Scriptural argument for the Apostasy

I realize that there have been several threads that have addressed the apostasy, but I would like to start a new one with a little more controlled discussion. By apostasy I refer to the loss of Apostolic authority that occurred as the early Apostles were persecuted and eventually killed. As the Apostles were taken, so was the general revelatory communication with God that Christ declared would come to the Apostles through the Holy Ghost. This loss of Apostolic authority and revelation allowed the church to fall into error and resulted in corrupted doctrines and practices, despite the good intentions of honest men.

The question of the apostasy is one of the most critical points in all of modern Christianity. If there was no apostasy then all Christian denominations are in error except for either the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church, as they provide the strongest cases for Apostolic succession. However if an apostasy did occur then a full restoration, not merely a reformation, of Christ's church is the only way that we might obtain the truth in its complete purity.

I believe that it is impossible to difinitively prove one way or another that such an apostasy took place, but I also believe that there is scriptural evidence that strongly suggests that it did. This scriptural evidence argues for the apostasy in at least two ways:

1. Prophecy of such an event.
2. Description of doctrines/practices that have since been corrupted or lost.

After this introduction I will post an opening argument for both points mentioned above.

In order to maintain a considerate and controlled discussion/debate in this thread I ask that the following ground rules apply:

1. Proceed with this undebateable premise: While on earth Jesus Christ established an organized church and authorized Apostles to govern it through the direction of the Holy Ghost. (Debating of this topic should be done in a different thread.)
2. Avoid all attacks on leadership personalities (i.e. prophets, popes, cardinals, bishops, etc) and unofficial doctrines. The intent of this thread is to debate official doctrines/practices as they relate to those established by Christ in the Bible.
3. Limit the source of truth to the Bible (our only common cannon). Any other sources (modern-day scripture, early Christian writings, etc.) should primarily be used to help convey one's own postion since they will not carry the same authorative weight among all of the discussion participants.

I have intentionally posted this in the General Religious Debate forum so as not to discourage non-Christians from giving their 2 cents and asking questions pertaining to the thread topic. All I ask is that all adhere to the ground rules stated above.

Polaris said:

I realize that there have been several threads that have addressed the apostasy, but I would like to start a new one with a little more controlled discussion. By apostasy I refer to the loss of Apostolic authority that occurred as the early Apostles were persecuted and eventually killed. As the Apostles were taken, so was the general revelatory communication with God that Christ declared would come to the Apostles through the Holy Ghost. This loss of Apostolic authority and revelation allowed the church to fall into error and resulted in corrupted doctrines and practices, despite the good intentions of honest men.

The question of the apostasy is one of the most critical points in all of modern Christianity. If there was no apostasy then all Christian denominations are in error except for either the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church, as they provide the strongest cases for Apostolic succession. However if an apostasy did occur then a full restoration, not merely a reformation, of Christ's church is the only way that we might obtain the truth in its complete purity.

I believe that it is impossible to difinitively prove one way or another that such an apostasy took place, but I also believe that there is scriptural evidence that strongly suggests that it did. This scriptural evidence argues for the apostasy in at least two ways:

1. Prophecy of such an event.
2. Description of doctrines/practices that have since been corrupted or lost.

After this introduction I will post an opening argument for both points mentioned above.

In order to maintain a considerate and controlled discussion/debate in this thread I ask that the following ground rules apply:

1. Proceed with this undebateable premise: While on earth Jesus Christ established an organized church and authorized Apostles to govern it through the direction of the Holy Ghost. (Debating of this topic should be done in a different thread.)
2. Avoid all attacks on leadership personalities (i.e. prophets, popes, cardinals, bishops, etc) and unofficial doctrines. The intent of this thread is to debate official doctrines/practices as they relate to those established by Christ in the Bible.
3. Limit the source of truth to the Bible (our only common cannon). Any other sources (modern-day scripture, early Christian writings, etc.) should primarily be used to help convey one's own postion since they will not carry the same authorative weight among all of the discussion participants.

I have intentionally posted this in the General Religious Debate forum so as not to discourage non-Christians from giving their 2 cents and asking questions pertaining to the thread topic. All I ask is that all adhere to the ground rules stated above.

Click to expand...

what about relative history around the era... out side the bible text but in the timeline of the nt would this be ok to add to the discussion?

Unfortunately the N.T. leaves us with few scriptures that give us any insight to the succession of Apostolic authority and the short term fate of the church in general. There are however, a few scriptures that describe a period of apostasy. Two in particular come to mind:

Amos 8:11-12 : Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.

Though the time period that this verse makes reference to is difficult to determine, it is clear in its description of some future period of apostasy.

2 Thessalonians 2:2-3 : That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.

Here Paul instructs the saints concerning the timing of the second coming of Christ. He declares that the second coming will not occur until after a falling away, or apostasy, has taken place.

Now, I'm familiar with the passage in Matthew that is commonly used to refute the apostasy.

Matthew 16:18 : ... and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

This verse has been analyzed several times in this forum so I won't belabor the issue other than to point out that the common interpretation of this verse - that evil shall not prevail against the church - is simply not consistent with the original Greek text. A more accurate interpretation would be - that the gates to the realm of the dead shall not prevail against the church - implying that the blessings of God's kingdom shall extend to those beyond the grave, or that such blessings will persist after death. It appears to be a declaration of the eternal nature of God's Kingdom and not a reference to the devil's inability to affect the progress of the church.

One indication that the verses above indeed describe a period of apostasy is the missing office of Apostle in the early (3rd and 4th century) Christian church. The Catholic and Orthodox claim that the Apostolic authority was simply passed on to Bishops. Why? There is no scriptural indication that the office of Apostle should be done away with and be absolved into the office of Bishop. To the contrary Paul declared that the church was built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets with Christ being the chief corner stone. Ephesians 4:11-12 goes on to state "And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists and some pastors and teachers. For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." The office of Apostle appears to be a vital part in the true church of Christ, yet did not survive the death of the original Apostles. How then, can we assume that true Apostolic revelation and authority managed to survive?

In my opinion the scriptural evidence that I have presented argues strongly in favor of the actuality of the apostasy. If any see a flaw in my reasoning please share and let the debate begin.

PHOTOTAKER said:

what about relative history around the era... out side the bible text but in the timeline of the nt would this be ok to add to the discussion?

Click to expand...

Yes, feel free to use any information you wish to explain your point, however be aware that your sources may not carry the same weight with others as they do with you. The assumption of this thread is that all participants consider the Bible to be the word of God and therefore it should be generally considered as the only source of pure truth.

There are several important doctrines that were endorsed by the early (3rd and 4th century) Christian church that do not coincide with what the Bible teaches. Surprisingly some of these doctrines include such fundamental ideas as the nature of God, His relationship to Jesus Christ, and their divine role in relation to us. Other non-scriptural doctrines and practices that later found their way into the Christian church (and others even later in the Roman Catholic Church) include the veneration of icons, baptism of infants, paid clergy, mandated celibacy, indulgences, declarations of sainthood, elevated status of Mary, and the list could go on.

In order to keep this post relatively brief I'll just focus on a few, with some of them lumped together.

The Nature of God and His relation to Jesus Christ

The scriptures clearly state that we are made in the image of God, that we are his children, and that Christ also is his son. It also seems clear to me that the scriptures teach that God the Father and Jesus Christ are two distinct individuals - they are literally father and son just as the scriptures declare. Christ constantly made comments referring to the Father in second or third person such as "I go to my Father", "my Father is greater than I", "I do the will of the Father", "not my will but thine be done", "My God, why hast thou forsaken me",etc. It is true that Christ also said that " I and my Father are one", but he also prayed to his Father that his disciples "may be one, even as we are one". The oneness mentioned is clearly referring to unity, and oneness in purpose and objective, not oneness in some physical or mysterious metaphysical way. Further, we have accounts like that of Stephen in which he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God, which undoubtedly portrays them as separate individuals. There is also the passage in Romans 8:17 that names Christ as the heir to God and extends that honor to us as joint heirs with Christ according to our faithfulness.

With all of the scriptural evidence, how can this simple truth be refuted? Yet somehow the notion of a true Father-Son relationship between Jesus and God the Father did not survive the centuries following the passing of the apostles.

Baptism

According to John 3:5 and various similar scriptures, baptism is one of the requirements for us to be able to enter the Kingdom of God. These verses are quite clear that all need baptism. In Romans 6:4 Paul teaches that the act of baptism by immersion is done so with important symbolic meaning - with baptism we are buried and raised up with a new life as disciples of Christ. All baptisms in the N.T. were performed by immersion for this very reason. Similarly we learn that baptism is for repentance and remission of sins (Luke 3:3). For this reason we do not find baptism of infants anywhere in the scriptures, as infants are not capable of committing sin and have no need of repentance and also are not capable of consciously repenting and deciding to begin a new life as a disciple of Christ for which baptism is representative.

Again these are principles that were evident in the N.T. writings, but for whatever reason were not heeded as the ordinance of baptism was altered in the early centuries of the Christian church.

Veneration of Icons

The veneration of icons is something that I have a hard time understanding. It is expressed emphatically over and over throughout the Bible that the adoration of idols is an abomination, and God only should we worship. I realize that iconodules argue that icons are not idols and they do not worship the icons, rather they venerate them. I have no problem with maintaining respect for artwork that portrays sacred things but anything more than that in my opinion could easily be considered worship. Further there is absolutely no precedent for the veneration of icons anywhere in scripture. We were taught to pray to the Father in the name of Christ, not through a picture or statue of some other honorable person. I would probably lump the declaration of saints and elevated status of Mary in with this argument. In N.T. terminology saints were simply the members of the church and nowhere is it indicated that anyone other than Christ should receive some special divine title, especially for the purpose of veneration or worship through such an individual. There are many honorable people who deserve our respect, and Mary definitely falls into this category, however to place them on some higher plane for purposes of worship through them, or prayer directed to them is next to idolatry.

These currupted doctrines are further witness that an apostasy did occur. Though many important doctrines did remain in tact, the complete gospel in its purity was taken from the earth along with the true apostolic authority. And only a complete restoration of truth and authority could change that.

form a historical point of view, the Romans decided to destroy the church of Christ... this is found in history books more geared to the beliefs of the roman empire... there is also evidence that the roman empire distroyed the disciples of Christ in the dead sea scrolls (don't go here), which leads to the separation of the bible into three different books the bible, the Jewish book (i could never remember the name) and the Muslim book (can't spell it) the teaching where at one point in one book but all three of them put together only supplied about 1/100 of religious knowledge and beliefs the original bible was about the size of a library which was in new Constopinaple (I had to phonically spell it)... this isn't theory but fact, as far as history books are concerned I’ll be the first to adment that there not always right on the different subjects and are somewhat incomplete and often unreliable but there closer to what happend there then being there in the first place... and all of this happened before the bible was edited by scholars by the roman empire... all this happened in the span of 200 years from the death of Christ i beleave (not 100% sure when it all started)… i personal thank that it is less then this... which just this beging part suports the bibles clam of the apsoitsy... the real queston is how accerit history is... the sorces are form the history books in this eara, too many to sight and i don't have all the research in fornt of me or i would include dates on this...

i will admint that all of what i said is from memory and i don't even have all of the books infront of me to tell you where i got some of the facts. i only try to give what i know to be right without too much confution and argument i can go way more indeph but i feel without book to quote from it wouldn't be worth putting down on this site and i would be jiping everyone on the truth if i get it wrong... what i put down is a general things of what happend that i know insideout and backward to say...

PHOTOTAKER said:

form a historical point of view, the Romans decided to destroy the church of Christ... this is found in history books more geared to the beliefs of the roman empire... there is also evidence that the roman empire distroyed the disciples of Christ in the dead sea scrolls (don't go here), which leads to the separation of the bible into three different books the bible, the Jewish book (i could never remember the name) and the Muslim book (can't spell it) the teaching where at one point in one book but all three of them put together only supplied about 1/100 of religious knowledge and beliefs the original bible was about the size of a library which was in new Constopinaple (I had to phonically spell it)... this isn't theory but fact, as far as history books are concerned I’ll be the first to adment that there not always right on the different subjects and are somewhat incomplete and often unreliable but there closer to what happend there then being there in the first place... and all of this happened before the bible was edited by scholars by the roman empire... all this happened in the span of 200 years from the death of Christ i beleave (not 100% sure when it all started)… i personal thank that it is less then this... which just this beging part suports the bibles clam of the apsoitsy... the real queston is how accerit history is... the sorces are form the history books in this eara, too many to sight and i don't have all the research in fornt of me or i would include dates on this...

Click to expand...

Sorry, it's getting kind of late, and I must be getting tired. I had a hard time following all of your post. What exactly are you claiming supports the Bible's claim of the apostasy?

Polaris,

On the issue of the veneration of icons, you still seem to misunderstand. We do not pray to or through icons. They are reminders of the cloud of witnesses and help us to focus on God. They remind us of the efforts of those who have gone before and gave us great examples of how to live the Christian life. They are not, in any way, idols. They are not worshipped and veneration simply means to give honour to them. In this instance, if you think that we are giving honour to the wood and paint representation then you are as far wrong as you would be if you thought praying to saints was anything other than asking them to pray to God for us (which you do also appear to misunderstand). The veneration of icons is showing love and honour for the saint depicted and the God who worked through them, above all the latter. Disrespecting the representation is seen as disrespecting the one represented. Americans should be able to understand this concept quite easily given the way American culture generally views the US flag.

Both veneration of icons and prayer to saints are very early practices of the Church (and the honouring of Mary is easily shown during her own lifetime, though the terms of this debate preclude me from producing the evidence) and are absolutely no evidence of an apostacy. I would, in fact, argue that the LDS take on such practices show evidence of heavily Protestant and therefore late theology which to my mind argues against the possibility of the LDS church being a restoration of the early Church. I would say that in order for you to claim the apostacy and subsequent restoration through Joseph Smith you would have to show LDS doctrines being taught in the very early years of the Church. I've yet to see any such evidence but I'll be happy to discuss anything you can come up with. I warn you, though, that if you choose to proof text Fathers (St. Athanasius is quite a common one for LDS) that clearly support Orthodox doctrine elsewhere in their works, then I will point this out.

I do not believe that any evidence of an apostacy exists outside of the beliefs of the LDS church, though I do at least appreciate that, unlike many Protestants who hold to the Great Apostacy theory, you are at least consistent in your belief that if such an apostacy occurred only a completed restoration of the Church could fix it.

James

JamesThePersian said:

On the issue of the veneration of icons, you still seem to misunderstand. We do not pray to or through icons. They are reminders of the cloud of witnesses and help us to focus on God. They remind us of the efforts of those who have gone before and gave us great examples of how to live the Christian life. They are not, in any way, idols. They are not worshipped and veneration simply means to give honour to them. In this instance, if you think that we are giving honour to the wood and paint representation then you are as far wrong as you would be if you thought praying to saints was anything other than asking them to pray to God for us (which you do also appear to misunderstand). The veneration of icons is showing love and honour for the saint depicted and the God who worked through them, above all the latter. Disrespecting the representation is seen as disrespecting the one represented. Americans should be able to understand this concept quite easily given the way American culture generally views the US flag.

Click to expand...

You may be right, I could very well misunderstand the issue. To give honor to someone is perfectly acceptable. So you do not kneel in front of such an icon and offer prayer to or through them? If you do not, and your icons are simply a token of respect and honor, then my understanding and statements of veneration do not apply to you.

JamesThePersian said:

Both veneration of icons and prayer to saints are very early practices of the Church (and the honouring of Mary is easily shown during her own lifetime, though the terms of this debate preclude me from producing the evidence) and are absolutely no evidence of an apostacy.

Click to expand...

Now here you reference prayer to saints, that's more than showing honor and respect. That may very well have been part of early practices of the Church, but that does not prove that it is correct. I have no problem with honoring Mary, but praying to her is more than honoring her. You are welcome to produce evidence for what you believe from any source. I just want you to understand that it may not carry the same authorative weight with me and others as it does with you. If you feel it helps your argument feel free to use such information.

JamesThePersian said:

I would, in fact, argue that the LDS take on such practices show evidence of heavily Protestant and therefore late theology which to my mind argues against the possibility of the LDS church being a restoration of the early Church.

Click to expand...

Our take on such practices are based on scripture. No where does it encourage or even mention prayer to saints. Always Christ taught to pray to the Father in the name of Christ.

JamesThePersian said:

I would say that in order for you to claim the apostacy and subsequent restoration through Joseph Smith you would have to show LDS doctrines being taught in the very early years of the Church. I've yet to see any such evidence but I'll be happy to discuss anything you can come up with. I warn you, though, that if you choose to proof text Fathers (St. Athanasius is quite a common one for LDS) that clearly support Orthodox doctrine elsewhere in their works, then I will point this out.

Click to expand...

I have described several: baptism by immersion, belief that God is literally Jesus Christ's father, office of Apostles to lead the church through relvelation, do you want more?

JamesThePersian said:

I do not believe that any evidence of an apostacy exists outside of the beliefs of the LDS church, though I do at least appreciate that, unlike many Protestants who hold to the Great Apostacy theory, you are at least consistent in your belief that if such an apostacy occurred only a completed restoration of the Church could fix it.

Click to expand...

Thanks, and I honestly respect your beliefs.

Polaris,

We do not pray to the saints, we ask them to pray for us just as we would a living member of our parish. There's a major difference there. Unfortunately I'm currently debating this ad nauseum in another thread and so don't feel up to going through it all again. As for your doctines, baptism by immersion has always been practiced by us so you get no argument there (but nor did it need to be restored), I see absolutely no evidence of God's literal fatherhood of Christ in the early Church if you mean what this sounds like (and I sincerely hope you do not). You'd probably need to explain this further. As to the Apostles, I simply don't understand your preoccupation with the title and as an Apostle is literally one who is sent out to preach the Gospel, I can't see that you have any either (though you do have the title). We also have later saints called the Apostle to X or Equal to the Apostles and I simply don't see that there is a defined office of the Apostles but see it rather as a role. I see no reason for your doubt that the authority of the Apostles passed to their successors either. I was, however, referring to uniquely LDS doctrines, those that seem most alien to other Christians. If you could provide evidencefor any of those I would appreciate it.

James

JamesThePersian said:

We do not pray to the saints, we ask them to pray for us just as we would a living member of our parish. There's a major difference there. Unfortunately I'm currently debating this ad nauseum in another thread and so don't feel up to going through it all again.

Click to expand...

OK, as long as the saints and icons are just for honor and respect I can accept that.

JamesThePersian said:

As for your doctines, baptism by immersion has always been practiced by us so you get no argument there (but nor did it need to be restored),

Click to expand...

Good, I was unaware of that, and you're correct that baptism by immersion didn't need to be restored as long as the proper priesthood authority remained. It is my claim that this authority was taken with the apostasy and the authority is what needed to be restored to effectively perform valid baptism by immersion.

JamesThePersian said:

I see absolutely no evidence of God's literal fatherhood of Christ in the early Church if you mean what this sounds like (and I sincerely hope you do not). You'd probably need to explain this further.

Click to expand...

Sorry I wasn't clear. I simply meant that Christ being God's son implies that they are two distinct individuals.

JamesThePersian said:

As to the Apostles, I simply don't understand your preoccupation with the title and as an Apostle is literally one who is sent out to preach the Gospel, I can't see that you have any either (though you do have the title). We also have later saints called the Apostle to X or Equal to the Apostles and I simply don't see that there is a defined office of the Apostles but see it rather as a role. I see no reason for your doubt that the authority of the Apostles passed to their successors either.

Click to expand...

My preoccupation comes from scriptural evidence as to the importance of the Apostleship. Christ selected 12 Apostles to govern and receive revelation through the Holy Ghost to guide the church. The verses that I referred to in Ephesians clearly indicate that the office of Apostle existed and was important. Why should the authority of the Apostles be passed on to Bishops? It is a completely different office of authority.

JamesThePersian said:

I was, however, referring to uniquely LDS doctrines, those that seem most alien to other Christians. If you could provide evidence for any of those I would appreciate it.

Click to expand...

The doctrines that I have mentioned should be sufficient to illustrate ample evidence of the existance of an apostasy. But if you feel that discussion of other unique LDS doctrines would add to the debate, I'll gladly oblige. Take your pick from from any of the following:

1. Belief in a living prophet and 12 Apostles who are authorized to govern Christ's church, receive general revelation, and even receive modern scripture.
2. Belief that ALL mankind will have the opportunity to hear and accept the gospel of Jesus Christ whether it be in this life or after. This belief includes vicarious baptism for the dead.
3. Belief that through the sealing authority of the priesthood, marriages and family relations can remain intact after death.
4. Belief that the final state of souls (post final judgement) is not confined to a black-and-white/heaven-or-hell/all-or-nothing state. We believe that there are differing degrees of glory based on one's faithfulness. We also believe that almost all of God's children will receive some form or degree of glory. Only very few will receive no glory (i.e. eternal hell, outer darkness, whatever you want to call it).
5. Belief that as children of God we can be as Paul said "joint heirs with Christ". We have divine potential and can someday become like our Father. That is ultimately what He wants - His children whom he loves to become like Him and have all that He has.

There are undoubtedly others but these were the main ones that came to mind. Take your pick, or if you know of another one you'd like to discuss be my guest.

Polaris said:

as the early Apostles were persecuted and eventually killed

Click to expand...

I understand that proof for such a general extermination is lacking - even martyrdom for one single Apostle seems questionable - even though the definition of "Apostle" and the number of them isn't very well established in the NT. For example, the Church of Sweden (Evangelical Lutheran) claims that is is upholding the Apostolic succession.

Polaris said:

The office of Apostle appears to be a vital part in the true church of Christ, yet did not survive the death of the original Apostles. How then, can we assume that true Apostolic revelation and authority managed to survive?

Click to expand...

How indeed? Even more vital to Christianity was the presence of our Lord and Saviour. If it has survived for 2,000 years without his presence, then surely it can survive in the absence of apostles. The whole reason for the book of Acts was to inspire us to live in a manner worthy of the first century church.

We are a people looking for RULES to live by. Having only two is just so tedious and they don't allow any loopholes: Love God and Love Everyone else. In much the same way we want to construct officews and such that are not needed, but they make us feel justifired.

The church is the entire body of Jesus. Not a building on the corner. As such, each of us do different things.

anders said:

I understand that proof for such a general extermination is lacking - even martyrdom for one single Apostle seems questionable - even though the definition of "Apostle" and the number of them isn't very well established in the NT. For example, the Church of Sweden (Evangelical Lutheran) claims that is is upholding the Apostolic succession.

Click to expand...

True, proof is a strong word. However there is evidence that such an extermination occurred, including the fact that the two largest proponents (Catholics and Orthodox) for Apostolic succession do not have Apostles. I am not at all familiar with the Church of Sweden. So you have Apostles that help lead your church? How exactly did your Apostolic succession occur? There is also the other half of my debate that involves doctrinal purity relative to that taught in the Bible. What are your views of the doctrines that I have discussed?

NetDoc said:

How indeed? Even more vital to Christianity was the presence of our Lord and Saviour. If it has survived for 2,000 years without his presence, then surely it can survive in the absence of apostles.

Click to expand...

Sure, some form of Christianity can survive without apostles. But what we're discussing is pure Christianity as established by Christ. Without some inspired leadership the theories and ideas of men, which are incorrect and not completely true, begin to creep into Christian teachings and practices.

NetDoc said:

The church is the entire body of Jesus. Not a building on the corner. As such, each of us do different things.

Click to expand...

Please refer to the opening post. In this thread we are debating under the premise that Christ indeed established an organized church with inspired leadership to preserve truth.

Polaris said:

I realize that there have been several threads that have addressed the apostasy, but I would like to start a new one with a little more controlled discussion. By apostasy I refer to the loss of Apostolic authority that occurred as the early Apostles were persecuted and eventually killed. As the Apostles were taken, so was the general revelatory communication with God that Christ declared would come to the Apostles through the Holy Ghost. This loss of Apostolic authority and revelation allowed the church to fall into error and resulted in corrupted doctrines and practices, despite the good intentions of honest men.

The question of the apostasy is one of the most critical points in all of modern Christianity. If there was no apostasy then all Christian denominations are in error except for either the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church, as they provide the strongest cases for Apostolic succession. However if an apostasy did occur then a full restoration, not merely a reformation, of Christ's church is the only way that we might obtain the truth in its complete purity.

I believe that it is impossible to difinitively prove one way or another that such an apostasy took place, but I also believe that there is scriptural evidence that strongly suggests that it did. This scriptural evidence argues for the apostasy in at least two ways:

1. Prophecy of such an event.
2. Description of doctrines/practices that have since been corrupted or lost.

After this introduction I will post an opening argument for both points mentioned above.

In order to maintain a considerate and controlled discussion/debate in this thread I ask that the following ground rules apply:

1. Proceed with this undebateable premise: While on earth Jesus Christ established an organized church and authorized Apostles to govern it through the direction of the Holy Ghost. (Debating of this topic should be done in a different thread.)
2. Avoid all attacks on leadership personalities (i.e. prophets, popes, cardinals, bishops, etc) and unofficial doctrines. The intent of this thread is to debate official doctrines/practices as they relate to those established by Christ in the Bible.
3. Limit the source of truth to the Bible (our only common cannon). Any other sources (modern-day scripture, early Christian writings, etc.) should primarily be used to help convey one's own postion since they will not carry the same authorative weight among all of the discussion participants.

I have intentionally posted this in the General Religious Debate forum so as not to discourage non-Christians from giving their 2 cents and asking questions pertaining to the thread topic. All I ask is that all adhere to the ground rules stated above.

Click to expand...

Look at your rule #1, above. There are some assumptions there, which I think are not entirely correct, and they skew your argument.

First, Jesus did not establish an organized Church. Jesus established ecclesia, which is the Greek word for "church." It means "body" or "group of people." This connotation stands in juxtaposition to the modern, populare connotation of the word "church." When we say "church," most folks thinks of a highly-organized machine. But that's not Biblically what Jesus left us. In fact, the early Church (ecclesia) was fairly amorphous in nature. it was the later Apostles who organized the Church.

Second, Jesus did authorize the Apostles (original Twelve) to govern through the direction of the Holy Spirit. When they laid hands on their successors and made more of themselves, authnorized and organized them to be imbedded "overseers," they were exercising the governing authority given to them by Jesus. Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that's how they chose to govern.

Third, the word "apostle" means "sent out." Jesus originally sent out 70 apostles, but he ordained only the original Twelve to govern, or "oversee" the ecclesia. The Greek word for "overseer" is episkopos, or "bishop." So, Jesus, himself, ordained the Twelve as bishops, which supreceded their earlier office of "apostle." They must have understood this, since it was they (the original Twelve) who began acting as bishops and authorizing other bishops.

It's an error of semantics. The gospelers refer to the original Twelve as Apostles, even though they were really acting out of their ordained office of bishop, or "overseer," as Jesus had commanded them.

Let's look at another of your quotations:

One indication that the verses above indeed describe a period of apostasy is the missing office of Apostle in the early (3rd and 4th century) Christian church. The Catholic and Orthodox claim that the Apostolic authority was simply passed on to Bishops. Why? There is no scriptural indication that the office of Apostle should be done away with and be absolved into the office of Bishop. To the contrary Paul declared that the church was built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets with Christ being the chief corner stone.

Click to expand...

As I've shown, your sentence which I've highlighted in red is mistaken. The scriptures clearly show that Jesus places the apostles "in charge" -- makes them "bishops." Yes. The Church was built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. But, as the Church became larger and more well-established, the original apostles chose, not by default, but by design to become imbedded bishops -- to be less itinerant -- less "sent out."

For example, Clement of Rome was the third bishop of Rome. It is known that Clement was a disciple of the original Twelve. Clement died in the year 100 c.e. Surely the original Twelve, to whom had been given authority by Jesus himself, knew about the establishment of the bishopric, since the term was widely used prior to their deaths. They approved of it, and supported it. It was their decision, out of necessity of circumstance, to organize the Church with imbedded bishops, rather than with itinerant apostles, as I've shown.

Your argument is compelling, but I don't think history will bear you out in your logic. Interesting stuff, though! Thanks!

the way this post is going i better not post what i was going to post... Matthew 24:4-14 sums up what will happen... some of what this scripter talks is about conspiracy, plagues, and the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is only the beginning of things that talk about a condemnation to the whole world…

i already know the answer to this question from the scriptures (I search for it myself)... but if i give you the answers then you will learn nothing and you will not accept what I tell you I saw it from another form I made...

the point that I find that most people in most faiths put the reasons of there belief because the bible isn’t complete so they excuse themselves. So God dose in the past will do in the future send prophets, seers and revelators. This has not stopped in the Old Testament and continues in the New Testament… so why not now. I never heard god saying I’ll send a pope or a bishop or something else… only a prophet or an angel…

for a side note there has been a lot of false prophets seince the time of Christ that has dead and no one remembers them... they have no good works and died under braking the law of man and God…

Polaris said:

Sure, some form of Christianity can survive without apostles. But what we're discussing is pure Christianity as established by Christ. Without some inspired leadership the theories and ideas of men, which are incorrect and not completely true, begin to creep into Christian teachings and practices.

Click to expand...

You have missed the true "leader" of the church: God's Spirit.

I Corinthians 2:10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ. NIV

The promise of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is for ALL Christians. We are the priests and we need no other.

Polaris said:

Please refer to the opening post. In this thread we are debating under the premise that Christ indeed established an organized church with inspired leadership to preserve truth.

Click to expand...

Of course... here is the scripture to support the "orginization" that I referred to:

Ephesians 4:7 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8This is why it says:
"When he ascended on high,
he led captives in his train
and gave gifts to men." 9 (What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10 He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. NIV

As the church matured, it's needs changed. On the day of pentecost it NEEDED Apostles. There was no written history of the church nor an easy way to figure out what Jesus expected from his bride. What was the goal? I highlighted it for us: to prepare US for works of service to build up the church!

I Corinthians 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. NIV

NetDoc said:

You have missed the true "leader" of the church: God's Spirit.

Click to expand...

Amen and amen Pete.... we may disagree, but I love your faith.

"...(S)alvation does not lie in religions as such, but it is connected to them, inasmuch as, and to the extent that, they lead man toward the one good, toward the search for God, for truth, and for love. The question of salvation therefore always carries within it an element of the criticism of religion, just as, contrariwise, it can build a positive relationship to religions. It has in case to do with the unity of the good, with the unity of what is true - with the unity of God and man."
Joseph Cardinal Ratizinger (Pope Benedict XVI)
Truth and Tolerance p.205(Ignatius Press)