Scriptural argument for the Apostasy

Scott said:

Until we are all ONE church, there is no such thing as the TRUE church.

Click to expand...

That is so true. Jesus prayed that we may be one, just as he and the Father are One. Jesus said that we are his Body, not bodies (plural). Jesus was intentional and clear about the issue of unity. so were the early leaders. The Church is (and always has been) an organic whole, with specific "parts" that perform specific functions. The Church is not present where all of these offices are not represented. The Eucharist is not present where all of these offices are not represented. The bishops are present through their presbyters in individual congregations.

If an apostasy has occurred, it has occurred because of separation, not due to doctrine or praxis. The Church became apostate the moment it split over "irreconcilable differences." The Church cannot be the "true" Church until it lives, once again, in unity, as one Body. I hope that we can all learn to live together in felicity and charity, putting differences aside that, in the grand scheme of things, do not matter.

sojourner said:

Read Acts.

Click to expand...

Been there, done that and I have the T-Shirt. If you don't have specific scriptures, just say so.

sojourner said:

The Church cannot be the "true" Church until it lives,

Click to expand...

I fully disagree: God ALWAYS has a remnant:

Romans 11:3 "Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"? 4 And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal." 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. NIV

Jesus promised that the gates of Hell should not overcome the church.

Matthew 16:17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." NIV

NetDoc said:

I fully disagree: God ALWAYS has a remnant:

Romans 11:3 "Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"? 4 And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal." 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. NIV

Jesus promised that the gates of Hell should not overcome the church.

Matthew 16:17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." NIV

Click to expand...

Yes. God does always provide a remnant. Thanks be to God for doing that, so that the Church might survive despite human folly. But a remnant does not constitute the Body of Christ as it was meant to be. Are you saying that Christ intended the ecclesia to be splintered into many "remnants?" No. Christ intended that we should be one and that is the true nature of the Church.

NetDoc said:

I fully disagree: God ALWAYS has a remnant:

Romans 11:3 "Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"? 4 And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal." 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. NIV

Click to expand...

This doesn't necessarily say that God ALWAYS has a remnant. It specifically says "at the present time". That doesn't in any way imply always. However I agree that remnants of the chruch that Christ set up did survive with the passing of the Apostles, unfortunately however certain important doctrines have been lost or altered along the way.

NetDoc said:

Jesus promised that the gates of Hell should not overcome the church.

Matthew 16:17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." NIV

Click to expand...

In an earlier post I described that the interpretation you provide for this passage is not entirely accurate:

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 [short term] progress of the church.

Click to expand...

Further, if the original author intended it to mean what you're suggesting why would he use the term "gates of Hades"? It seems a much more appropriate phrase would have been something like the "influence of the devil" or "fiery darts of the adversary". But "gates of Hades" doesn't illustrate anything even similar to what you're suggesting.

sojourner said:

Yes. God does always provide a remnant. Thanks be to God for doing that, so that the Church might survive despite human folly. But a remnant does not constitute the Body of Christ as it was meant to be. Are you saying that Christ intended the ecclesia to be splintered into many "remnants?" No. Christ intended that we should be one and that is the true nature of the Church.

Click to expand...

You make a good point - Christ definitely intended that we all be one and ultimately I believe that will happen. However, just because parties disagree on authority, doctrine, etc. doesn't necessarily mean that they are all wrong or incomplete. One of them could have the truth in its purity along with the true authority independent of whether or not everyone else accepts that they do.

Polaris said:

You make a good point - Christ definitely intended that we all be one and ultimately I believe that will happen. However, just because parties disagree on authority, doctrine, etc. doesn't necessarily mean that they are all wrong or incomplete. One of them could have the truth in its purity along with the true authority independent of whether or not everyone else accepts that they do.

Click to expand...

How are you going to go about determining which one that is? What criteria will you use? How are you sure that any are "wrong?"

"Wrong" and "incomplete" do not go hand in hand. Perhaps each piece of the puzzle is incomplete, as compared to the whole, but that doesn't make that piece "wrong." This leads me to the main point I want to make here:

Maybe we are all one, and we just refuse to recognize that? Maybe each part of the puzzle is necessary to the complete picture and we should each be happy with being the piece we are, while rejoicing that the other pieces are who they are. Then together -- as one -- we will comprise the whole picture. Why does unity have to be defined by uniformity?

sojourner said:

How are you going to go about determining which one that is?

Click to expand...

Now, that's the $64,000 question. We should definitely use the scriptures as a litmus test, but then how do we know if our interpretation of the Bible is right? Only God can help each of us really answer that question.

sojourner said:

How are you sure that any are "wrong?"

"Wrong" and "incomplete" do not go hand in hand. Perhaps each piece of the puzzle is incomplete, as compared to the whole, but that doesn't make that piece "wrong." This leads me to the main point I want to make here:

Maybe we are all one, and we just refuse to recognize that? Maybe each part of the puzzle is necessary to the complete picture and we should each be happy with being the piece we are, while rejoicing that the other pieces are who they are. Then together -- as one -- we will comprise the whole picture. Why does unity have to be defined by uniformity?

Click to expand...

It comes down to the idea that God is not the author of confusion or discord. As long as two parties disagree on even one point of doctrine, both cannot be completely correct. Either one is correct, both are partially correct, or none are correct. Partially correct and not correct imply a lack of complete truth. Christ's true church will not have partial truths -- all of its teachings will represent complete and pure truth. Complete truth requires uniformity among those in possession of the truth.

It comes down to the idea that God is not the author of confusion or discord. As long as two parties disagree on even one point of doctrine, both cannot be completely correct. Either one is correct, both are partially correct, or none are correct. Partially correct and not correct imply a lack of complete truth. Christ's true church will not have partial truths -- all of its teachings will represent complete and pure truth. Complete truth requires uniformity among those in possession of the truth.

Click to expand...

If I may say respectfully, (and I do have respect for your opinions, Polaris), this is the same kind of elitist horse crap that caused division in the Church in the first place, and has continued to do so to this very day. Please understand -- it's the idea I disdain, not you!

No! You are correct. God is not the author os confusion or discord. But humanity is. And it is the human mind that seeks to comprehend the truths God offers. No one human being, and I contend, no one group of human beings has access to understanding the whole truth. And to think otherwise is the epitome of hubris, and that's where the trouble is.

My contention is that we are all partially correct. It is our apparent inability to see beyond the differences we create by our selfishness, and the confusion we foster by our short-sightedness that keeps us apart from each other. Christ's Church does not have partial truth because, as a whole, the Body of Christ seeks to take each part into account. By definition, each part cannot have the whole truth -- only part of the truth. The biggest truth here may be that we need each other!

Uniformity demands the prioritizing of one bit of truth over another. Unity demands that all viewpoints are considered equally. God seeks not uniformity, but unity. Otherwise, why would God have created us to be different, but will that we live in community?

sojourner said:

Yes. God does always provide a remnant. Thanks be to God for doing that, so that the Church might survive despite human folly. But a remnant does not constitute the Body of Christ as it was meant to be. Are you saying that Christ intended the ecclesia to be splintered into many "remnants?" No. Christ intended that we should be one and that is the true nature of the Church.

Click to expand...

Matthew 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." NIV

NetDoc said:

Matthew 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." NIV

Click to expand...

Why does that scriptural reference have anything to do with the post it's attached to? Are you arguing against church unity?

sojourner said:

If I may say respectfully, (and I do have respect for your opinions, Polaris), this is the same kind of elitist horse crap that caused division in the Church in the first place, and has continued to do so to this very day. Please understand -- it's the idea I disdain, not you!

No! You are correct. God is not the author os confusion or discord. But humanity is. And it is the human mind that seeks to comprehend the truths God offers. No one human being, and I contend, no one group of human beings has access to understanding the whole truth. And to think otherwise is the epitome of hubris, and that's where the trouble is.

Click to expand...

Your argument is completely valid if we assume that all religions are guided by man's best efforts. Where I disagree with you is this statement: "No one human being, and I contend, no one group of human being has access to understanding the whole truth." I contend that a prophet, called and ordained of God, does have access to understanding the "whole truth". I further contend that the 12 Apostles also had this access to truth through the Holy Ghost. True, God may not impart to a prophet all of His truths, but those truths that He does impart are pure and complete. You may call this idea "elitist" if you wish, but I believe that it is how God establishes and maintains His truths.

sojourner said:

My contention is that we are all partially correct. It is our apparent inability to see beyond the differences we create by our selfishness, and the confusion we foster by our short-sightedness that keeps us apart from each other. Christ's Church does not have partial truth because, as a whole, the Body of Christ seeks to take each part into account. By definition, each part cannot have the whole truth -- only part of the truth. The biggest truth here may be that we need each other!

Click to expand...

Again here you are assuming that all religions are guided by man and not by God. A lot of today's religions, if not all, are partially correct, but the church that Christ established wasn't just partially correct -- it was completely correct. This thread points out and defends my belief that the church that Christ established was initially completely correct, but after the Apostles were killed the inspired leadership was taken and many truths eventually became corrupted or lost. What we have as a result is similar to what you describe where each religion has pieces of the truth along with a portion of non-truths. Like I mentioned earlier, a complete restoration of the truth through divine means is the only way of changing that.

sojourner said:

Uniformity demands the prioritizing of one bit of truth over another. Unity demands that all viewpoints are considered equally. God seeks not uniformity, but unity. Otherwise, why would God have created us to be different, but will that we live in community?

Click to expand...

No, uniformity of truth demands the prioritizing of truth over that which is false. There aren't shades of truth - either something is completely true or it isn't. Complete unity comes when all are in agreement of what truth is and where it comes from. I believe that God requires both unity and uniformity : unity in that we all accept His truths (we become unified with Him), and uniformity because His truths are not relative -- they're absolute and they're the same for everyone.

I disagree completely. I don't subscribe to an absolutism that demands that some be "right" and some be "wrong." And you contradict yourself on this point! "God may not impart to a prophet all of His truths..." then, you say, "A lot of today's religions, if not all, are partially correct..." That includes LDS, no?

I contend that, if an apostasy occurred, it was not a departure from the great truths and practices of the early Church, but a departure from each other. The Church, at its core, is ecclesia -- the people. How can we be the people, if we're divided? How can the Body of Christ be the Body of Christ, if it's divided?

I don't think the thread has either shown or defended your case here. After the last apostle died, there were others to take their places. Remember Clement, third Bishop of Rome? At what point was the "inspired leadership taken away?" (Remember, if an apostasy occurred after the last apostle died, then the whole canon of scripture, had to have been compiled and canonized by an apostate church, so the Bible would not be an "authority.")

Your hypothesis dictates that the LDS be "right" in its reconstitution of the "correct" Church and everyone else, who subscribes to the apostolic succession, be "wrong." I don't buy that, and history doesn't bear it out.

sojourner said:

Why does that scriptural reference have anything to do with the post it's attached to? Are you arguing against church unity?

Click to expand...

Possibly, just possibly the remnant is the whole of the church. While God would love to have everyone in his church, in reality the scriptures teach that only a few will ever submit to God's will.

NetDoc said:

Possibly, just possibly the remnant is the whole of the church. While God would love to have everyone in his church, in reality the scriptures teach that only a few will ever submit to God's will.

Click to expand...

You raise a very interesting thought here! There has always been a tension between the perception that all must be baptized, and the notion that we are to be the "salt of the earth." My priest once said, in response to the proportion of Christians to non-Christians in our city: "Christ said that we are supposed to be the salt of the earth. What happens when your food has too much salt in it...?"

The "remnant" might just be the whole of the Church, when looked at against the backdrop of all humanity. In that case, could it be argued that Christ never meant for the whole world to become followers, but that followers should be present in all parts of the world? Could it be argued that it is the baptized followers of Christ that act as representatives for the rest of the world, petitioning God for salvation on behalf of all? If it is true that we are all one community, would not a sprinkling of "salt" preserve the whole? God promises salvation to the remnant. But, I notice that, once the salt is infused into the food, it cannot be extracted separately.

sojourner said:

I disagree completely. I don't subscribe to an absolutism that demands that some be "right" and some be "wrong." And you contradict yourself on this point! "God may not impart to a prophet all of His truths..." then, you say, "A lot of today's religions, if not all, are partially correct..." That includes LDS, no?

Click to expand...

OK, you're right, I was trying to make an objective statement but it wasn't very clear. Yes I believe that almost all religions are partially correct.

Concerning absolutism, let me illustrate with an example. Either God is a spirit-only being like some religions profess or He has a physical, tangible body, like others suggest. Both cannot be right -- someone must be wrong -- God's either spirit-only or He's not. Similar arguments could be made with almost every point of doctrine.

sojourner said:

I contend that, if an apostasy occurred, it was not a departure from the great truths and practices of the early Church, but a departure from each other. The Church, at its core, is ecclesia -- the people. How can we be the people, if we're divided? How can the Body of Christ be the Body of Christ, if it's divided?

Click to expand...

You have a valid point. The people departed from each other due to disagreements concerning doctrines, practices, etc. The people then as a whole could not possibly represent the true church of Christ because they were divided. However that does not mean that some portion of them couldn't have the correct truths and proper authority to carry on Christ's chruch.

sojourner said:

I don't think the thread has either shown or defended your case here. After the last apostle died, there were others to take their places. Remember Clement, third Bishop of Rome? At what point was the "inspired leadership taken away?" (Remember, if an apostasy occurred after the last apostle died, then the whole canon of scripture, had to have been compiled and canonized by an apostate church, so the Bible would not be an "authority.")

Click to expand...

Again this is back to the Apostle = Bishop issue. I don't believe that Clement was an Apostle nor held apostolic authority -- he may have been ordained a Bishop by the Apostles to lead the church at a local level, but not the general church-wide level. The inspired leadership was taken with the death of the Apostles -- those called and ordained to lead the chruch at the global level. You're right the canon of scripture was compiled after the deaths of the Apostles and was done by men who were attempting to preserve the teachings of the Apostles. The Bible is not special because of who compiled and canonized it, it's an authority because it's contents were written and taught by prophets and apostles.

sojourner said:

Your hypothesis dictates that the LDS be "right" in its reconstitution of the "correct" Church and everyone else, who subscribes to the apostolic succession, be "wrong." I don't buy that, and history doesn't bear it out.

Click to expand...

True, and conversely those who subscribe to the apostolic succession claim that they are "right" and the LDS are "wrong". The two ideas conflict and serve as another example of how truth must be absolute, both cannot be right. That's fine that you don't agree with the LDS position, you're entitled to your opinion and I respect that. However, history cannot prove anything concerning this matter, though the future will.

There is always the danger of taking a simile too far!

It takes far more than just baptism to make someone a disciple.

sojourner said:

You raise a very interesting thought here! There has always been a tension between the perception that all must be baptized, and the notion that we are to be the "salt of the earth." My priest once said, in response to the proportion of Christians to non-Christians in our city: "Christ said that we are supposed to be the salt of the earth. What happens when your food has too much salt in it...?"

The "remnant" might just be the whole of the Church, when looked at against the backdrop of all humanity. In that case, could it be argued that Christ never meant for the whole world to become followers, but that followers should be present in all parts of the world? Could it be argued that it is the baptized followers of Christ that act as representatives for the rest of the world, petitioning God for salvation on behalf of all? If it is true that we are all one community, would not a sprinkling of "salt" preserve the whole? God promises salvation to the remnant. But, I notice that, once the salt is infused into the food, it cannot be extracted separately.

Click to expand...

NetDoc said:

There is always the danger of taking a simile too far!

It takes far more than just baptism to make someone a disciple.

Click to expand...

In a certain sense, you're right, because baptism is not the beginning of the process, but closer to the end. Before baptism must come belief and a willingness to follow. This process can take quite a while and involve quite a bit of personal wrestling. But that really has little to do with the idea at hand.

How do we reconcile the tension between "everyone" and "few?":areyoucra

Polaris said:

OK, you're right, I was trying to make an objective statement but it wasn't very clear. Yes I believe that almost all religions are partially correct.

Concerning absolutism, let me illustrate with an example. Either God is a spirit-only being like some religions profess or He has a physical, tangible body, like others suggest. Both cannot be right -- someone must be wrong -- God's either spirit-only or He's not. Similar arguments could be made with almost every point of doctrine.



You have a valid point. The people departed from each other due to disagreements concerning doctrines, practices, etc. The people then as a whole could not possibly represent the true church of Christ because they were divided. However that does not mean that some portion of them couldn't have the correct truths and proper authority to carry on Christ's chruch.



Again this is back to the Apostle = Bishop issue. I don't believe that Clement was an Apostle nor held apostolic authority -- he may have been ordained a Bishop by the Apostles to lead the church at a local level, but not the general church-wide level. The inspired leadership was taken with the death of the Apostles -- those called and ordained to lead the chruch at the global level. You're right the canon of scripture was compiled after the deaths of the Apostles and was done by men who were attempting to preserve the teachings of the Apostles. The Bible is not special because of who compiled and canonized it, it's an authority because it's contents were written and taught by prophets and apostles.



True, and conversely those who subscribe to the apostolic succession claim that they are "right" and the LDS are "wrong". The two ideas conflict and serve as another example of how truth must be absolute, both cannot be right. That's fine that you don't agree with the LDS position, you're entitled to your opinion and I respect that. However, history cannot prove anything concerning this matter, though the future will.

Click to expand...

You see, because we are human, we cannot, by definition, have all the answers. I rather suspect that God entails much, much more than either pure spirit or corporeal body. We are told that there is some kind of body...I'm not sure that we're equipped to understand just what kind of body that might be. Some say one thing, from their point of view, and some say another, from another point of view. I contend that no one has the full picture or truth -- only part, and onloy explainable from a certain point of view. That's why we need each other in cooperative community.

You're right! Clement wasn't an apostle...he was a bishop. But what is clear is that the apostles ordained Clement (as well as other bishops) to carry on the authority that had been given to them. That is borne out and documented in the tradition. Doesn't mean that the idea of "apostolic succession" is "correct" and the idea of a "restored apostlate" is "incorrect." I contend that it might be "both-and." We need all points of view and all theologies, because all contain some of the truth.
There is merit to "believer's baptism," and there is merit to "infant baptism." Both contain bits of truth. Both, contained within the wondrous variety of Christianity, enrich, rather than diminish, the faith.

Differing ideas don't have to conflict! They can just be different, and be given the room to be different. Apostolic succession as opposed to restored apostlate really means nothing in God's realm, because both are human constructs, created to expedite human interaction with faith and tradition. Some find expression in one arena, some in another. The really important thing is that, through whatever expediency, we find and develop relationship with God.

sojourner said:

You see, because we are human, we cannot, by definition, have all the answers.

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that we can't have some of the answers in their purity.

sojourner said:

I rather suspect that God entails much, much more than either pure spirit or corporeal body. We are told that there is some kind of body...I'm not sure that we're equipped to understand just what kind of body that might be. Some say one thing, from their point of view, and some say another, from another point of view. I contend that no one has the full picture or truth -- only part, and onloy explainable from a certain point of view. That's why we need each other in cooperative community.

Click to expand...

I'm not so concerned with the opinion or point of view of others, I'm more concerned with God's point of view -- i.e. the truth. God has the full picture of truth and conveys that which is necessary to his called prophets and/or apostles as has been illustrated many times in the scriptures. The religions of today will never be fully cooperative until some authorative figure (i.e. Christ himself) declares what the correct truths are. Religions differ on issues that they deem important and full cooperativity would require that they compromise some of their cherished beliefs.

sojourner said:

You're right! Clement wasn't an apostle...he was a bishop. But what is clear is that the apostles ordained Clement (as well as other bishops) to carry on the authority that had been given to them. That is borne out and documented in the tradition. Doesn't mean that the idea of "apostolic succession" is "correct" and the idea of a "restored apostlate" is "incorrect." I contend that it might be "both-and." We need all points of view and all theologies, because all contain some of the truth.
There is merit to "believer's baptism," and there is merit to "infant baptism." Both contain bits of truth. Both, contained within the wondrous variety of Christianity, enrich, rather than diminish, the faith.

Click to expand...

Tradition is one thing, truth is another, they are not necessarily the same. No where in scripture does it indicate that Apostles passed their apostolic authority on to Bishops.

I have a hard time understanding how both of these statements can be true:

1. True apostolic succession continued after the death of the original apostles.
2. True apostolic succession did not continue after the death of the original apostles.

sojourner said:

Differing ideas don't have to conflict! They can just be different, and be given the room to be different. Apostolic succession as opposed to restored apostlate really means nothing in God's realm, because both are human constructs, created to expedite human interaction with faith and tradition. Some find expression in one arena, some in another.

Click to expand...

True, differing ideas don't have to conflict, but often times they do. Apostolic authority was not devised by man, it was given by Jesus Christ to selected individuals so they could authoratively lead and guide His church, maintain purity of doctrine, and perform important ordinances.

sojourner said:

The really important thing is that, through whatever expediency, we find and develop relationship with God.

Click to expand...

Good point. You're exactly right that the most important thing is our own relationship with God. Although I do believe that all the other aspects (proper authority, pure doctrines, baptism, etc.) do serve an important purpose in helping us develop this relationship (in addition to making for interesting topics of debate ).