Pinning down the Apostasy

[Polaris]

In order to avoid hi-jacking another thread...

Then there's the problem of them pinning down when the Apostasy occurred. I've yet to come across a plausible explanation for when that happened and what it concerned and usually the arguments I do hear are peppered with historical inaccuracies. Then there's the Patristic cherry picking, whereby they find Fathers who they claim taught LDS doctrine and quote a few passages out of context. Very often it's readily apparent that the way they determine their interpretation is completely at odds with the extant writings of the Father in question, the millieu in which he lived and the descriptions of contemporaries about him.

Hmmmm. That sounds like a challenge .

First off, there was not necessarily one single event that spawned the Apostasy. The Apostasy was defined by the following conditions:

1. Lack of Apostolic or churchwide governing authority.
2. Lack of continuing revelation required to lead the church and preserve doctrinal purity.
3. Corruption of doctrinal truths.

#1 - The LDS believe that the churchwide governing authority was contained in the Apostleship. The early apostles were the ones "sent out" to establish and oversee the affairs of the church. They called and ordained Bishops to serve as local leadership so that they themselves could travel abroad to further the establishment of the church and focus their attention on churchwide concerns. Early on, there were clearly attempts made to perpetuate the Apostleship, as Matthias was chosen to fill the vacancy for Judas, and later other Apostles were called. Unfortunately however, distance and heavy persecution would eventually lead to the martyrdome of all the Apostles without allowing them the opportunity to meet together and choose new Apostles similar to that done with Matthias. The death of the Apostles left the church with the local leadership of the Bishops. It is debatable whether or not the Bishops officially received Apostolic authority at some point, or whether they simply assumed the church-governing authority without prior official Apostolic authorization. Both are "plausible explanations" as to how the Bishops ultimately came into power. The LDS believe that true Apostolic authority ended with the death of the Apostles.

#2 - This is essentially the heart of the Apostasy. What really defined Apostolic authority was the right to receive continued revelation from God concerning the governing of the church and the establishment and preservation of doctrinal truths. I'm not sure what the EOC's position is on public revelation, but I know the RCC believes that such revelation ended with the Apostles. The LDS agree that public revelation did end with the death of the Apostles (although we don't believe that revelation was terminated indefinitely). The governing of the church was left to man's best efforts, and not God's guiding voice. Tradition, rather than continued revelation, was what guided the church throughout the following centuries. Despite the best of intentions and best efforts, man is prone to error. Numerous councils were held with the purpose of "clarifying" doctrinal truths, but these councils lacked true Apostolic guidance and inspired revelatory influence of God. Instead they were left to debate the issues and ultimately "clarify" them through popular vote. God has always led his people through revelation to his ordained prophets, not through popular concensus. Without such public governing revelation the church was not actively led by God, and that in itself seems to me to be a "plausible explanation" for the Apostasy.

#3 - This condition is just a natural extention of the first two. The NT provides plenty of evidence that minor local apostasies were budding in some of the early Christian communities. Fortunately, early on, the Apostles were there to correct doctrinal errors and help prevent wide-spread doctrinal apostasy. After the death of the Apostles the Christian communities were left to fend for themselves and trust in their Bishop for proper doctrinal correction. The various councils that were held are clear evidence that the Bishops didn't see eye-to-eye on all doctrines, and without Apostles and public revelation, all we can do is hope that the councils' voted results were correct. The LDS believe that many of the correct doctrines were indeed preserved through this process, but we also believe that certain ones were corrupted at one point or another due to the fallibility of man, and lack of public divine revelation.

In summary, the Apostasy effectively began with the death of the apostles (specifically #'s 1 & 2). Doctrinal apostasy surfaced before the Apostles' death but, in many cases, was kept in check by them. After the death of the Apostles, certain doctrines began to drift over time, some of which became hot topics of debate at the church councils. For the most part it's impossible to determine exactly when some of the doctrinal changes began to take shape. It was a subtle and slow process, otherwise detecting the errors would have been unmistakable. Certain erroneous doctrines were indeed identified and shot down, but I believe that without proper inspired revelation some eventually slipped through the cracks.

I have a lot of respect for you James, so it's very much worth it to me to at least attempt to establish some level of plausibility with you. If you see major flaws with my arguments (historically or otherwise) please point them out. I will readily admit that the EOC perspective on true Christianity is very believable. But I do believe that it makes more sense that God would continue to guide his chruch through revelation to his ordained and inspired prophets/apostles just as he has done from the beginning of time. Without that, an apostasy seems like a very feasible consequence, if not an inevitable one.

 

[James the Persian]

Polaris,

I'll leave commenting on the whole of your post till later and just reply with a few small points (which might just mean that there's no point in discussing much of what you posted above).

We do not agree with you with respect to Apostles and bishops. That is quite obvious and hence I find the lack of authority argument absurd. The Apostles ordained bishops with authority over the local church. This is clear from the ante-Nicene Fathers, several of whom personally knew Apostles. It's also quite apparent that James, the bishop of Jerusalem, had authority over the council in Acts, not the Apostles, and this actually kills two birds with one stone in my view. It shows both the authority of the bishop and that councils were the normative method of Church governance (something which I consider equally telling against the pretensions of ultramontane Roman Catholicism as I do against the LDS).

We do not agree, and I doubt the RCs do either, that all revelation ceased with the death of John. We do believe that the whole faith was delivered to the Apostles and hence (as God is not fickle) any further revelation can only confirm that faith, not alter it (an issue I have with the revelation of Joseph Smith) but that doesn't mean no revelation occurs. It does, and publicly, too. I'd suggest reading of the very public revelation at Nicea when St. Spyridon was battling the Arians, for example. We believe that God is with His Church and will be until the end.

Evidently, then, I see nothing in any of your beliefs to suggest an Apostasy. I find them all rather easy to dismiss. If there was one, I'd think the LDS had a pretty good case (certainly better than the Reformers), but without one I think the whole edifice crumbles, and I see no reason to presume the Church apostasized. Quite the opposite, in fact, I feel that suggesting that such a thing is even possible is to make a liar out of Christ.

As this thread is supposed to be about pinpointing the 'Apostasy' do you think you could give me a date by which time the Church must have been apostate? If it really is with John's death then that rules out the whole of the second century onwards, so why do Mormon apologists use texts (often woefully misinterpreted) from later Fathers to support doctrines like deification? This is what I find most perplexing when talking with people in your church. There is a lack of consistency (at least apparent) about when the Apostasy occurred, which makes it almost impossible to have a meaningful debate. If I note that you use St. Athanasios and then bring up a contemporary source to arguye my point, more likely than not I'll be told it isn't valid because the Church was already apostate by then. It seems like the goalposts keep being moved.

James

 

[Polaris]

We do not agree with you with respect to Apostles and bishops. That is quite obvious and hence I find the lack of authority argument absurd.

That's fine if you don't agree with me, but to consider my claims absurd requires some pretty convincing evidence on your part.

The Apostles ordained bishops with authority over the local church. This is clear from the ante-Nicene Fathers, several of whom personally knew Apostles. It's also quite apparent that James, the bishop of Jerusalem, had authority over the council in Acts, not the Apostles, and this actually kills two birds with one stone in my view. It shows both the authority of the bishop and that councils were the normative method of Church governance (something which I consider equally telling against the pretensions of ultramontane Roman Catholicism as I do against the LDS).

Your claims that James, and therefore bishops, had authority over the councils is not scripturally accurate. No where in the NT is James referred to as a Bishop, rather Paul informs us that he was an Apostle: "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother" (1 Galatians 1:19). This seems to be pretty convincing to me that Apostles were indeed in charge at the council in Jerusalem -- the two major figures (at least the 2 major spokesmen) were Peter and James, two apostles.

We do not agree, and I doubt the RCs do either, that all revelation ceased with the death of John.

This quote provided by Victor suggests that "public" revelation ended with the Apostles (at least according to RC belief):

Public revelation, Cardinal Ratzinger stresses, came to an end with God’s definitive Word to mankind—Jesus Christ—and with the New Testament.

We do believe that the whole faith was delivered to the Apostles and hence (as God is not fickle) any further revelation can only confirm that faith, not alter it (an issue I have with the revelation of Joseph Smith) but that doesn't mean no revelation occurs. It does, and publicly, too. I'd suggest reading of the very public revelation at Nicea when St. Spyridon was battling the Arians, for example. We believe that God is with His Church and will be until the end.

This is the heart of the "revelation" issue. When exactly was the "whole faith" delivered to the Apostles and who declared that all pertinent knowledge regarding such had officially been revealed? Did one of the apostles declare that the "whole faith" had officially been revealed, therefore marking the end of new revealed knowledge?

The revelations given to Joseph Smith weren't received to "alter" that given to the Apostles, but to restore it.

Evidently, then, I see nothing in any of your beliefs to suggest an Apostasy.

That's fine. I see no scriptural evidence that supports your claims that the Apostleship was to be consumed into the Bishopric or that the "whole faith" was revealed to the apostles, therefore suggesting that God has no new pertinent knowledge to reveal to man. In fact these claims seem to contradict scripture:

"Surely the Lord God with do nothing but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7).
Nothing mentioned here about popular concensus or a time when prophets wouldn't be necessary.

"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Ephesians 2:20).
Interestingly bishops aren't mentioned as part of the foundation of Christ's church.

I feel that suggesting that such a thing is even possible is to make a liar out of Christ.

How? Are you referring to "upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it"?

I don't see how the apostasy makes that a lie. This verse could be interpreted in at least two ways:

1. The gates or bands of death will not prevail against Christ's church -- implying that the blessings and influence of Christ's church extend beyond the grave.
2. The influence of the devil will not prevail against Christ's church -- this could be further interpreted in two ways:
a. The influence of the devil will never succeed in leading the saints (members of Christ's church) astray.
b. The influence of the devil ultimately will not prevail against Christ's church.

The only one of these interpretations that would make Christ's statement a lie is 2a. You simply can't prove that was the intended meaning. In fact that interpretation contradicts other passages of scripture:

The second coming of Christ "shall not come, except there come a falling away first" (2 Thess 2:3).
"after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock" (Acts 20:29).

As this thread is supposed to be about pinpointing the 'Apostasy' do you think you could give me a date by which time the Church must have been apostate?

The apostasy BEGAN with the death of the Apostles. After their death there was no longer anyone divinely authorized to make inspired doctrinal corrections or clarifications as was done throughout much of the NT. With this lack of inspired and authorized clarification, doctrinal errors began to creep in. It took years, even centuries for many of the corrupted doctrines to take shape and gain widespread acceptance in the church. Doctrinal corruption was a slow and subtle process.

If it really is with John's death then that rules out the whole of the second century onwards, so why do Mormon apologists use texts (often woefully misinterpreted) from later Fathers to support doctrines like deification? This is what I find most perplexing when talking with people in your church. There is a lack of consistency (at least apparent) about when the Apostasy occurred, which makes it almost impossible to have a meaningful debate. If I note that you use St. Athanasios and then bring up a contemporary source to arguye my point, more likely than not I'll be told it isn't valid because the Church was already apostate by then. It seems like the goalposts keep being moved.

Like I explained above, the corrupted doctrines didn't become so overnight, upon John's death. It was a subtle and slow process and was different for different doctrines. Some Mormon apologists use certain texts in attempt to support LDS doctines because remnants of true doctrines remained for a certain period among different groups. The bottom line is after the Apostles there was no one authorized to declare or clarify true doctrine. All were left to interpretation of tradition and scripture. That is why we (the LDS church) don't use these early texts as a foundation for understanding doctrine, even of those who seem to support our beliefs -- they were not divinely authorized to declare doctrine. The fact that certain LDS-specific doctrines existed at all is simply used as evidence in attempt to authenticate our beliefs to the non-LDS.

 

[James the Persian]

That's fine if you don't agree with me, but to consider my claims absurd requires some pretty convincing evidence on your part.

Actually, the onus is on you to come up with evidence for the relatively recent and distinctly minority point of view of the LDS. It takes extraodinary evidence to overturn the beliefs of 2000 years, and I've not even seen any good evidence yet.

Your claims that James, and therefore bishops, had authority over the councils is not scripturally accurate. No where in the NT is James referred to as a Bishop, rather Paul informs us that he was an Apostle: "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother" (1 Galatians 1:19). This seems to be pretty convincing to me that Apostles were indeed in charge at the council in Jerusalem -- the two major figures (at least the 2 major spokesmen) were Peter and James, two apostles.

James presided over the council. Peter and Paul spoke merely as members of it. Whether you choose to view James as a bishop or not is irrelevant (it's just a name meaning elder, after all), but the fact that you cannot deny is that he was not one of the twelve and yet clearly had authority at the council even though there were members of the twelve present.

This quote provided by Victor suggests that "public" revelation ended with the Apostles (at least according to RC belief):

I'm not RC so I really couldn't care less. As far as I'm aware my example, St. Spyridon, is also an RC saint and his life is probably reasonably well known in the RCC. Ifind it rather hard, then, for them to argue that public revelation ended with the Apostles, unless they mean merely new revelation - which I could agree with.

This is the heart of the "revelation" issue. When exactly was the "whole faith" delivered to the Apostles and who declared that all pertinent knowledge regarding such had officially been revealed? Did one of the apostles declare that the "whole faith" had officially been revealed, therefore marking the end of new revealed knowledge?

Again, you are the ones trying to overturn 2000 years of Holy Tradition so you are the ones who need to come up with evidence. All I've heard so far is speculation based on the a priori assumption that Joseph Smith's revelation was true. As I don't share that asumption the speculation is meaningless.

The revelations given to Joseph Smith weren't received to "alter" that given to the Apostles, but to restore it.

But they did alter it, and quite severely. To argue that they were a restoration rather than an alteration, you'd have to provide evidence for early Christians adhering to distinctly LDS doctrines. I see little to no evidence for that and vast amounts of evidence to the contrary. Provide your evidence, though, and I'll discuss it.

That's fine. I see no scriptural evidence that supports your claims that the Apostleship was to be consumed into the Bishopric or that the "whole faith" was revealed to the apostles, therefore suggesting that God has no new pertinent knowledge to reveal to man. In fact these claims seem to contradict scripture:

"Surely the Lord God with do nothing but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7).
Nothing mentioned here about popular concensus or a time when prophets wouldn't be necessary.

I see no contradiction with Scripture whatsoever. I don't need Scripture to actively support what we believe, either, as it is only one part of Holy Tradition. Amos is an OT figure. During the OT period, God clearly did communicate via the Prophets, that you seek to push this forward into the NT period, after the fulfillment of the OT by the Incarnation seems to be an argument that God is wholly immutable and that this statement is for all time rather than now. Your insistance, however, that modern prophets are needed argues directly contrary to this. The position is incoherent.

"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Ephesians 2:20).
Interestingly bishops aren't mentioned as part of the foundation of Christ's church.

You're arguing against a straw man. We don't believe that bishops are foundations, so what's your point? The foundations were laid once and for all. There's no need to go back and replace them or add new ones.

How? Are you referring to "upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it"?

I don't see how the apostasy makes that a lie. This verse could be interpreted in at least two ways:

1. The gates or bands of death will not prevail against Christ's church -- implying that the blessings and influence of Christ's church extend beyond the grave.
2. The influence of the devil will not prevail against Christ's church -- this could be further interpreted in two ways:
a. The influence of the devil will never succeed in leading the saints (members of Christ's church) astray.
b. The influence of the devil ultimately will not prevail against Christ's church.

The only one of these interpretations that would make Christ's statement a lie is 2a. You simply can't prove that was the intended meaning.

Seeing as I said that in my opinion it made Christ into a liar, I don't have to prove anything. Suffice it to say, however, that I find your alternative interpretations, ripped out of context of 2000 years of Church teaching, to be rather lacking.

In fact that interpretation contradicts other passages of scripture:

The second coming of Christ "shall not come, except there come a falling away first" (2 Thess 2:3).
"after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock" (Acts 20:29).

Afraid not. Nowhere in these passages does it say that all will fall away. Evidently some did and continue to do so (and Joseph Smith, in my opinion, is an example of one who did). This is an evidence for apostasy but absolutely not for the 'Great Apostasy'.

The apostasy BEGAN with the death of the Apostles. After their death there was no longer anyone divinely authorized to make inspired doctrinal corrections or clarifications as was done throughout much of the NT. With this lack of inspired and authorized clarification, doctrinal errors began to creep in. It took years, even centuries for many of the corrupted doctrines to take shape and gain widespread acceptance in the church. Doctrinal corruption was a slow and subtle process.


Like I explained above, the corrupted doctrines didn't become so overnight, upon John's death. It was a subtle and slow process and was different for different doctrines. Some Mormon apologists use certain texts in attempt to support LDS doctines because remnants of true doctrines remained for a certain period among different groups. The bottom line is after the Apostles there was no one authorized to declare or clarify true doctrine. All were left to interpretation of tradition and scripture. That is why we (the LDS church) don't use these early texts as a foundation for understanding doctrine, even of those who seem to support our beliefs -- they were not divinely authorized to declare doctrine. The fact that certain LDS-specific doctrines existed at all is simply used as evidence in attempt to authenticate our beliefs to the non-LDS.

You could have just answered with a no. If you aren't willing to provide a time scale by which time the Church must have been apostate, though, then I'm afraid I have no wish to continue the discussion. You seem to wish to have the shifting goalposts of LDS apologetics on your side and I simply will not debate on those terms. If you cannot simply say that, for the sakes of argument, we will allow Church writings prior to date X (maybe something like the third century) to stand as evidence then I have no wish to continue because I see the attitude as duplicitous, particularly considering the lateness of some manuscripts that LDS cling to whilst rejecting earlier ones. The criterion is clearly not age (which would most certainly vindicate our position) but rather how well it agrees (or seems to) with LDS doctrine. You can 'prove' absolutely anything by such an approach, which is far more eggregious even than ultramontane Patristic cherry picking, but you actually prove nothing.

James

 

[Quiddity]

What it would take for me to consider LDS claims falls along the same lines as James. Really, I would have to rely on Joseph Smith above 2,000 years of history. I hope you see how difficult that can be.

James presided over the council. Peter and Paul spoke merely as members of it.

It seems rather obvious that debate had stopped after Peter's ruling. With James just cofirming it for various reasons. (1) Being the Bishop of Jerusalem (2) Being the Bishop of a densely populated Jewish province. (3) It was proper following that both Paul and Barnabas were confirming Peter's ruling by telling about their journey.

I'm sure we disagree but perhaps our disagreements may lead us astray so I will keep quiet unless relevant to the topic.

Whether you choose to view James as a bishop or not is irrelevant (it's just a name meaning elder, after all), but the fact that you cannot deny is that he was not one of the twelve and yet clearly had authority at the council even though there were members of the twelve present.

That is a good point.

I'm not RC so I really couldn't care less. As far as I'm aware my example, St. Spyridon, is also an RC saint and his life is probably reasonably well known in the RCC. Ifind it rather hard, then, for them to argue that public revelation ended with the Apostles, unless they mean merely new revelation - which I could agree with.

I'm no Saintologist so I'd have to look it up.
By public revelation we do mean "new revelation". But as I noted to Polaris, we do believe that private revelations are still alive and active in the world.

 

[Polaris]

James presided over the council. Peter and Paul spoke merely as members of it. Whether you choose to view James as a bishop or not is irrelevant (it's just a name meaning elder, after all), but the fact that you cannot deny is that he was not one of the twelve and yet clearly had authority at the council even though there were members of the twelve present.

Even if James did preside over the council, Paul made it quite clear that he was an apostle. How do you know he wasn't one of the twelve? How do you know he didn't fill some vacancy among the twelve similar to Matthias? The point is that he was an apostle. He held true apostolic authority, the same office of authority as the other apostles. He was authorized to participate in the general governing of the church.

This is the heart of the "revelation" issue. When exactly was the "whole faith" delivered to the Apostles and who declared that all pertinent knowledge regarding such had officially been revealed? Did one of the apostles declare that the "whole faith" had officially been revealed, therefore marking the end of new revealed knowledge?

Again, you are the ones trying to overturn 2000 years of Holy Tradition so you are the ones who need to come up with evidence. All I've heard so far is speculation based on the a priori assumption that Joseph Smith's revelation was true. As I don't share that asumption the speculation is meaningless.

The fact that you can't provide a single authorative apostolic statement that declares an official end to new revealed knowledge seems like reasonable evidence to me. How are you so certain that the "whole faith" has been delivered and that no more new knowledge is needed when no apostle ever made such a claim? Until a divinely authorative statement is made that officially declares an end to new revelation, it makes sense to believe that God has more to teach us.

But they did alter it, and quite severely. To argue that they were a restoration rather than an alteration, you'd have to provide evidence for early Christians adhering to distinctly LDS doctrines. I see little to no evidence for that and vast amounts of evidence to the contrary. Provide your evidence, though, and I'll discuss it.

What was altered? You show me what was altered and I'll show you scriptural evidence that indicates otherwise.

Amos is an OT figure. During the OT period, God clearly did communicate via the Prophets, that you seek to push this forward into the NT period, after the fulfillment of the OT by the Incarnation seems to be an argument that God is wholly immutable and that this statement is for all time rather than now. Your insistance, however, that modern prophets are needed argues directly contrary to this. The position is incoherent.

OK, you want NT references that illustrate the importance and perpetuation of prophets?

1. There are numerous passages in which the existance of NT prophets is quite clear, sometimes in reference to the apostles.
- "it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit" (Eph. 3:5).
- "And he gave some apostles and some prophets... for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (Eph 4:11).
- "And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the bretheren with many words" (Acts 15:32).

2. Christ himself mentioned the future calling of prophets: "I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute" (Luke 11:49).

3. In Matthew 7, Christ establishes the pattern by which we may recognize the true prophets from the false ones: "by their fruits ye shall know them". Why would he give instructions concerning the proper identification of true prophets if there weren't going to be any more of them? It makes no sense.

It seems quite clear that Christ and the NT didn't do away with prophets.

Seeing as I said that in my opinion it made Christ into a liar, I don't have to prove anything. Suffice it to say, however, that I find your alternative interpretations, ripped out of context of 2000 years of Church teaching, to be rather lacking.

Please support your claims. How are my alternative interpretations "ripped out of context"? How are they so lacking? Please explain what's wrong with these interpretations:

1. The bands of death will not prevail against Christ's church.
"Bands of death" seems to be a better fit for "gates of hades" than "influence of the devil" is.

2. The influence of the devil ultimately will not prevail against Christ's church.
If you insist that "gates of hades" should be interpreted "influence of the devil", what is wrong with this interpretation?

Afraid not. Nowhere in these passages does it say that all will fall away. Evidently some did and continue to do so (and Joseph Smith, in my opinion, is an example of one who did). This is an evidence for apostasy but absolutely not for the 'Great Apostasy'.

Fair enough. Your interpretation is potentially valid. However, the passages also don't deny the possibility of a "Great Apostasy". The Thess. passage that the second coming of Christ "shall not come, except there come a falling away first" seems to imply a larger scale apostasy. Smaller apostasies had already been occurring by that point. Paul seems to be referring to some significant large-scale "falling away".

You could have just answered with a no. If you aren't willing to provide a time scale by which time the Church must have been apostate, though, then I'm afraid I have no wish to continue the discussion.

OK, I'll try to clarify our position. After the death of the Apostles (i.e. after John's death around 90 AD), there were no more divinely appointed men to govern the church. There were no more men on the earth who were authorized to declare or properly clarify true doctrine. Therefore the only writings that we LDS view as authorative in any way are those which can reasonably be attributed to the Apostles. For all intents and purposes, the church was apostate after John's death. All writings after that are simply man's best efforts at understanding what the Apostles taught. Since man is prone to err and man's understanding is limited, post-Apostolic traditions and writings are likewise prone to error. We believe that many post-Apostolic writings contain true doctrines, but the bottom line is those writings are not authorative because the true spirit of prophesy and revelation ended with the Apostles. For any post-Apostolic doctrine or teaching that was not explicitly and clearly taught by the Apostles (eg. infant baptism, the trinity, purgatory, veneration of saints, etc) we appeal to modern-day revelation and modern-day apostles for authorized and inspired clarification.

During the first century, the Apostles were clearly needed to clarify doctrines and correct local congregations (including bishops). It doesn't make sense for that need to have ever ended.

 

[Polaris]

What it would take for me to consider LDS claims falls along the same lines as James. Really, I would have to rely on Joseph Smith above 2,000 years of history. I hope you see how difficult that can be.

I do realize that would be very difficult for you, just as it would be difficult for me to change my mind about Joseph Smith being a true prophet. It's not my intent to change your mind (although I be delighted if you did). My intent is to open your eyes to the possibility and establish at least some level of plausibilty with you concerning our claims. I believe there is a valid, and even strong case for the actual existance of an apostasy. I realize you'll likely never come to that conclusion, but I hope you can at least see the pheasability of it.

 

[Katzpur]

Evidently, then, I see nothing in any of your beliefs to suggest an Apostasy. I find them all rather easy to dismiss. If there was one, I'd think the LDS had a pretty good case (certainly better than the Reformers), but without one I think the whole edifice crumbles, and I see no reason to presume the Church apostasized. Quite the opposite, in fact, I feel that suggesting that such a thing is even possible is to make a liar out of Christ.

Obviously, we LDS no more consider Christ to be a liar than you do. Wouldn’t it make better sense to just assume we are interpreting the scriptures differently?

As this thread is supposed to be about pinpointing the 'Apostasy' do you think you could give me a date by which time the Church must have been apostate? If it really is with John's death then that rules out the whole of the second century onwards, so why do Mormon apologists use texts (often woefully misinterpreted) from later Fathers to support doctrines like deification? This is what I find most perplexing when talking with people in your church. There is a lack of consistency (at least apparent) about when the Apostasy occurred, which makes it almost impossible to have a meaningful debate. If I note that you use St. Athanasios and then bring up a contemporary source to arguye my point, more likely than not I'll be told it isn't valid because the Church was already apostate by then. It seems like the goalposts keep being moved.

I would say that it is probably the consensus of most LDS scholars that the Apostasy was essentially complete by the end of the second century. But as Polaris pointed out, it didn’t happen overnight. Certain doctrines would have remained essentially as they were during Jesus’ lifetime for much longer than others. But as Paul himself noted, the beginnings of an Apostasy were in place even as he spoke. He made it absolutely clear that the flock would not only be attacked, it would not be spared, (see Acts 20:29), Christ would not return to the earth until this universal "falling away" or "apostasy" had taken place, (see Thessalonians 2:3), these things were already beginning to take place as he spoke, (see Galatians 1:6) and the doctrines taught by the Savior would, in time, cease to endure (see 2 Timothy 4:3). I hope you will have the good sense not to accuse me of taking these out of context. In every instance, he was speaking to the people of his time, and the sense of urgency about the deteriorating situation is clearly evident.

I don't see how the apostasy makes that a lie. This verse could be interpreted in at least two ways.

1. The gates or bands of death will not prevail against Christ's church -- implying that the blessings and influence of Christ's church extend beyond the grave.
2. The influence of the devil will not prevail against Christ's church -- this could be further interpreted in two ways:
a. The influence of the devil will never succeed in leading the saints (members of Christ's church) astray.
b. The influence of the devil ultimately will not prevail against Christ's church.

I believe that your first possible interpretation is more likely the correct one, Polaris. To the Apostles, the phrase “the gates of Hell” would have had an entirely different meaning than most Christians ascribe to it today. This was a commonly used phrase in Jesus’ day, and would not have had the sinister connotations it had today. “The gates of Hell” would have meant nothing more to Peter than “the entrance to the Spirit World” (or the abode of departed spirits). All Jesus was really saying is that death would not conquer His Church. And as you and I know, it neither has nor will it.

Actually, the onus is on you to come up with evidence for the relatively recent and distinctly minority point of view of the LDS. It takes extraodinary evidence to overturn the beliefs of 2000 years, and I've not even seen any good evidence yet.

Are you seriously implying that the minority point of view must be the incorrect point of view, James, or that the fact that certain beliefs have been commonly held for 2000 is reason enough to make those beliefs true? Surely you know better than to use either of those arguments. Jesus’ teachings were every bit as true a year after His death as they were several hundred years later. Consider, for example, the announcement made by Ptolemy in roughly 150 A.D., in which he stated that the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun revolved around it. For nearly 1400 years, this belief was commonly held and taught by the Church. In 1543, Copernicus had the audacity to think he might “overturn the beliefs of 1500 years.” Was his premise any less true because it came 1400 years after Ptolemy’s or took some time to be accepted as valid?

The foundations were laid once and for all. There's no need to go back and replace them or add new ones.

Yes, but if the foundation at any time ceased to exist, it would be absolutely essential to replace it. Paul made it clear that the foundation of prophets and apostles was to remain in place until we all came into the unity of faith in Jesus Christ. He also predicted – quite accurately, it turns out – what would happen without this foundation.

If you aren't willing to provide a time scale by which time the Church must have been apostate, though, then I'm afraid I have no wish to continue the discussion.

Suit yourself, James. Polaris and I would both like to be able to state categorically that the Apostasy was complete as of May 17, 150 A.D. at 4:35 P.M., but we can't. We can’t possibly be expected to give you a precise date, and we've both explained why. Suffice it to say, it was in full swing long before the Council at Nicea in 325 A.D. I believe that Polaris and I would both be willing to at least consider any writings you can provide that date from before the end of the first century, although you must understand that we didn’t derive any of our doctrines from the writings of the early Church fathers. To us, they provide interesting insights into the process that was taking place, but can be used to argue either for or against the Apostasy, when it gets right down to it. Likewise, I don’t believe either of us would reject any tradition that had its source in the authoritative writings of the Apostles. It’s when a doctrine seems to crop up out of nowhere in the middle of the fourth century that we find it a bit suspect.

Your interpretation is potentially valid. However, the passages also don't deny the possibility of a "Great Apostasy". The Thess. passage that the second coming of Christ "shall not come, except there come a falling away first" seems to imply a larger scale apostasy. Smaller apostasies had already been occurring by that point. Paul seems to be referring to some significant large-scale "falling away".

I couldn’t agree more. It seems highly speculative to me that Paul was speaking of a few apostate groups here and there, since these were clearly an issue to him at that time. It is beyond me, in fact, how one could possibly argue against his referring to a universal Apostasy. (And incidentally, I know that you will not misunderstand my meaning when I refer to a universal Apostasy. But, for James’ benefit, we Latter-day Saints do not believe that there existed no true Christians and/or no true Christian doctrines during the time following the Apostasy. Rather, we believe that the authority for man to preside over Christ’s Church ceased in its entirety during that period of time.)

 

[James the Persian]

I am posting only to say that I am done with this thread. If LDS aren't willing to set, even for the sakes of argument, a time before which we can agree that Church writings are valid then I can se no point in this debate. Meeting on 'neutral ground' is one thing but I will not be drawn into a place where the odds are stacked heavily against me. There is no point in a discussion which is based on the a priori asumption that one side is wrong.

Victor,

The miracle with St. Spyridon was public in that it occurred in front of the whole council but it was not new revelation but rather a confirmation of existing belief on the Trinity and in contradiction to the Arians. That, to me, constitutes public revelation which is why I suggested that RCs surely must accept that such is possible. I did already guess that you meant new revelation, however, which is why I touched on it in my previous post.

James

 

[Polaris]

I am posting only to say that I am done with this thread. If LDS aren't willing to set, even for the sakes of argument, a time before which we can agree that Church writings are valid then I can se no point in this debate. Meeting on 'neutral ground' is one thing but I will not be drawn into a place where the odds are stacked heavily against me. There is no point in a discussion which is based on the a priori asumption that one side is wrong.

James, did you not read my last post? In particular this paragraph:

OK, I'll try to clarify our position. After the death of the Apostles (i.e. after John's death around 90 AD), there were no more divinely appointed men to govern the church. There were no more men on the earth who were authorized to declare or properly clarify true doctrine. Therefore the only writings that we LDS view as authorative in any way are those which can reasonably be attributed to the Apostles. For all intents and purposes, the church was apostate after John's death. All writings after that are simply man's best efforts at understanding what the Apostles taught. Since man is prone to err and man's understanding is limited, post-Apostolic traditions and writings are likewise prone to error. We believe that many post-Apostolic writings contain true doctrines, but the bottom line is those writings are not authorative because the true spirit of prophesy and revelation ended with the Apostles. For any post-Apostolic doctrine or teaching that was not explicitly and clearly taught by the Apostles (eg. infant baptism, the trinity, purgatory, veneration of saints, etc) we appeal to modern-day revelation and modern-day apostles for authorized and inspired clarification.

 

[James the Persian]

James, did you not read my last post? In particular this paragraph:

Yes, but to expect me to adhere to that (basically a sola scriptura position) is not meeting me on neutral ground but rather demanding that I argue my case only using texts approved by you (the LDS). I have no desire to get into such a debate because it is basically meaningless, being based on the a priori assumption of the Great Apostasy being true. We might as well not even bother.

James

 

[sojourner]

Therefore the only writings that we LDS view as authorative in any way are those which can reasonably be attributed to the Apostles.

None of the gospels is seriously attributed to any apostle (though they bear the names of apostles...). And what about the canonical, but non-Pauline epistles? Are you saying that the LDS do not accept the canonical gospels as authoritative?

 

[sojourner]

After the death of the Apostles (i.e. after John's death around 90 AD), there were no more divinely appointed men to govern the church. There were no more men on the earth who were authorized to declare or properly clarify true doctrine.

Yet, you accept the "protestant canon," which was set long after the apostasy, by apostate people. And that canon was extrapolated from the canon set in the fourth century...also by apostate people. Why don't you accept the much earlier, Eastern canon? It's probably a lot less likely to be "aposate."

 

[Polaris]

Yes, but to expect me to adhere to that (basically a sola scriptura position) is not meeting me on neutral ground but rather demanding that I argue my case only using texts approved by you (the LDS).

The Bible is our only authorative common ground James. I don't view non-apostolic writings as authorative and you don't view our modern-day Apostles as authorative. That's the reality, the Bible is our only neutral ground. All I ask is that you argue your case using texts that are approved by both of us, and last I checked the Bible was approved by the EOC.

I have no desire to get into such a debate because it is basically meaningless, being based on the a priori assumption of the Great Apostasy being true. We might as well not even bother.

So you're telling me that because you can't use post-apostolic writings this debate is meaningless? Why? Because the NT provides no support for your claims? That's odd, isn't the foundation of Christ's church built upon the prophets and apostles? Yet you can't appeal to their writings to make a compelling case for your position?

If you're going to declare my claims to be absurd you better have some reasonable argument to back that up. So far the only argument I've heard is your claim to "2000 years of history". Do you know how many years of history Hinduism has? Over 3000 years, and Buddism has over 2500. Sorry, that argument just doesn't mean much.

You're an intelligent guy James. If you really can't make a compelling case for your position from the writings of the Apostles, then maybe the LDS claims concerning the apostasy are actually quite valid.

 

[Polaris]

None of the gospels is seriously attributed to any apostle (though they bear the names of apostles...). And what about the canonical, but non-Pauline epistles? Are you saying that the LDS do not accept the canonical gospels as authoritative?

That depends on who you ask. Many seriously believe that the Apostle John was indeed the author of St. John. There are several reasons that the gospels are viewed as authorative:

1. We have reason to believe that they were either recorded/written by an apostle or under the direction of one.
2. They are 4 parallel accounts of Christ's life and for the most part are in complete harmony with each other.
3. They are a historical account of Christ's life and teachings from reliable sources, often eye-witnesses. The authors were simply recounting what they had heard and seen, they were not trying to unauthoratively establish church doctrines.

Concerning the non-Pauline epistles, again it depends on who you ask. Many believe they were indeed written by apostles. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Yet, you accept the "protestant canon," which was set long after the apostasy, by apostate people. And that canon was extrapolated from the canon set in the fourth century...also by apostate people.

The canon we use today is by no means the perfect bible. There may be writings that shouldn't necessarily be in there and there are likely writings that should have been included that aren't. I believe the canon was put together by good honest men who for the most part did the best they could to include authorative writings.

Why don't you accept the much earlier, Eastern canon? It's probably a lot less likely to be "aposate."

If there are any writings that can reasonably be attributed to the apostles or were recorded under their direction, I would definitely accept their writings. This whole issue underscores yet again the importance of modern-day revelation and modern-day apostles/prophets. There is obviously confusion and ambiguity concerning what early writings are actually apostolic and authorative. Modern-day prophets and/or apostles are needed to clarify the points of doctrine addressed by these ambiguous sources. Through inspired modern-day apostles we can confidantly know what teachings are actually part of gospel truth.

 

[Halcyon]

Sorry to interject, i'm finding the thread really interesting, but am confused by one aspect.

Why couldn't God spontaneously give revelation to the Church after the apostles death?

I mean, St. Paul wasn't an original apostle, but he was later appointed by God spontaneously (i.e. without another apostle giving him authority, nor the living Jesus appointing him as an apostle)

Also, Matthias was chosen by lots, by complete chance.

I just don't understand why God would abandon the Church after the death of the apostles? Why can't God give revelation through the Bishops? Why do they need to be called by the term 'apostle'?

 

[Quiddity]

Why couldn't God spontaneously give revelation to the Church after the apostles death?

The disagreement is in whether current revelation presents any new doctrine. The vast majority of Christians would contend that it does not. Denominations that believe in progressive revelation on the other hand feel that revelation does indeed present new doctrines.

I just don't understand why God would abandon the Church after the death of the apostles? Why can't God give revelation through the Bishops? Why do they need to be called by the term 'apostle'?

Those denominations that do not believe in progressive revelation believe we are being lead via the Holy Spirit. Not to reveal anything new but rather to confirm, clarify, and guide the Church toward what was already revealed in the Apostolic era.

 

[Polaris]

Why couldn't God spontaneously give revelation to the Church after the apostles death?

That's a valid question. I don't think God is as prone to chance and spontanaeity as you seem to be suggesting. The passage in Amos 3:7 - "surely the Lord God will do nothing except he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" - seems to describe a God that is much more organized and established in how He directs his people. God can definitely reveal knowledge to individuals however he sees fit, but when it comes to the proper guiding of his church, at least according to scripture, he has been consistant in the use of authorized and appointed individuals (i.e. prophets and apostles).

I mean, St. Paul wasn't an original apostle, but he was later appointed by God spontaneously (i.e. without another apostle giving him authority, nor the living Jesus appointing him as an apostle)

Paul was indeed visited by Christ, but the details concerning his actual Apostolic ordination aren't provided. For example Paul (Saul) was visited by Christ in Acts chapter 9, but wasn't referred to as an Apostle until chapter 14, which was likely several years after his conversion. We simply don't know for sure whether he was appointed an Apostle by the mere fact of his divine visitation or whether he was formally ordained such by the members of the Twelve similar to how Matthias was ordained. I believe the latter, but there is no way to no for sure.

Also, Matthias was chosen by lots, by complete chance.

Again I disagree that Matthias was selected by chance. In his selection Acts states that they prayed to know God's will and then each "gave forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias." I interpret that to mean they each cast their prayerfully considered vote, and not that they simply rolled dice.

I just don't understand why God would abandon the Church after the death of the apostles?

I can't claim to know all the reasons for the apostasy. I believe at least in part it had to do with the rejection and bitter persecution of the general population. The vast majority of the people simply rejected Christianity to the point of violent persecution and murder of the church's leadership. God won't force his gospel or his church upon us. If as a people we reject him, we'll eventually lose access to his truths and guidance. God didn't abandon the people, the people as a whole abandoned him and killed his ordained servants.

Why can't God give revelation through the Bishops? Why do they need to be called by the term 'apostle'?

What's important isn't the term or title of the office, but the divine authority associated with it. The NT makes it relatively clear that Apostle and Bishop were two different and distinct offices of authority. The apostles were those called to govern the church as a whole and received continued revelation to lead the church and declare and clarify doctrinal truths. The bishops were those called to oversee the local congregations. They were never authorized to receive church-wide governing revelation. So when the Apostles were killed, that church-wide governing authority was taken from the earth. The EOC, RCC, and others claim that Apostolic authority was given to the bishops and that continued revelation (revealed new knowledge) ended permanently with the apostles. The problem is that there is no authorative declaration recorded anywhere that indicates such events ever occurred or ever were intended to occur. To the contrary the apostles taught that prophets and apostles constitute the foundation of Christ's church and Paul prophecied of a large-scale falling away, or apostasy, that would occur before the second coming of Christ.

The ideas that somehow the apostleship was consumed into the bishopric and that new revealed knowledge ended with the apostles are simply not founded on scripture and I would even argue that they are contradictory to scripture.

 

[Katzpur]

Sorry to interject, i'm finding the thread really interesting, but am confused by one aspect.

Hi, Halcyon.

I see Polaris has already responded to your questions, but I'd like to just give you my thoughts without first reading what he had to say. It's entirely possible that I will repeat something he said, but then again, I might be able to shed some new light on the subject.

Why couldn't God spontaneously give revelation to the Church after the apostles death?

To me, this simply wouldn't be the logical thing for Him to do. Certainly, He provides all of us with spiritual insights and knowledge through the Holy Ghost. But if the members of the Church were simply left to wonder if someone who claimed to have been given a new revelation had actually done so, doctrines would undoubtedly have been tainted by erroneous interpretation a lot sooner than they actually were. Anyone who had aligned himself with Jesus Christ would have expected and been entitled to know for a surety that the guidance and direction provided after the Savior's death was in accordance with what He would have said himself, had He still been here. The only way that could have been the case was for there to be "official channels," so to speak. This is obviously what we expect whenever we turn on the TV to listen to the news; we have to be able to trust the source. How much more important is this assurance with respect to "news" of a spiritual nature?

I mean, St. Paul wasn't an original apostle, but he was later appointed by God spontaneously (i.e. without another apostle giving him authority, nor the living Jesus appointing him as an apostle)

Well, to begin with, that's not the way the scriptures describe the event. Unless I missed something pretty significant, Paul (Saul) was never appointed an Apostle when striken down on the road to Damascus. I suspect He needed to go through the same process anyone would have to go through in order to be in a position where he was ready to take on the degree of responsibility associated with the Apostleship. I'm not aware that we are told precisely when he was ordained an Apostle, but I seriously doubt it was done without the firsthand knowledge of the other Apostles. This ties back to my comments in the preceding paragraph: Could the other Apostles have been expected to simply accept Paul's announcement, "I've been called to be an Apostle. When's the next meeting?"

Also, Matthias was chosen by lots, by complete chance.

Huh? What makes you say that? The Apostles met together for the purpose of choosing a new Apostle. They presumably prayed. I would not be surprised if they fasted. They undoubtedly consulted among themselves and then, having done all of these things, decided among themselves to choose Mattias.

I just don't understand why God would abandon the Church after the death of the apostles? Why can't God give revelation through the Bishops? Why do they need to be called by the term 'apostle'?

I don't believe He abandoned the Church completely, but it is not God's practice to interfere with our free will. The internal friction within the early Church was far greater than most people can imagine. For a number of years into even the second century, the line between orthodoxy and heresy was extremely vague. At that point in time, things that we today might be consider to be nothing more than minor disputes were the source of absolute mayhem. There was literally nothing God could have done to protect the Church while continuing to allow men to be what men, by nature, are: fallible. As to why He couldn't have continued to reveal His word through Bishops, well, I'm sure He could have done -- except for one thing: Christ didn't build His Church on a foundation of Bishops. He built it on a foundation of Prophets and Apostles, presumably because that's how He wanted it to function. Bishops, by the way, were local leaders, and there were many of them. In order for the Church's bishops to have been able to function as an authoritative body (as the Apostles clearly had). Revelation would never have just been given to a single bishop; it would have had to have been received by all of them or by none of them, since they were all equal in standing. It's not, incidentally, the term "Apostle" that is so significant, it's the office of "Apostle" that is significant. Apostles are Apostles; Bishops are not. It's that simple.

 

[Katzpur]

The disagreement is in whether current revelation presents any new doctrine. The vast majority of Christians would contend that it does not. Denominations that believe in progressive revelation on the other hand feel that revelation does indeed present new doctrines.

Those denominations that do not believe in progressive revelation believe we are being lead via the Holy Spirit. Not to reveal anything new but rather to confirm, clarify, and guide the Church toward what was already revealed in the Apostolic era.

Victor,

In trying to get my thoughts together, I keep coming back to the question, "But how do you know that the Holy Spirit is doing the leading?" Consider the Council at Nicea in 325 A.D. It wasn't convened at the request of the Pope, but by a pagan emperor. The Pope wasn't actually even in attendance. Do we know for sure how he would have voted, and wouldn't it have mattered? Could he have been overruled, and what would the consequences of that vote be? At least one item on the agenda involved coming to a consensus as to the nature of God and the relationship between the three persons of the Trinity. As I understand it, several alternative viewpoints were presented, with Arianism being the only really serious contender. The "Arian Heresy" (and I do believe it was a heresy) was defeated, as we all know. The decision came by way of a majority vote, but only after considerable debate and more than a few not-so-idle threats. All who participated in the voting were men whom we ought to suppose were all being guided by the Holy Spirit. Do you see nothing the slightest bit irregular about this method of defining what would become a pivotal doctrine of the Church? A couple of centuries later, it had apparently become necessary to further "confirm and clarify" what the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed before it had already stated, and the Athanasian Creeds was established, ostensibly for this purpose. If it was not new doctrine, what exactly did it manage to confirm and clarify? It is not my intention to be disrespectful, but I just have a very, very difficult time imagining that this is what God had in mind when he left men to be guided by the Holy Spirit.