Scriptural Defense: Those Who Say Mormons Aren'T Christian

[Log]

I wonder - has any evangelical ever responded at length to Nibley's The Passing of the Primitive Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme?

Edited June 4, 2012 by Log

[CV75]

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).

I think that is because taken as part of all the scriptures discussing the subject, it is reasonable to see that Paul was speaking on several levels and beyond individuals and congregations. It seems there was some grieving over the fact that the saints would not see him again, in large part due to an understanding of the inevitable consequences of not having continued contact with a living apostle. The faithful would be saved as they kept their covenants, but the keys were about to be lost and the church was to die at the hands of the wolves and others (in my opinion, to rise again even greater—John 12:24, which gave them some hope). This takes nothing away from the value and the good accomplished the brands of Christianity that continued without the keys.

As to the keys being lost due to a lack of faith among the memebrship, that has been discussed at length. The lack of common consent in sustaining those who held the keys destroyed the church and replaced it with Christianity.

[zerinus]

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).

Without going back to reread your original posts, as I recall your basic argument was that this does not prove a complete apostasy. Well I agree that by itself it doesn’t. But when combined with other scriptures it does. Also, you need to define what we mean by Apostasy. If you mean that every Christian became apostate, no; but if you mean the loss of the priesthood and authority to govern the Church by revelation, yes

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.

The evidence is circumstantial and cumulative. There may not be one killer evidence; but considered in the light of other scriptures, it becomes cumulative. For example, we have the following:

Ephesians 4:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

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

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

Can you give a good reason why only some of these officers should be necessary for the continues “perfecting of the saints, work of the ministry, edifying of the body of Christ” etc, but not all of them?

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).

While it is true that it appears to have been the only occurrence, it sets an important precedent. Also significant is that the decision was made by revelation, not just by debate and discussion, and reaching consensus or majority decision. “it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us” (Acts 15:28), it says. All very important decisions in fact were made by the Apostles by revelation, whether they met in council or not, such as in the case of Peter being informed by revelation to take the gospel to the Gentiles. The Twelve Apostles could not always meet in council because they were spread about, and communication and travel was not so easy or swift in those days as it is today; but the precedent is there for important decisions to be made by revelation by the Apostles, whether they were able to meet in council or not.

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.

I think this has already been explained. The keys and priesthood authority rested in the Apostles. It was lost when that institution could not be perpetuated due to general apostasy, insufficient faith among Christians, and the hostile environment of the Gentile world at that time.

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).

The “keys” were “keys of the kingdom” which made it possible for them to “bind on earth and it will be bound in heaven, and loose on earth and it will be loosed in heaven”. I should have thought it would be pretty obvious that where those “keys” don’t exist, then the “kingdom” doesn’t exist.

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.

I agree that the Protestant doctrine of the Apostasy is different from the Mormon one; but that is not the point. The point is that they did believe in a serious apostasy of the Christian Church, and even interpreted 2 Thess. 2:3-12 as a prediction of that Apostasy. They saw the Pope and the Catholic Church as the embodiment of that Apostasy. Here is what the Wikipedia article has to say about that:

Protestant Christianity separated itself from what it felt was the fulfilment of prophecy that there would be a falling away from the truth given by Jesus Christ and his apostles. They look to 2 Thessalonians prediction regarding the "falling away." 2 Thess. 2:3-12 says, "Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

They felt Papacy fulfilled the falling away of the scriptures, for it agrees on the prophecy in all the following points:

1. It has one official man as its head, and its claims are centered in him, the Bishop of Rome.
   
2. The Bishop of Rome exalts himself against all that is called God; e.g., he is addressed by terms (Pope, Supreme Pontiff, Holy Father, etc.) which belong only to God, and that man came with and out of an apostasy, the very kind the apostles describe elsewhere (1 Tim. 4:1-3; Acts 20:28-31; 2 Pet. 2:1-3).
   
3. He sits in the temple of God, e.g., his sphere of dominion is in the church or temple of God, as seen in the Papacy.
   
4. His appearance was hindered by some force in Paul's time (2 Thess. 2:6-7); e.g., when the bishops of Rome began to assert power, they were in conflict with the Roman civil government; however, when the Roman empire collapsed, they quickly gained supremacy.
   
5. The mystery of iniquity was already working in Paul's day (2 Thess. 2:7) and would continue until the Lord's coming (2 Thess. 2:8 ).
   
6. The apostasy would produce fraudulent miracles, signs and wonders; e.g., supposed cures brought about by relics and shrines.
   
7. The Lord shall destroy him with the brightness of His coming (2 Thess. 2:8 ). Only by a continual succession of the men of sin as seen in the line of men ascended to the title of Pope, could this be possible.
   

Protestantism asserts that many abuses by Church leadership occurred prior to the Reformation in 1517 AD. Nevertheless, it does not suggest that these abuses led to a complete state of anarchy and apostate renderings of Scripture within the Early Church. In turn, from the Protestant perspective, abuses within the church led to a poor application of doctrine and Biblical Truths. Historically, this view is generally seen to have been declared by the contents of the 95 Theses compiled by Martin Luther.

To a large degree, Protestantism recognizes that the formation of the Orthodox-Catholic Church under Caesar Constantine I (c. 325 AD) sought to bring stability, continuity and organization to the birth of the relatively new Christian faith. However, through decades of succession by poor, often politically motivated leadership, abuses of Scriptural application became prevalent. In turn, Protestantism generally asserts that although Scripture itself remained pristine, the leaders and teachers became fouled. To that end, most of Traditional Christianity agrees that the Biblical message itself was ultimately never lost to mankind. In addition, historical and archeological evidence - such as the Dead Sea Scrolls - have provided a considerable measure of creditability to this position.

Additionally, Protestant Evangelicals concede that although the Early Church had not completely “fallen away” after the death of the first Apostles, it fell under the control of the bishop of Rome and became governed by errant men with a poor understanding of Scripture. Source

That, however, tends to be a rather sanitised view of the Protestant doctrine of the apostasy of the Catholic Church. Throughout history Protestants have tended to be more black and white, and even vitriolic in their condemnation of the supposedly apostate Catholic Church. Here are some interesting references:

Apostasy Recognized By Reformationists

Are Evangelicals correct when they criticize Mormons for believing in a universal apostasy? Is it true that the Christian Church that Christ established always been on the Earth? It doesn’t seem that the following individuals thought so.

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.” (Picturesque America, or the Land We Live In, ed. William Cullen Bryant, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1872, vol. 1, p. 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.” (Underhill, Edward, “Struggles and Triumphs of Religious Liberty”, cited in William F. Anderson, “Apostasy or Succession, Which?”, pp. 238-39)

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 decadent 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 hint, see the creedalism, denominationalism, sacramentalism, carried on in his name, he would certainly say, ‘If this is Christianity, I am not a Christian.’”

John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, lamented that the Christian had apostatized from the gospel that Christ and the apostles had taught, had lost the spiritual gifts that they once enjoyed, and had turned heathen again with only a dead form left:

“It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit 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, and from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian cause thereby, heaped riches and power and honor upon Christians in general, but in particular upon the Christian clergy. From this time they almost totally ceased; very few instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not as has been supposed because there was no more occasion for them because all the world was become Christians. This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The real cause of it was the love of many, almost all Christians, so called, was waxed cold. The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other heathens. The Son of Man, when he came to examine His Church, could hardly find faith upon the earth. 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 only had earth a dead form left.” (Wesley’s Works, vol. 7, 89:26, 27)

In the Church of England Homily Against Peril of Idolatry we read: “So that laity and clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages, sects, and degrees of men, women, and children of whole Christendom — an horrible and most dreadful thing to think — have been at once drowned in abominable idolatry; of all other vices most detested by God, and most damnable to man; and that by the space of eight hundred years and more.” The Book of Homilies dates from about the middle of the sixteenth century; and in it is thus officially affirmed that the so-called Church and the whole religious world had been utterly apostate for eight centuries or more prior to the establishment of the Church of England.

In the words of one eminent historian, “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, 3:595.)

Thomas Jefferson, though not a cleric in the usual sense, 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.” Source

EDIT: Some additional refs for you do consider:

The founder of the Baptist Church in America, Roger Williams, just prior to leaving the church he established, said this: “There is no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinances; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking.” (Picturesque America, p. 502.) Martin Luther had similar thoughts: “Nor can a Christian believer be forced beyond sacred Scriptures,... unless some new and proved revelation should be added; for we are forbidden by divine law to believe except what is proved either through the divine Scriptures or through Manifest revelation.” He also wrote: “I have sought nothing beyond reforming the Church in conformity with the Holy Scriptures. The spiritual powers have been not only corrupted by sin, but absolutely destroyed; so that there is now nothing in them but a depraved reason and a will that is the enemy and opponent of God. I simply say that Christianity has ceased to exist among those who should have preserved it.” The Lutheran, Baptist and Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) churches recognize an apostasy from early Christianity. The Lutheran and Baptist churches have attempted reform, but Mormonism (and Roger Williams, and perhaps Martin Luther) require inspired restoration, so as to re-establish an unbroken line of authority and apostolic succession. Source

Edited June 5, 2012 by zerinus

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

Without going back to reread your original posts, as I recall your basic argument was that this {Acts 20:29} does not prove a complete apostasy. Well I agree that by itself it doesn’t. But when combined with other scriptures it does.

That simply is not so. Acts 20:29 in context teaches a partial apostasy. You cannot combine this passage with others to reach a conclusion contrary to this passage.

You wrote:

Also, you need to define what we mean by Apostasy. If you mean that every Christian became apostate, no; but if you mean the loss of the priesthood and authority to govern the Church by revelation, yes

What I mean by apostasy is the falling away of individuals or groups from the faith. What Mormonism means by apostasy includes what you say here but also asserts that the entirety of Christianity prior to Joseph Smith was mired in spiritual darkness, ignorance of the true gospel, adherence to false and abominable creeds, and so forth. No combination of texts from the Bible proves such an apostasy took place.

You wrote:

The evidence is circumstantial and cumulative. There may not be one killer evidence; but considered in the light of other scriptures, it becomes cumulative.

I can respect such an argument if it can be mounted, but so far I have not seen it.

You wrote:

For example, we have the following:

Ephesians 4:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

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

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

Can you give a good reason why only some of these officers should be necessary for the continues “perfecting of the saints, work of the ministry, edifying of the body of Christ” etc, but not all of them?

Sure, though I will need to refine the question somewhat. The question is why only some of these ministry offices should need to continue being held by living individuals in order for the perfecting of the saints to be accomplished. The question is easily answered by studying Paul's other references to apostles and prophets in the same epistle. Twice he refers to these two groups of people as playing a distinctive role in the church, that of the "foundation" of the church in being the messengers through whom God revealed the foundational truths that constitute the church as the new people of God (Eph. 2:20 and 3:5; see the whole context, Eph. 2:11-3:7). "The apostles and prophets" are separated in this way from evangelists, pastors, and teachers by Paul himself in this very epistle. Paul's teaching on the subject makes it clear that apostles and prophets were never meant to be regular administrative or governing offices in the church; they were special ministries for the foundation of the church in its first generation.

Regarding the fact that the Jerusalem Council is the only such council meeting reported in Acts, you wrote:

While it is true that it appears to have been the only occurrence, it sets an important precedent.

But that's just what you need to show from the Book of Acts and have not shown. Nothing in the account or in the book as a whole supports the claim that the Jerusalem Council was "precedent" for a regulative principle that the church would supposedly always need to be governed by apostles making decisions on the basis of new revelations. This is an idea you are reading into the text, not an idea that comes from the text itself.

You wrote:

I think this has already been explained. The keys and priesthood authority rested in the Apostles. It was lost when that institution could not be perpetuated due to general apostasy, insufficient faith among Christians, and the hostile environment of the Gentile world at that time.

And as I have also already explained, by this reasoning these supposed keys and authority should be lost to you today, because over 99% of the Christian world rejects your apostles and lacks faith in your religious principles (i.e., is still apostate), and the Gentile world is still rather hostile toward Mormons. What's the difference?

You wrote:

The “keys” were “keys of the kingdom” which made it possible for them to “bind on earth and it will be bound in heaven, and loose on earth and it will be loosed in heaven”. I should have thought it would be pretty obvious that where those “keys” don’t exist, then the “kingdom” doesn’t exist.

Once the doors have been opened, the keys no longer need to be used.

You wrote:

I agree that the Protestant doctrine of the Apostasy is different from the Mormon one; but that is not the point. The point is that they did believe in a serious apostasy of the Christian Church, and even interpreted 2 Thess. 2:3-12 as a prediction of that Apostasy. They saw the Pope and the Catholic Church as the embodiment of that Apostasy.

I don't bind myself to agree in all particulars with the views of all Protestants -- a freedom that is basic to Protestantism -- so there's really no need to keep beating that particular horse.

[Vance]

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).

"no one" except Vance that is. I did refute your review and did so in such a devastating manner that you could only respond by presenting a red herring you found while quote mining at LDS.org.

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.

A distinction without a difference.

Definition of REPLACE

transitive verb

1

: to restore to a former place or position <replace cards in a file>

2

: to take the place of especially as a substitute or successor

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).

LOL!!!

The only mention of "apostle" in Acts 9 is,

27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

which clearly distinguishes and separates Paul from being among "the apostles" at that time. So, it is rather obvious that Paul was not called to be an "apostle" at this time.

The first mention of Paul being an apostle is in Acts 14:14 which is after James was killed (Acts 12:2).

Also "apostle" isn't mentioned in either Acts 22 or Acts 26. So your argument has no basis or support there.

And since ALL true "apostles" were "apostles", "not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father", Gal 1 doesn't separate Paul from the rest of the "apostles" in the manner of his calling to the apostleship, but he is thereby declaring his INCLUSION with the other "apostles".

You are conflating simply being called to the ministry with being called to the apostleship in a manner which the NT does NOT declare. You are simply asserting them to be the same.

As someone once said,

You made this assertion without providing any evidence to back it up. That means that all I need to do to answer this criticism adequately is simply to deny it. I deny it.

It is rather clear that a more significant change was made to "Saul's" ministry in Acts 13, for then, he was specifically separated for the work the Lord called him too AND was no longer called by "Saul" but by his new name "Paul". And in the very next chapter is the first time that he is specifically called an Apostle.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

That simply is not so. Acts 20:29 in context teaches a partial apostasy.

You apparently missed my refutation of this point.

You cannot combine this passage with others to reach a conclusion contrary to this passage.

The problem you have is that this passage is NOT contrary to the concept of a total apostasy, as I have explained before. So, combining this passage with others strengthens the our position.

Revelation is clear that at the time of its writing ONLY seven congregations were even recognized and ONLY two of the seven weren't reprimanded for some form of apostasy. Revelation also clearly declares that the "beast" would "make war with the saints", and "overcome them".

"Saints", as you know, are members of the Church. A person can clearly be called a "Christian" (one who believes in Christ) WITHOUT being a "saint". But the "Church" can NOT exist without members ("saints"). So CLEARLY, when the "saints" were overcome the "church" CEASED to exist.

What Mormonism means by apostasy includes what you say here but also asserts that the entirety of Christianity prior to Joseph Smith was mired in spiritual darkness, ignorance of the true gospel, adherence to false and abominable creeds, and so forth. No combination of texts from the Bible proves such an apostasy took place.

Why would you expect to find "proof" when it comes to matters of faith?

And since the victor gets to write (or rewrite) the history, no one would expect to find "proof" of an apostasy. Have you ever met an apostate that claims to be a Christian while admitting that what he is doing/teaching is of the devil?

[mfbukowski]

What I mean by apostasy is the falling away of individuals or groups from the faith. What Mormonism means by apostasy includes what you say here but also asserts that the entirety of Christianity prior to Joseph Smith was mired in spiritual darkness, ignorance of the true gospel, adherence to false and abominable creeds, and so forth. No combination of texts from the Bible proves such an apostasy took place.

The absurdity of this statement boggles the imagination.

First, the texts of the Bible were written BEFORE the apostasy, so of course they are not going to address the outcome of future events. Of course they do predict a "falling away" in numerous places, but of course that does not count.

They also mention nothing about the need for a Reformation, so I guess there was no need for one. They also do not address men walking on the moon- certain proof that it never happened. Nor the atomic bomb or the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Hundred Years War nor a host of other things which apparently never happened because they are not in the Bible.

And precisely what would constitute a "complete Apostasy" anyway? Loss of the knowledge that Jesus was the Christ?

The whole concept of a "complete apostasy" is a total illusion. A complete apostasy would include no knowledge whatsoever about the savior, especially when Christians DEFINE salvation as "believing in Christ".

From that standpoint, a "complete apostasy" would have to entail a return to no knowledge of Christ whatsoever- perhaps as found in other parts of the world outside of western civilization.

We do not believe in a complete apostasy anyway- just the loss of the keys of the priesthood and loss of proper ordinances.

The notion of a complete apostasy is actually self-contradictory - it is like "proving a negative".

To show there was a complete apostasy one would have to show that the knowledge of Christ was totally lost- but yet SOMEONE would have to know about the lost knowledge to know it was lost.

You can't both know about someone and at the same time lose that knowledge!

You can't both know that Christ existed and that the knowledge of Christ was lost- because your knowledge of Christ means that the knowledge was NOT lost.

The whole thing is just a mass of confusion.

Edited June 5, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Vance]

Paul never considered himself part of the Twelve and consistently distinguished himself from the Jerusalem apostles (1 Cor. 15:5-8; Gal. 1-2).

What is interesting about 1 Cor 15:5 (And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: ), is that Paul uses the phrase "the twelve" to refer to the ELEVEN remaining apostles, for Judas didn't see the risen Christ.

So, what about "the twelve" is so significant that Paul would use that phrase rather than the more accurate "eleven"?

Edited June 5, 2012 by Vance

[Log]

As history is written by the winners, why should we expect the Bible to make explicit mention of the Apostasy? That would undermine the apostates' claims to authority, wouldn't it?

I hope Rob decides to respond, in all necessary detail, to the essay linked to herein.

[Rob Bowman]

Log,

You wrote:

As history is written by the winners, why should we expect the Bible to make explicit mention of the Apostasy? That would undermine the apostates' claims to authority, wouldn't it?

All you're doing here is moving the goalposts. Mormons routinely quote biblical proof texts in support of the Great Apostasy. Several here have tried to argue that the Bible plainly and simply teaches it. Now you want to dismiss the matter as irrelevant because supposedly the apostates are responsible for the Bible we have. If you're serious about this claim, then argue the point with your fellow Mormons.

You wrote:

I hope Rob decides to respond, in all necessary detail, to the essay linked to herein.

I actually started working on a critique of Nibley's essay some years ago, but other matters have simply been more pressing. I'm afraid I don't have time now, either.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Paul uses the expression "the twelve" because it was a shorthand expression for the group of apostles that originally numbered twelve, and that numbered twelve again after the traitor Judas was replaced.

What is interesting about 1 Cor 15:5 (And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve , is that Paul uses the phrase "the twelve" to refer to the ELEVEN remaining apostles, for Judas didn't see the risen Christ.

So, what about "the twelve" is so significant that Paul would use that phrase rather than the more accurate "eleven"?

[Vance]

Vance,

Paul uses the expression "the twelve" because it was a shorthand expression for the group of apostles that originally numbered twelve, and that numbered twelve again after the traitor Judas was replaced.

Thanks for admitting that "the twelve" is not just the number of men in the original group, put rather a title for the group/quorum of apostles itself regardless of the number of members at any given time. The significance of this fact is not lost on us.

[Vance]

Mormons routinely quote biblical proof texts in support of the Great Apostasy.

Yup, because those proof texts exist and are clear. That is why we quote them.

Several here have tried to argue that the Bible plainly and simply teaches it.

You just admitted that we routinely quote these texts and then you try to claim that they don't really exist.

I actually started working on a critique of Nibley's essay some years ago, but other matters have simply been more pressing. I'm afraid I don't have time now, either.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Vance

[mfbukowski]

All you're doing here is moving the goalposts. Mormons routinely quote biblical proof texts in support of the Great Apostasy. Several here have tried to argue that the Bible plainly and simply teaches it. Now you want to dismiss the matter as irrelevant because supposedly the apostates are responsible for the Bible we have. If you're serious about this claim, then argue the point with your fellow Mormons.

Totally disingenuous.

We quote proof texts to show that the apostasy had already BEGUN and was prophesied!

You know, because it was still in the future??

What you want is a proof text showing that it had already HAPPENED.

The only problem with that was that- guess what- it hadn't happened YET when those texts were written.

I guess what you want is a statement in the Bible that says:

"Please discount and modify much of what you read in this series of books which have not been put together yet, because much of it will be altered in the future".

Surely you understand the difference between the future, past, and present tense.

Suddenly you forget that the ravening wolves "will come"? You want it to say "they have already been here".

Edited June 5, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for admitting that "the twelve" is not just the number of men in the original group, put rather a title for the group/quorum of apostles itself regardless of the number of members at any given time. The significance of this fact is not lost on us.

Indeed, that is the entire point!

[Log]

I actually started working on a critique of Nibley's essay some years ago, but other matters have simply been more pressing. I'm afraid I don't have time now, either.

Others who had time similarly declined, even in the journal in which it was originally published. That's a long time waiting for a cogent counter, I think. Long enough to think there isn't one coming.

[Rob Bowman]

Bukowski,

You wrote:

Totally disingenuous.

We quote proof texts to show that the apostasy had already BEGUN and was prophesied!

You know, because it was still in the future??

What you want is a proof text showing that it had already HAPPENED.

CFR that this is what I want or have asked to be shown.

[Rob Bowman]

Log,

You wrote:

Others who had time similarly declined, even in the journal in which it was originally published. That's a long time waiting for a cogent counter, I think. Long enough to think there isn't one coming.

Sorry, there's only one of me. It's unreasonable to expect me to produce substantive critiques of every essay Nibley wrote, let alone everything that every LDS scholar wrote. I'm currently working on several projects that tackle a large number of scholarly LDS publications, but I can only do so much at a time.

If you'd like, you can offer a summary of Nibley's essay and highlight a few points that you think are especially crucial or telling, and I'll try to respond to what you present.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Thanks for admitting that "the twelve" is not just the number of men in the original group, put rather a title for the group/quorum of apostles itself regardless of the number of members at any given time. The significance of this fact is not lost on us.

Assertion that you know something is nice but no substitute for actually presenting an argument. If you wish to present an argument based on this suppose admission, fire away.

[mfbukowski]

Bukowski,

You wrote:

CFR that this is what I want or have asked to be shown.

I suppose I have to read your mind to answer that, right? Why don't you just tell me?

I suppose I could CFR you right back to tell me "what I want" but I actually realize how absurd that is.

[DBMormon]

hey Rob Bowman a couple of questions?

1.) Why did Jesus lay hands on 12 of his disciples and give them callings as apostles?

2.) Why when Judas is no longer one of the 12 do they call a new apostle to fill that void?

3.) why does ephesians 4:11 say that we have been given apostles and prophets among other offices to be a benefeit unto us till we come to a unity of the faith? Is it saying we need them till then? If so have we come to that unity yet? If not where are the apostles that have been set apart by one having authority? "You have not chosen me but I have chosen you."

4.) While you obviously dissagree and likely see many percieved flaws do you see the LDS church as having a strong claim? Do you see room for a possibility of a falling away & restoration? Not asking you to validate it just whether you see room for possibilities?

5.) How does one become a apostle and a prophet in your theology or is there no need for either because all Christianity has become unified in the faith?

[Vance]

What you want is a proof text showing that it had already HAPPENED.

CFR that this is what I want or have asked to be shown.

The issue is whether the church ceased to exist on the earth for over a millennium and needed to be restored in a new dispensation. The NT apostles never taught such an idea.

[Vance]

Assertion that you know something is nice but no substitute for actually presenting an argument.

You need an argument supporting the importance of your own admission?

If you wish to present an argument based on this suppose (sic) admission, fire away.

So now your admission is a "suppose(d) admission"? Are you backtracking on your admission?

Why would I want or need to present an argument for something that you already admitted?

[bcuzbcuz]

Many here are missing the point entirely. Simply quoting scripture or even using the church name as proof that Mormons are Christians is ignoring the fact that thousands of people will not vote for Romney because he belongs to a church they perceive as non-Christian.

Facts have nothing to do with the matter. It's like arguing that Sony's Beta was better than VHS. You may be right but the battle was fought and won on a field that had nothing to do with the facts.

First you must think like your opponents. What would Mormons do if they felt that the candidate for president was the devil incarnate? How would you fight against such an opponent? But more importantly, how would you campaign for a candidate viewed as the ultimate enemy by those you wish to join your fight? How do you fight against General Ignorance with Major Truth?

[Log]

If you'd like, you can offer a summary of Nibley's essay and highlight a few points that you think are especially crucial or telling, and I'll try to respond to what you present.

I don't like. The essay is short enough to read in its entirety within 20 minutes, and I provided the link to the source. You have your own priorities, I know.

Well, it's been 51 years since its publication. What's a few more?

Edited June 5, 2012 by Log