world. Most Christians were against to such attempts. As late as the third century, after the apologetic movement had introduced Greek ideas into Christian thinking, Christian preachers complained that the rank and file opposed such ideas.”(Robert Louis Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (Yale University Press, 2003), 79. ISBN 0300098391. ISBN 978-0300098396.)
  

Martin Luther - Reformer - Who also wanted to remove the Book of James from the Bible - who would not have been considered Traditional Christian according to some peoples current assessment due to one of the core fundamental beliefs of "Biblical inerrancy."

"I simply say that Christianity has ceased to exist among those who should have preserved it"

[ Tyler, John Murray. Martin Luther, a Biographical Study (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1964).]

You may have heard of John Wesley founder of the Methodist movement

It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the Church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian. . . . From this time they almost totally ceased. . . . The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathans. . . . This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church; because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form Left."

{ Wesley, John. The Works of John Wesley, vol. 7 (London: Wesleyan Conference, 1872).}

[Darren10]

Darren,

I don't see an "answer" there in what you quoted from Zerinus. Here is the issue that I raised: how did apostolic and priesthood authority get "lost" and who is responsible for them being lost? In the paragraph you quoted, Zerinus argued that the council of the twelve apostles was "meant to be perpetuated" but that it "was not perpetuated." There's that passive again. Who meant it to be perpetuated? Presumably, God. Why was it not perpetuated, and who was responsible for it not being perpetuated? Zerinus didn't say.

With the death odf the apostles and no new replacemets is *why* and *how* the authority was lost. *Why* God allowed this to happen was from rejection of His word.

No, I don't. Neither does any man living on earth. Jesus Christ alone is the head of the church (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col. 1:18; 2:10, 19). He alone governs his church in its entirety.

Absolutely Jesus is the head of His Church. But from prophets to apostles, He has *always* followed the pattern of delegating responsibilities to man. Man may not take upon himself the responsibility of governing His church but this responsibility must be given by authority.

From Mathew 16:18 we read:

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Despite what other curches may say, "this rock" seems to clearly mean revelation. Revelation is key to governing Christ's Church. Why so if "He alone" governs His Church? Why would His Apostles go forth and preach in His name if they had no authority to do so?

It also requires keys:

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

(Mathew 16:19)

Why give keys if Jesus alone has these keys? And note the direct connection of these keys to do things on earth with what is done in heaven. That's power. This power the apostled received from Jesus. It makes little to no sense tha Jesus would confer upon tem such power if Jesus alone possesses this power?

Eph 1:22 - I agree completely. Jesus is head of al things.

Eph 4:15 - I agree completely. Jesus is the head and all things are to grow up unto Him. His authority is to serve Him.

Eph 5:23 - I agree completely. christ is the head of His church. "the church". His Church is caled The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Col 1:18 - I agree completely. Jesus is the head of "the church", the firstborn, the beginning, and that in Him all things "have preeminance".

Col 2:10, 19 - I agree compleyelt. I Christ we are complete and he is "the head of all principality and power:" The LDS sng "Prasie to the man who communed with Jehovah! Jesus annointed that prophet and seer." Praise to the Man. Also, Jesus is the Head in which to be nourished "knitted" together, and in whome to increase.

Sort of, but not exactly. Catholics do not view the Pope as an apostle, at least not in the same sense as the NT apostles. They do, however, in some sense see him as Peter's successor. In this, I humbly disagree with Catholics.

We agree on papal authority. But they absolutely do lay claim of having a direct, linear, line of authority from Jesus to the Apostles, to the popes. The LDS agree except that the authority ceased with the apostles and restored to Joseph and today this same authority is held by living prophets and apostles. The exact same type which lived in times of old.

Let's not equivocate. I do hold to a doctrine of apostasy. The Bible does speak of "falling away." However, I do not hold to a restorationist doctrine of apostasy that claims that the church ceased to exist for centuries and needed to be restored de novo

As I posted previously, there was a need for a "restitution" of "all things".

Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

(Acts 3:21)

Why a need for a"restitution of all things", and implicitly from heaven, if nothing was corrupted? I do not interpret a "complete apostasy" as "everything" in Christianity having gone astray. I interpret it as some of the essential sortiological doctrines and truths to have been gone, lost, and/or corrupted. The "Holy Trinity" is blatantly in this category. It is not biblical nor doctrinal. It's philosophical yet it has become the center of tratitional Christianity. Living revelation, as taught to Peter, is also essential yet by and large rejected by Christianity when viewed as something "extra biblical". Nowhere does the Bible close itself so this interpretation is by man and ironically it is extra biblical to declare a closed cannon of God's word. Sola scritura is not biblical doctrine. The priesthood authority is another essential element to man's salvation. Without it, saving ordinances are not authorized and thus hold no eternal affect. Doctrines such as baptism for the dead which was practiced by the Corinthians, was quickly lost during the Great Apostasy. So, while great things survived, such as the Bible, too much has been altered, corrupted, and/or lost to an for his coming unto Christ and receive His grace unto salvation.

.

I understand this to be the LDS doctrine, but it still doesn't address my point. Why didn't Christ appoint more people as apostles after the twelve began dying off? There were faithful Christians around who would have been honored and pleased to serve in that way, if the Lord had called them to it. But he didn't. Why not?

The Apostles were mostly killed off and I think that alone stands as a witness that the world was not willing to accept them. This plus the alterations of doctrines is more than enough evidence I need to accept the reality of the Great Apostasy as having ocurred. Mostly though I have the Spriit to confirm that it is true and that Joseph Smith was God's true prophet to restore eternal truths such as revelation, priesthood authority, the true nature of the Father and the Son, of baptism for all, eternal marriage (yes, I'm aware of the Sanhedrin tying to trick up the Savior and what Jesus taught them in response), etc. Furthermore, I know the Book of Mormon is true and testifies of the divinity of Christ with the utmost clarity. These truths restored are evidence of truths lost.

This is not a credible explanation. During the first three centuries AD, the church grew by millions despite intense periods of persecution. Many thousands of men joyfully went to their deaths praising Jesus Christ and thanking God for the honor of dying for his name. The church spread the gospel in a dark, pagan culture, bringing the light of truth to millions. Christians during these centuries were renowned for their charity, their moral character, and their testimony to Jesus Christ. It makes no sense to claim that God withdrew the priesthood and the apostolate during these centuries because of the unworthiness of the people. Those centuries were among the brightest in the church's history.

I do not disparage *at all* the valiance of many of the early Christian faith. But by that time their gospel was not the gospel taught in the New Testament. The NT does not mention "trinity" yet Tertullian (though of a much different perspectve than what is thought of today) did and so as well as subesquent patristic Christians.

Let me also note from Mormon apologist Jeff Lindsey who points out that Origen condemned anthropormorphism in God the Father because it ran contrary to that of the philosophers:

"Whatever attributes therefore you require as worthy of God, must be found in the Father, who is invisible and unapproachable, and placid, and (so to speak) the God of the philosophers; whereas those qualities which you censure as unworthy must be supposed to be in the Son..." (Against Marcion, 2:27, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 3:319). (emphasis mine)

http://www.jefflinds...ess.shtml#early

He presents this after demonstrating Ignatius' condemnation of philosophy introducing God as an "unknown" or "unapproachable" God.

"They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power."

and

And the Lord says, "This is life eternal, to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent." And again, "A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Do ye, therefore, notice those who preach other doctrines, how they affirm that the Father of Christ cannot be known, and how they exhibit enmity and deceit in their dealings with one another. They have no regard for love; they despise the good things we expect hereafter; they regard present things as if they were durable; they ridicule him that is in affliction; they laugh at him that is in bonds.

http://www.jefflinds...ess.shtml#early

The God of ancient Isreal was very much anthropomorphic (though I prefer theterm "theopomorphic" since it is we who are made in the image of God, not vice-versa) and Mormonism, more than any other theology adhires to this teaching:

In the present paper Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier argues that the biblical and the Mormon understanding of God are indistinguishable. His paper addresses the related question of why this view has fared so poorly in official Christendom, and the philosophical and historical confusions which, on his view, immunize many theologians from considering it. Cherbonnier touches only briefly on the issue which is both the most vital

http://www.philosoph...nnier/index.htm

Edited May 31, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Vance #64;

Yes, sir. The apostasy was already kicking in even in the day of the original 12 Apostles.

[thesometimesaint]

My belief it was all over except for the shouting no later than 120 CE.

[Gervin]

This is not a credible explanation. The faithful were murdered or driven into hiding. The apostate and wolves took over. The apostate "church" spread its false gospel and adopted and perpetuated a dark, pagan culture, bringing the darkness to millions. "Christians" during these centuries were renowned for their arguing, their immoral character, and their lip service to Jesus Christ. It makes no sense to claim that God did not withdraw the priesthood and the apostolate during these centuries because of the unworthiness of the people. Those centuries were among the darkest in the apostate church's history.

What is your reference for stating that the first 3 centuries were among the darkest in the church's history?

Many scholars identify this time as a profound and explosive time in the history of the church. Here's two of them:

Now we have increasingly in the Christian churches, in the time up to Constantine, the establishment of hospitals, of some kind of health service, we have a clear establishment of social service - everything from soup kitchens to money for the poor if they need it. We have the very important establishment of the institution of widows, because a widow in the Roman society who had lost her husband and did not have money of her own was at the very bottom of the social ladder. One of the first welfare institutions we find in the church was all the widows who were recognized as virgins of the church, considered particularly precious possessions of the church; they were paid by the church and therefore were rescued from utter poverty in most instances.

Christianity really established a realm of mutual social support for the members that joined the church. And I think that this was probably in the long run an enormously important factor for the success of the Christian mission.

-- Helmut Koester: John H. Morison Professor of New Testament Studies and Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History Harvard Divinity School

Given the intersection between religion and politics that we find so characteristically in the Hellenistic Roman world and especially within these major cities, it does seem incongruous that Christianity could have survived, much less have grown to be the prominent force that it would become by the early fourth century. But I think we can see several factors that contribute to that growth and development.

From a historical perspective, the growth of Christianity in the second and third centuries really is a phenomenon to be reckoned with, both socially and religiously. What made it grow? What made it succeed in ways that even other new religious groups of the time did not is a very important question. Now traditionally at least the answer to that question of why did Christianity triumph in the Roman world was answered very simply. It was God's will, of course, but I think we can probably find some other answers as well.

Now what are they offering? It's very simple. With new immigrant groups, all of them trying to find their way into Roman society -- to make it in the Roman world, to be a part of the mainstream, to march up the ladder of success -- belonging is one of the key issues, and what I think the Christians offer probably as well or better than anybody else in the Roman world is a sense of belonging. To be part of the Christian community... to be part of the church, is to belong to a society of closely knit friends, brothers and sisters and Christ, and it may be something as simple as that that spells the [basis] of the success of Christianity in the Roman world....

Christianity was beginning to grow in substantial ways by the late second and early third century precisely because it was responding to some basic, deeply felt human needs. It really was probably beginning to answer the questions that people were asking, and we can see that growth in a variety of ways. We have some indication of the basic growth of Christianity at this time, especially in the cities, in terms of the records of the city of Rome. In the year 251, right at the time of the persecution of Decius, we have a register of the church at Rome, which says that they had 46 presbyters and 56 exorcists and doorkeepers and a number of other people that they catalogued; seven of this and seven of that; quite a lot of people are in this catalog. And at the end, it says over 1,500 widows [and needy persons] on the roster of the church at Rome; that is, people, women who are being taken care of by the church. The church becomes, in a lot of ways, a new kind of social welfare agency in the Roman Empire. The leaders of the church are the patrons of society. By the end of the third century, Christian bishops in many places will have taken over the role of the old civic patrons that had led the processions at Ephesus, Corinth and Rome. They've made it into society.

-- L. Michael White: Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin

[Vance]

. . .

How is the spreading of the apostate church enlightening?

[Gervin]

How is the spreading of the apostate church enlightening?

I asked for a reference that the first 3 centuries were among the darkest in the church's history. If it's an LDS source or just your personal opinion, fine. I simply asked for a reference.

[zerinus]

No, I don't. Neither does any man living on earth. Jesus Christ alone is the head of the church (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col. 1:18; 2:10, 19). He alone governs his church in its entirety.

Yes, but He does so through human agents to whom He has given the “keys of the kingdom” (Matthew 16:19). Those “keys” were given to all the Apostles, not just to Peter (see John 20:23). Where those agents do not exist on earth to exercise those keys, then the Lord is not “governing” the Church.

Let's not equivocate. I do hold to a doctrine of apostasy. The Bible does speak of "falling away." However, I do not hold to a restorationist doctrine of apostasy that claims that the church ceased to exist for centuries and needed to be restored de novo.

The Church as a body of believers didn’t cease to exist. But the Church as a divine institution governed by revelation through the instrumentality of His own appointed agents in possession of the necessary “keys of the kingdom” did cease to exist. There is a subtle distinction between the two.

I understand this to be the LDS doctrine, but it still doesn't address my point. Why didn't Christ appoint more people as apostles after the twelve began dying off? There were faithful Christians around who would have been honored and pleased to serve in that way, if the Lord had called them to it. But he didn't. Why not?

For the reasons explained in my previous post.

This is not a credible explanation. During the first three centuries AD, the church grew by millions despite intense periods of persecution. Many thousands of men joyfully went to their deaths praising Jesus Christ and thanking God for the honor of dying for his name. The church spread the gospel in a dark, pagan culture, bringing the light of truth to millions. Christians during these centuries were renowned for their charity, their moral character, and their testimony to Jesus Christ. It makes no sense to claim that God withdrew the priesthood and the apostolate during these centuries because of the unworthiness of the people. Those centuries were among the brightest in the church's history.

There were indeed true Christians (i.e. believers in Christ) in those centuries. But the conditions simply did not permit the institution of the Twelve Apostles to continue. As you know, according to Christian tradition the Apostles were all martyred. If the condition of the world is such that they are being martyred faster than they are being rebuilt, then clearly the world is ready to receive them.

I've already been quite clear on this point. The NT does not teach a complete apostasy. It does not teach that the church ceased to exist. But there are other concepts of apostasy beside that extreme restorationist concept.

You are now engaging in obfuscation. The point was not about whether the Apostasy was “complete” or not, but what kind of Apostasy the Protestants believed in.

The very passage you cite contradicts the claim of a total apostasy, since Paul immediately goes on to speak of Christians who faithfully supported Paul (2 Tim. 1:16-18). Timothy himself, of course, also supported Paul. Paul mentions other supporters at the end of the epistle (2 Tim. 4:11-12, 19-20).

More obfuscation. The point of 2 Timothy 1:15 was not that the Apostasy was “complete” or not, but that it was on a large scale. The “completeness” of the Apostasy relates to the completeness of the loss of the priesthood keys, not the apostasy of every Christian on the planet.

You went on to cite Acts 20:29, but I have already thoroughly demonstrated from the context and language of the passage that this verse does not teach or imply a total apostasy.

More obfuscation still. The purpose of quoting Acts 20:28–31 was to demonstrate that the Apostasy was among the leadership of the Church—not whether it was complete or incomplete. As I said above, the completeness of it relates to the loss of the priesthood keys, not that every Christian on the planet apostatized.

You seem to take the same position as Vance, that there were no faithful Christians in the world soon after the death of the NT apostles. See my brief comments on this idea in my reply to Darren. It is not a credible claim.

Give me a break.

[Vance]

The false (and self contradictory) doctrine of Sola Scriptura", in a way, shows the existence of the apostasy in the early second century. There neither were created nor distributed any "scripture" verifying the existence or continuance of the true church during or beyond that time.

The closure of the canon at that time is witness to the general apostasy.

No "scriptural" record of the true church = no existence of the true church.