Scriptural Defense: Those Who Say Mormons Aren'T Christian

[Darren10]

Darren,

Your lettered questions appear below with my responses following.

A) Why was Moses the only one God could use to free the Hebrews from the Egyptians?

Who says he was?

EXACTLY. Yet moses was "the one" sent forth by God to save them, correct? just because Moses was the one sent forth does not necessarily mean no one else could have done what Moses did but it does show God being in charge and planning out the events for His glory and for the salvatin of his chilren. So why did God wait 400 years? Was there no one worthy of freedom? Of course there was but God didn't act for four centuries. Obviously there was a purpose. I think in part it was for the Hebrews to wax stronger together. Likewise, God could very well have withheld priesthood keys in order to prepare His children better to receive the fulness of the gospel.

B) God also established the United States of America. That came, ohhh, seventeen centuries after the Apostolic Era.

The relevance of this comment escapes me.

The relevance escapes you? Really? "Seveneen centuries" doesn't ring a bell to you? You having freedoms by God and upheld in this country like no other does not necessitate questioning why God waited so long after the Apostolic Era to establish this great land equal to your seeming obligation to question why God restored His gospel after "seventeen centuries" of apostasy? And I am of a very firm conviction that the establishement of the United State of America and the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith go hand in hand.

C) Since you uphold the freedoms you have within the United states, why did God wait 10,000 years or so to before He *could* create it? Countless peopel died for freedom previous to the United State yet it took George Washington to come around and be the firgurehead forthe United States? Isnt that absurd?

See above. This analogy just doesn't work. I don't view the United States as essential to the salvation of the whole world. You view the LDS Church as essential in that way. Thus, your analogy is irrelevant.

(bold mine). Please pay attention to the bold and ask yourself, what denomination are you and where would that denomination be had the Uinted States not been created? In and of itself the United States is not part of God's salvation for man but the founding principles by which the United States were established on are eternal and even you uphold them as blessings from God (and please correct me if I got that wrong). That's where the connection is made between this country and salvation. Much missionary work is done from the U.S.; and perhaps more so than from any other country. The U.S. is also the number one outsourcing for charity. This is all due directly to the Judeo-Christian principles by which this country was founded. The country has furthered the work of the lord than perhaps any other country in history. Many among the Founding Fathers offered aknowledged the Lord's divine hand in creating this country. And this counrty was founded on principles which the Lord's gospel could be restored in its fulness.

D) Of the many people who died in the name of Jesus, how many of them did God tell not to join any church but to wait and that through them He may restore His true church?

None. Of course, if God had wanted to tell any of them this, he could have. But he didn't. Now, what does this prove?

It "proves" that timing is everything. It also "proves" that God desired one to ask Him the right questions perhaps. This should also help you understand that God has specific plans for specific purposes to carry out on earth. And we are not always privy as to exactly why that is. In fact, I think we are rarely privy to such insights.

E) What of Ignatius being the "olny faithful Christian" in Antioch?

What of it?

I think you selectively forget your own arguments. If Ignatius was the last faithful Christian in Antioch and, as pointed out previously, Antioch was highly populated by Christians, that is a direct indication that many Christians fell away from doctrinal truths. The Great apostasy is a perfectly good way to explain what Ignatius meant.

F) You could not perservere 1/1,000 of the hardships Joseph Smith went through. Could God have used you to restore His church?

Please don't try to make this about me. It's nothing more than a diversionary tactic. Assume if you like that I am a hard-hearted unbeliever. The fact remains that there have been many, many Christians at least as faithful as Joseph Smith (and I would argue far more so) in every generation of Christianity, and God could have appointed many of them as apostles, but he didn't. You don't move one inch closer to coming to terms with this point by trying to get me to defend my own faith.

You are the one who keeps asking "why only Joseph Smith". Well, if you acknoledge that even you, a faithful Christian, could not bare the burdens of restoring the gospel than why not many more faithful Christians. And I'll even include myself into the category of not being able to carry the burdens Joseph Smith did. this is no diversion but aides in develping an answer to your insistant inquiry as to why God could only choose Joseph Smith to do what Joseph Smith did. If you admit that not even you could do what he did than you'd at least be a bit more humble in your inquisition of Joseph Smith's role if the Restoration. I think you'd also be more open to the answers and responses you've been given.

many Christians at least as faithful as Joseph Smith (and I would argue far more so) in every generation of Christianity

I really don't know about the "far more faithful" part. Joseph Smith sealed his testimony with his own blood. How can you do "far more" than that?

and God could have appointed many of them as apostles, but he didn't

Again we go full circle. Why didn't God free the Hebrews fromslavery? He "could have but didn't"

I'll peek in again but unless something new or original is posted here, I think I'm pretty much done with this thread.

Take care and God bless.

Edited June 3, 2012 by Darren10

[mfbukowski]

Sure it does. It places the role of the prophets in a more eternal perspective. It shows order and precision on the pert of the Lord. It also shows the Lord's planning. furthermore, I self-reflected back on the fact that the Hebrews were enslaved fora very long time until "finally" God sent someone to free them. Why?

____________________________________________________________________________________

LOL!!! Good point.

It is totally absurd for a protestant to argue "there was no apostasy" but there was somehow magically a need for a "total reformation".

Either the Catholics always had it right or they didn't.

All that's left for protestants who argue that, then, is a semantic battle over the difference between the need for a "reformation" and the need for a "restoration".

Good luck in battling that one out. It's just a stupid argument for them to take up.

So why did God leave the world without true Christians for 1700 years?

Was everyone between Adam and Christ a "true Christian"?? Why did God leave the world without Christ for (according to conservative Bible theology 4000 years before Christ was even born?

Why wasn't Christ born right after the fall??

Because God does things in his own due time. As usual, Rob's arguments just don't make sense when you really think about them.

Edited June 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Why did the Pilgrims, who were protestants come here in the first place?

To avoid the persecutions in Europe. How many religious wars were there between Catholics and protestants in European history?

What kind of a chance would a 14 year old kid with a genuine theophany have to spread a new gospel in Europe or anywhere else at that time? What happened to Joan of Arc?

The answer is so obvious there can be no reply. The restoration could never have happened anywhere but here, and it did within 14 or 15 years after the Bill of Rights made it so.

No delays.

Edited June 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[altersteve]

My position on the apostasy is simple: God decided to withdraw His priesthood authority from the earth and to temporarily allow a "watered down" version of the gospel to suffice. Some of the doctrines and ordinances established by Jesus Christ were changing and being taken away so rapidly, anyway, and when the councils appeared and created creeds, they left absolutely no room for continuing revelation. Their doctrines were set and could not be changed or added to with additional understanding.

History, in my view, proves that Christianity had changed rapidly in the first few hundred years of its existence, and it continues to do so today. Those who don't believe there was an apostasy must show that the Church (or, I should say, churches) that existed a few hundred years after Christ were led by the same authority that Christ gave to Peter. We don't believe any of them were. They say they were, so they must show it.

[altersteve]

Why did the Pilgrims, who were protestants come here in the first place?

To avoid the persecutions in Europe. How many religious wars were there between Catholics and protestants in European history?

What kind of a chance would a 14 year old kid with a genuine theophany have to spread a new gospel in Europe or anywhere else at that time? What happened to Joan of Arc?

The answer is so obvious there can be no reply. The restoration could never have happened anywhere but here, and it did within 14 or 15 years after the Bill of Rights made it so.

No delays.

I agree. There is absolutely no other time or place in history where the Restoration could have taken place. It's pretty miraculous IMO and the order of the historical events and the several social, religious, and cultural movements that preceded the Restoration is no mere coincidence. It's evidence to me that God's hand was involved in the organization of the Church.

[mfbukowski]

I agree. There is absolutely no other time or place in history where the Restoration could have taken place. It's pretty miraculous IMO and the order of the historical events and the several social, religious, and cultural movements that preceded the Restoration is no mere coincidence. It's evidence to me that God's hand was involved in the organization of the Church.

And you can see how it was also necessary to "seed" Western Civilization at the crossroads of it's inception- the Roman Empire - with the message that Jesus is the Christ. What a crucial time in history THAT was!! The philosophy and religion of that time was so influential we still are feeling its reverberations 2 thousand years later.

With primitive communications and with lack of literacy etc it was almost certain to lose much of the core of the doctrine but yet the brilliance of it was that the central message went throughout Western Civilization as a kind of "preparatory gospel" waiting for the right time to restore its fullness.

Catholics and Protestants have been waging wars against each other for years while preaching "one faith one baptism".

How could any sensible person actually think that wars between Christians are evidence of a LACK of apostasy and that true Christianity was not lost??

The very notion is absurd.

[CV75]

The problem I have here is that this loose use of the term "wolves" blurs an important distinction between those who persecuted Christians (e.g., the Roman governmental authorities) and those who were false prophets and false teachers (the biblical use of the term "wolves"). Neither of these groups could or did destroy the church. The martyrdom of Christians, far from destroying the church, purified it and attracted more people to the gospel as they saw its power in those who were willing to die for Christ (hence Tertullian's famous statement that the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church). The false teachers and false prophets created their own versions of the Christian faith but never swayed the whole church to accept any of those false versions. Hence one had Gnostics, Arians, etc., and none of these groups ever became universally accepted or even the dominant form of Christianity.

To help those who find it problematic exapnding from Acts 20:29, let’s edit my remarks to show “wolves and other anti-Christ-type players.”

The dominant form of Christianity is a very different concept than the original Church. The dominant (popularly accepted) form of Christianity is one that doesn’t have priesthood keys. I emphasize form because it may look like a duck but it does not walk like a duck under duck power (2 Timothy 3:5).

The Church is one thing and the dominant form of Christianity is another. In context of the Apostasy, I see attack (caused by and resulting in more corruption) from within contributing to the inability to pass along the keys, which led to both a form of Christianity and the loss of the keys (or the one true Church organization). Attack from without induced fear, distraction, and forced removal of the vital keys so that faith could not be exercised and confirmed in those things the keys once permitted. When not exercised, faith in that erstwhile thing at best replaced with the next best thing, belief in the next best thing or a memory of the former thing.

Attack from within and from without is destructive, each in its own way. A person’s faith can be destroyed, prevented or compromised a) by believing corrupt doctrine; b) by removing the object of faith; and c) by fear of retribution. These dynamics and others mentioned operated together until a form (or forms) of Christianity without they keys was all that was left. Some Christians lost their faith, some were not taught correct doctrine, some were killed and some feared to go too far. Eventually none of them had the faith or the life to keep the keys on earth, especially once the keys were lost or taken away from the earth.

So, as you pointed out, martyrdom has it benefits, except it cannot keep the keys held by the martyred upon the earth. The lack of adequate successors prevents them from passing on the keys before it is too late. The allegiance of the living, without a kingdom recognized by God on earth, resort to banding together in a form of the original order. Without the keys, the doctrine, covenants and ordinances cannot be preserved (or sealed) on earth.

On what basis can you make this judgment? I'm afraid you are reasoning in a circle: there was a Great Apostasy because the early Christians did not have enough faith to keep the church; and we know they did not have enough faith because there was a Great Apostasy. The Great Apostasy is looking more and more like the Great Assumption. The Christians of the first three centuries spread the gospel like wildfire throughout the known world despite persecution, preserved and translated the Scriptures for people of many nations, were renowned for their charity and moral character, stoutly opposed heresies that would have paganized or corrupted the gospel (e.g., heresies that denied the physical resurrection), and in many cases passively accepted martyrdom out of loyalty to Christ. In so many ways they showed themselves to be people who cared about the truth and who loved God and their neighbors in exemplary fashion. What is the evidence that they didn't have enough faith to be entrusted with the priesthood keys?

For all their good works and qualities, these early Christians simply did so without the keys of the priesthood. The “evidence that they didn't have enough faith to be entrusted with the priesthood keys” (for those who did not have the faith), is in the scriptures cited in this thread about those who were or would be led astray. The “evidence that they didn't have enough faith to be entrusted with the priesthood keys” (for those who had a measure of faith and belief) is that there was no more scripture to cite from, until the Restoration. A person simply cannot have faith in something that is no longer present. Without keys, there is no Church, just a form of one, or of Christianity. They keys are also necessary to reveal Christ, but this takes nothing away from that portion of truth that can be revealed without them.

This should really be a non-problem from a Mormon point of view, since your belief in continuing revelation would lead one to expect that if a necessary truth was lacking God could and would simply reveal it to those who needed it. This brings us back to the question of whether Christians of that era were so lacking in openness to God and his will that God's hands were effectively tied. In addition, once again I think your argument is circular. You have no evidence that there was a vibrant experience of "the priesthood keys" that was gradually eroded; this appears to be simply a stipulation you are making to explain how the Great Apostasy might have happened. I don't think it even makes sense. If just one man remained who held the priesthood keys and understood their significance, he could and would have passed this knowledge on to other Christians who sincerely loved God and wanted to serve him.

In summation, let’s agree that “wolves” operate from within the Church and other anti-Christ forces and people operate from without.

Under these conditions, either individual faith is destroyed, or the object of individual faith is destroyed, neutralizing faith in that matter. Yes, God allows bad things to happen. People in either camp can be Christian or not and still do good things, but they cannot have the keys or the Church. Having a belief that the keys are operative on the earth, when they are not, is not faith. It may be a good motivator, but it is not faith. Likewise is the belief that the keys are not necessary or that everyone has them.

Just one evidence that there was not just one man who held the priesthood keys, understood their significance and passed them on to others who sincerely loved God and wanted to serve Him is that he and his successors wrote no scripture.

[Log]

Clearly there was never an apostasy and that is why Rob is still Catholic.

This is such a good point that it really does deserve an in-depth response.

[Darren10]

mfbukowski #127 & 128;

You're absolutely correct in that the Restoration could not have happened in any other land than that of the United States of America. In my view, that was the main purpose God called "wise men" to establish the Constitution. That such an inspired document, arguably the most inspired political document in human history, would become the foundation to create a rich and powerful nation based primarily on the freedom of religion. In such a setting, the foundation for the Restoration was forged and shortly thereafter both the Book of Mormon and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints came about. Lest God take away the moral agency of man, which by modern-day revelation we know He absolutely will not do, this could not have happened in Europe, no matter how many faithful Christians there were.

Creating the United States required changing the mindset of generations of people. The Reformation, in my estimation, wasa huge step in that direction. Despite his faults, I've no doubt that Martin Luther did what the Lord wanted him to do for his time and circumstances. Likewise, despite the faults of many, I view the creation of the Anglican Church and subsequent formation of Puritan groups a step in the direction of individual liberty. Combine that withthe English Enlightenment which placed a heavy emphasis on individual liberty and you have a solid foundation for the United States to come. This all took time to do (remember that God will not take away man's moral agency to choose for himself) and it took about, oh, seventeen centuries after the Apostolic Era to complete. thus the foundation ofthe Restoration.

One thing I also forgot is the great influence of the king James Version ofthe bible. What a radical departue that was from the mainstream theological thought of Europe. The version of the Bible became the single most infuencial theological source for the English world. It is also arguable an important step towards the Restoration.

The King James Bible and Latter-day Scripture - Episode 53

Happy Birthday, KJV

[Rob Bowman]

All,

The bottom line for me is that the New Testament does not teach the LDS doctrines of a Great Apostasy and Restoration. The NT does speak of apostasy, but always of an apostasy of individuals or of local congregations, never of an apostasy of the whole church worldwide. It says that "some" will fall away from the faith (1 Tim. 4:1), that false teachers will draw disciples after them (Acts 20:29-30), that some people will go out from the church proving themselves never to have been genuine members of it (1 John 2:19), that Christ will cut away those branches of the vine that fail to bear good fruit (John 15:2-6), that Christ may remove the "lampstand" of a congregation if it fails to be faithful (Rev. 2:5), and so forth. In all of these passages the contexts speak of those who will not fall away: the faithful elders who will shepherd the flock, the believers who remain in Christ, the branches that bear fruit, the congregation that proves itself faithful, and so forth.

Nor does the NT know anything of a doctrine that the church would lose "priesthood keys" or that the church could not get along without living apostles. The apostles who wrote epistles toward the end of their lives all expressed confidence that believers would continue to thrive despite the passing of the apostles. They urged believers to remember what they have taught them and to continue growing in their faith. They warned them not of a loss of true apostles or prophets but of the rise of false prophets and teachers. The faithful were to resist those false teachers by remaining faithful to the gospel the apostles had originally transmitted to them. We see this perspective in the final epistles of Paul (2 Timothy), Peter (2 Peter), and Jude.

Mormons commonly argue that the creeds of the fourth century promoted doctrines that were evidence of apostasy. I disagree, but in any case these creeds came more than two centuries after the passing of the apostles. No credible account has yet been given to show that the church of the second century, for example, was apostate. One must assume the Mormon doctrines concerning priesthood and apostles to support such a claim. Again, though, I don't see these Mormon doctrines as consistent with the Bible.

[Vance]

Clearly there was never an apostasy and that is why Rob is still Catholic.

That is what is SOOO funny about Bowman's argument. The Catholic Church, which Bowman TOTALLY rejects, has far closer ties to the ancient Church than does ANY Protestant or Evangelical denomination.

So while denying so, he does actually accept a total apostasy.

[Vance]

The bottom line is that the New Testament does teach the LDS doctrines of a Great Apostasy and Restoration. The NT does speak of apostasy, and of the total domination of the saints and the Church by the beast which would be apostasy worldwide. Even at the time John wrote Revelation, there were only 7 church congregation worthy of recognition and of them ONLY two were faithful. And so the individual apostasies eventually over came the Church as a whole.

That the Apostles were "General Authorities" over the Church is clear. It was their duty and function to maintain purity of doctrine and oversee and control the leadership of the local congregations. That they were given special authorization and power over the church as a whole is not in question.

"Orthodox" Christians commonly argue that the creeds of the fourth century promoted biblical doctrines, which, of course is not true at all. Those doctrines were fabricated in the councils of the apostate church and then retro-injected back "into" the Bible by changing the way the scriptures were viewed and understood. When people like Michael Servetus came closer to true doctrine by letting the Spirit speak to them through the scriptures, they were branded heretics and murdered.

[ncfarmerjoe]

zerinus brought the question of "apostasy" up and asked Mr. Bowman about the Protestant's role earlier in this thread on page 3, to which i believe he snuck around the depth of the topic that effects the validity of a Protestant Uprising, much like he did just above by once again attempting to toss the subject back onto the back of the LDS's definition of "apostasy"?

links below are of Mr. Bowman's .....Institute for Religious Research, a nonprofit, 501©(3)

while there, you may want to check out this link below to Mr. Bowman's IRR.org's Mormonism page if you haven't already

link removed, do not link to sites that contain temple content. Read board rules before posting again.

[zerinus]

All,

The bottom line for me is that the New Testament does not teach the LDS doctrines of a Great Apostasy and Restoration. The NT does speak of apostasy, but always of an apostasy of individuals or of local congregations, never of an apostasy of the whole church worldwide. It says that "some" will fall away from the faith (1 Tim. 4:1), that false teachers will draw disciples after them (Acts 20:29-30), that some people will go out from the church proving themselves never to have been genuine members of it (1 John 2:19), that Christ will cut away those branches of the vine that fail to bear good fruit (John 15:2-6), that Christ may remove the "lampstand" of a congregation if it fails to be faithful (Rev. 2:5), and so forth. In all of these passages the contexts speak of those who will not fall away: the faithful elders who will shepherd the flock, the believers who remain in Christ, the branches that bear fruit, the congregation that proves itself faithful, and so forth.

Nor does the NT know anything of a doctrine that the church would lose "priesthood keys" or that the church could not get along without living apostles. The apostles who wrote epistles toward the end of their lives all expressed confidence that believers would continue to thrive despite the passing of the apostles. They urged believers to remember what they have taught them and to continue growing in their faith. They warned them not of a loss of true apostles or prophets but of the rise of false prophets and teachers. The faithful were to resist those false teachers by remaining faithful to the gospel the apostles had originally transmitted to them. We see this perspective in the final epistles of Paul (2 Timothy), Peter (2 Peter), and Jude.

Mormons commonly argue that the creeds of the fourth century promoted doctrines that were evidence of apostasy. I disagree, but in any case these creeds came more than two centuries after the passing of the apostles. No credible account has yet been given to show that the church of the second century, for example, was apostate. One must assume the Mormon doctrines concerning priesthood and apostles to support such a claim. Again, though, I don't see these Mormon doctrines as consistent with the Bible.

I think that our arguments are very persuasive; you just like to turn a blind eye to them and repeat your own mantra. For example, earlier on I said the following, to which you haven't given an adequate reply:

Three things are obvious from the scriptures: (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.

As far as the Mormon doctrine of the "keys of the priesthood" is concerned, you know perfectly well of the Lord's promise to Peter (and to all of the Apostles) to give them the "keys of the kingdom," which is what we call the keys of the priesthood; but you persistently ignore them.

Edited June 4, 2012 by zerinus

[mfbukowski]

All,

The bottom line for me is that the New Testament does not teach the LDS doctrines of a Great Apostasy and Restoration. The NT does speak of apostasy, but always of an apostasy of individuals or of local congregations, never of an apostasy of the whole church worldwide. It says that "some" will fall away from the faith (1 Tim. 4:1), that false teachers will draw disciples after them (Acts 20:29-30), that some people will go out from the church proving themselves never to have been genuine members of it (1 John 2:19), that Christ will cut away those branches of the vine that fail to bear good fruit (John 15:2-6), that Christ may remove the "lampstand" of a congregation if it fails to be faithful (Rev. 2:5), and so forth. In all of these passages the contexts speak of those who will not fall away: the faithful elders who will shepherd the flock, the believers who remain in Christ, the branches that bear fruit, the congregation that proves itself faithful, and so forth.

Nor does the NT know anything of a doctrine that the church would lose "priesthood keys" or that the church could not get along without living apostles. The apostles who wrote epistles toward the end of their lives all expressed confidence that believers would continue to thrive despite the passing of the apostles. They urged believers to remember what they have taught them and to continue growing in their faith. They warned them not of a loss of true apostles or prophets but of the rise of false prophets and teachers. The faithful were to resist those false teachers by remaining faithful to the gospel the apostles had originally transmitted to them. We see this perspective in the final epistles of Paul (2 Timothy), Peter (2 Peter), and Jude.

Mormons commonly argue that the creeds of the fourth century promoted doctrines that were evidence of apostasy. I disagree, but in any case these creeds came more than two centuries after the passing of the apostles. No credible account has yet been given to show that the church of the second century, for example, was apostate. One must assume the Mormon doctrines concerning priesthood and apostles to support such a claim. Again, though, I don't see these Mormon doctrines as consistent with the Bible.

Rob of course ignores me, so this is the best he can come up with by posting to "All".

Since the New Testament texts were written BEFORE the apostasy, the fact that NO EXTANT TEXTS say something like "In 325 AD the Council of Nicea will create false doctrines to cause a falling away" is not exactly surprising!

Of course such texts would have been suppressed or disregarded as heretical anyway and never made it in to what we now call the "New Testament" since of course that "Book" was assembled by an already apostate church. But that is another story.

The case Rob is making is just so full of holes it is not even worth considering.

The bottom line is that he has to show that Modern Protestantism is identical to the most primitive form of Christianity in order to maintain that there have always been some "true Christians" on the earth- since what DEFINES "true Christians" IS the fact that they worshiped in the exact same manner as the earliest Christians.

That is an impossible task, and we as LDS know that better than anyone- since we would LOVE to be able to show a text proving exactly WHAT the earliest Christians believed in detail. THE FACT IS, THROUGH TEXTUAL EVIDENCE, THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

Since there is nothing like an "Articles of Faith" defining all this written before say, 150 AD HE HAS TO SPECULATE as much as anyone else does about what constitutes "true Christian belief" whatever that is supposed to be. So how can he claim that there were always SOME "true Christians" if he cannot even define the beliefs of "true Christians"??

Furthermore, OUR CLAIM IS NOT ABOUT WHEN THE APOSTASY happened- just that it DID- and that there was need for a restoration.

All Protestants MUST claim that there was need at least for a "Reformation" or Protestantism would not exist- so exactly at that point, THEY TACITLY ADMIT THE APOSTASY.

Another problem they have is their denial that the Bible can be "proven" to a believer by historical data- or at least that some kind of "natural reason" can prove it true- and that is just silly. If natural reason could prove the Bible true, every scientist, philosopher, intellectual and New York Times Postmodernist Literary Critic would be "Christian". Blatantly not the case.

The only thing that can prove the Bible- or Book of Mormon- true is the spiritual witness of the reader

When it comes to the Apostasy, clearly Protestantism has no case whatsoever. I can't see how they can call themselves "Christians" at all by any kind of historic argument. THEY BROKE AWAY FROM THE MAJOR TRUNK OF CHRISTIANITY! How do you call yourself a historically correct Christian after doing that???

Only the Catholics can claim that in any coherent way. Of course I think they are wrong as well, but that is not the point in this thread.

If there was need for a Reformation, there was need for a Restoration. Just remember that phrase the next time some Evangelical decides to talk about the apostasy.

[mfbukowski]

I think that our arguments are very persuasive; you just like to turn a blind eye to them and repeat your own mantra. For example, earlier on I said the following, to which you haven't given an adequate reply:

Three things are obvious from the scriptures: (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.

As far as the Mormon doctrine of the "keys of the priesthood" is concerned, you know perfectly well of the Lord's promise to Peter (and to all of the Apostles) to give them the "keys of the kingdom," which is what we call the keys of the priesthood; but you persistently ignore them.

Bravo!

[mfbukowski]

zerinus brought the question of "apostasy" up and asked Mr. Bowman about the Protestant's role earlier in this thread on page 3, to which i believe he snuck around the depth of the topic that effects the validity of a Protestant Uprising, much like he did just above by once again attempting to toss the subject back onto the back of the LDS's definition of "apostasy"?

links below are of Mr. Bowman's .....Institute for Religious Research, a nonprofit, 501©(3)

while there, you may want to check out this link below to Mr. Bowman's IRR.org's Mormonism page if you haven't already

Thanks but we are way ahead of you- we have known Rob for quite a while around here and know him for what he is.

In fact, technically we are not supposed to link to his sites because they contain temple content, but of course you didn't know that! By the way, welcome to the board

[Storm Rider]

Those of us who prefer to debate will always ignore all facts contrary to their opinion and we will ignore all statements that cause problems for us. Rob is no different; he is not seeking for any truth; he is strictly a polemicist. It is not surprising that his behavior reflects that role. This breed is found in all places and, I suspect, we each exhibit similar traits at one time or another.

It is very difficult to look in the mirror and apply the same standard of criticism to ourselves and our own beliefs that we apply so liberally to the beliefs of everyone else.

It is impossible for me to, or anyone that reads the NT, to easily cast aside the offices that it so clearly defines as relevant to the Church of Jesus; mainly apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers. How do they get thrown aside when they are supposed to exist as offices of in the priesthood until we come into the unity of the faith. Protestants simply ignore any structure, but then they are forced to in order to maintain any degree of ability to say they can exist as man made churches. This can go on and on. For those who seek truth; it is found in the scriptures. Those who seek will find and those who are blind will never see.

[ncfarmerjoe]

thanks for the info mfbukowski, can you tell me how to edit a post & i will remove those links as i can't find the info though it must be staring me in the face somewhere on here?

joe

[CV75]

thanks for the info mfbukowski, can you tell me how to edit a post & i will remove those links as i can't find the info though it must be staring me in the face somewhere on here?

joe

Just go to the "Edit" button on your post and edit from there --

Edit: welcome!

Edited June 4, 2012 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

thanks for the info mfbukowski, can you tell me how to edit a post & i will remove those links as i can't find the info though it must be staring me in the face somewhere on here?

joe

If I recall correctly you cannot edit posts until you have made a certain number. We see a different screen than you do I think- at the bottom of each post which is yours, there should be a "quote" and an "edit" button right next to the quote button. If you can't see it, you are not allowed to use it yet- don't worry the mods will take care of it

They are just trying to catch evil-doers when they are newbies so they can't come back and change what they have said for a while!

Edited June 4, 2012 by mfbukowski

[GingerRed]

I watched part of that series on KBYU on early Christianity that I thought was really well done and informative. What they showed was there was a time that only learned men, pastors priests, etc could even own scripture! The average joe on the street didnt have a bible! That wasn't allowed! It was that one guy, Tyndale I think was the name?...., that wanted to translate the Bible in English and take it to the people so they could have the word of God for themselves, something like that. That idea was deemed preposterous and all these people were against it! So in arguing about why a Restoration couldn't have happened sooner...well that had to be at least ONE period of time how could the Restoration have happened when most people were not even allowed to own a bible, much less a BOM, yes? I bet THAT would have gone over well! LOL

[ncfarmerjoe]

yeah, i kinda thought something like that may be in play because until you have a certain # of posts you can't start a thread either....as i have a line telling me i can't start a topic on the forum topics pages.

and my screen has a "quote" & a "multiquite" tab, but no "edit" tab.

thanks for the help! joe

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

I think that our arguments are very persuasive; you just like to turn a blind eye to them and repeat your own mantra.

I could easily say the same thing. For example, no one has even tried to refute my lengthy, detailed exegetical review of Acts 20:29 in its context (Vance posted a reply but skipped over the actual arguments I presented).

You wrote:

For example, earlier on I said the following, to which you haven't given an adequate reply:

Three things are obvious from the scriptures: (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.

Here are some comments on this argument:

• Matthias was not chosen to succeed Judas, but to replace him after Judas had apostatized and killed himself. This is an important distinction because it means that the replacement of Judas is not precedent for a regular succession of apostles. The exceptional nature of Matthias's appointment is evident in many ways; for example, one of the requirements for the appointee was that he had to have been a disciple of Jesus from the time of John the Baptist's ministry (Acts 1:22). It is a mistake to generalize from this replacement appointment to the conclusion that the apostolate was meant to be a continuing office occupied at all times by twelve members.
  
• The evidence is also decidedly against Paul being ordained as an apostle to succeed James. Paul had already been chosen as an apostle by the Lord Jesus (Acts 9; cf,. Acts 22, 26; Gal. 1) some time prior to the death of James (Acts 12). Paul denied that he had been appointed as an apostle by other (mortal) men, specifically by the other apostles (Gal. 1:1, 11-20). Paul never considered himself part of the Twelve and consistently distinguished himself from the Jerusalem apostles (1 Cor. 15:5-8; Gal. 1-2).
  
• As I have already pointed out to you, if the council of the Twelve Apostles was meant to be perpetuated, then the Twelve Apostles dropped the ball. There is no evidence of any new apostles joining the ranks of apostles after the first three or so years of church history (Paul appears to have been the last man to attain that office). The best historical information that we have shows four apostles having been martyred by the mid-60s (James son of Zebedee, 44; James brother of Jesus, 62; Peter and Paul, ca. 66). Others may have died by that time but if so it was evidently one at a time and in different places as they traveled conducting evangelistic missions. There was always plenty of time to appoint new successors, if such were required.
  
• I have also already pointed out more than once that in their final epistles, at least three of the apostles left closing instructions for Christians as to how to avoid false teachers and to remain faithful to the gospel (2 Timothy, 2 Peter, and Jude). In none of these epistles is anything said about a Great Apostasy in which the church would cease to exist. In none of them is anything said about needing to submit to living apostles who would be the successors to the original Twelve. All three epistles urge believers to remain faithful by remembering what the apostles taught them, by holding on to the original message and doctrine, by rejecting false teachers and false prophets, and by growing in the knowledge of Christ.
  

(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.

Naturally, while the apostles were still alive, they formed the nucleus or core of a council or ruling body for all Christians everywhere. But it is fallacious to infer that this was meant to be the norm for all generations. One might as well argue that the true church must have its headquarters in Jerusalem or that it should be headed by a blood relative of Jesus (since James the Lord's brother appears to have been the lead figure in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15). It is noteworthy that in the Jerusalem Council the ruling body consisted not of apostles only but of "the apostles and elders" of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22-23; 16:4). We read of no further council decisions from Jerusalem after the one in Acts 15, which took place in AD 49. For that matter, we read of no prior council decisions, either. What you call an "example" appears to be the only such example on record. The event thus appears to be exceptional, not regulative (i.e., not presented by Luke as a normative church polity for all time).

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.

When I lose my keys, it's because I have mislaid them or dropped them. (I'm an "absent-minded professor" type of person, so this happens more often than I'd like to admit.) But you don't mean this when you talk about the priesthood keys being lost. What you really mean, I think, is that God took the priesthood keys away. But if God took them away, he evidently did so without first even giving the church a chance to pass them on to a second generation. Forget about the fourth century: the keys, if they were taken away, would have to have been taken away in the first century, even before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. In fact, as I have explained above, it would appear (assuming the Mormon view of the keys to be correct) that the apostles were not permitted to pass the keys on to anyone new even as little as a few years after the church began to function.

As I have also explained above, the fact is that there was no "council of the Twelve Apostles" and certainly none that ever sought to maintain itself beyond the first generation of the church. The premise that the office of apostle was meant to continue is falsified by the fact that the apostles themselves made no effort or provisions for its continuance and expressed no concern in any of their writings about the imminent demise of the office. Thus, the fact that the office did not continue is not evidence of apostasy.

You wrote:

As far as the Mormon doctrine of the "keys of the priesthood" is concerned, you know perfectly well of the Lord's promise to Peter (and to all of the Apostles) to give them the "keys of the kingdom," which is what we call the keys of the priesthood; but you persistently ignore them.

I haven't ignored what the Lord said, but you have failed to make the case that these "keys" were meant to be held in trust by a group of apostles in every generation of the church. As I have explained, the apostles made no effort to pass those keys to another generation of apostles. The keys in the context of the ministries of the NT apostles appear to be a metaphor for the unique, foundational, unrepeatable function of the apostles in opening the kingdom community of Christ to Jews and Gentiles, establishing the church as a body of believers no longer governed by the Mosaic covenant of the Law but instead living in the new covenant of grace in Christ. We see this function described theologically in Ephesians (especially Eph. 2:11-3:7) and narrated historically in the Book of Acts. I do not see any basis in NT teaching for the idea that the "keys" represent a hierarchical church authority structure in which all Christians in the world are governed by a Pope in Rome (Catholicism), patriarchates in several cities (Eastern Orthodoxy), a Governing Body in Brooklyn (Jehovah's Witnesses), or a Prophet and a Quorum of Twelve Apostles in Salt Lake City (Mormonism).

Perhaps at this point you will object that if I don't accept the Catholic Church's church hierarchy then I should admit the idea of a Great Apostasy. Several people here seem to think this is a coup de grace to my position. It isn't. Notice that I also mentioned the Eastern Orthodox ecclesiastical system. It's odd that many Mormons argue as if the only alternative to their ecclesiastical claim is that of the Catholic Church. It isn't. The fact is that both the Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiologies emerged gradually over centuries and became competing authority claims in the medieval era as certain bishops vied for control. Protestants like me see these developments as corruptions of the church but not as meaning that the church ceased to exist. Protestants understand apostasy very differently than Mormons and you should refrain from trying to impose Mormon assumptions on us just as you would like us to refrain from imposing Protestant assumptions on you (Matt. 7:12). For us, the church always has been and until glorification always will be composed of flawed people operating flawed systems. Even faithful people are flawed, and even the ecclesiastical systems run by faithful people are flawed -- though some are of course more flawed than others. We view church history as a process of growth, of making mistakes and learning from them, with always a mix of faithful and unfaithful people, sound teachers and false prophets, successes and failures. This is what we find the NT leading us to expect as we view church history and as we engage contemporary Christianity.

[mfbukowski]

Protestants like me see these developments as corruptions of the church but not as meaning that the church ceased to exist. Protestants understand apostasy very differently than Mormons and you should refrain from trying to impose Mormon assumptions on us just as you would like us to refrain from imposing Protestant assumptions on you (Matt. 7:12). For us, the church always has been and until glorification always will be composed of flawed people operating flawed systems. Even faithful people are flawed, and even the ecclesiastical systems run by faithful people are flawed -- though some are of course more flawed than others. We view church history as a process of growth, of making mistakes and learning from them, with always a mix of faithful and unfaithful people, sound teachers and false prophets, successes and failures. This is what we find the NT leading us to expect as we view church history and as we engage contemporary Christianity.

I find it interesting that in the first part of his post, Rob reminds us about how many religious groups disagree with his interpretation, but of course I suppose this issue is not subject to voting on. The bottom line is that we have his interpretation vs a score of other interpretations, including ours.

I see no reason to bother with this because it is all based on Rob's interpretation of the Bible.

I think it is clear in the epistles that the wolves being warned about were NOT to come 2000 years hence- that interpretation is absurd- in fact Paul in a few places actually points out the Apostasy beginning to happen in his time. That is a ridiculous interpretaiton to think otherwise.

Should anyone actually care, I will be glad to take it part line by line but we all have lives to lead and other things to do with our time. I think I have made some good irrefutable points which Rob has not touched.

The underlying assumption here is that somehow the New Testament should itself contain prophecies about the full apostasy for the idea of an apostasy to be true. That of course would be a circular and self defeating point that of course would be erased before it had been assembled.

That is the great fallacy of Bible literalism. The Bible does not condemn itself as being false, nor does it tell you which portions of it have been altered.

Surprise surprise. It appears no one but Evangelicals of Rob's persuasion expect it to.

Edited June 4, 2012 by mfbukowski