Apostasy was there one? part 1

[Alma147]

First about the Apostles as a sign of apostasy. I don’t follow this argument at all. Acts of the Apostles gives the definition of Apostle, and from this we can know why there would be no further Apostles after the deaths of the originals. Matthias is a perfect example of one who was not originally called to that office, but who had the qualifications, ie one who had been a physical witness of Jesus. Since Jesus didn’t return during the lifetimes of the Apostles, …

But Jesus did return on occasion to give direction. Paul is the most graphic example since Acts tells us how Jesus appeared to Paul and gave him instructions. Acts 23:11 further says that years later, “…the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.” When the 11 apostles chose Matthias, they concluded that there were two qualifications: 1) he must be an eyewitness of Jesus’ resurrection and 2) he must have “companied” with the others from the time of his baptism until his resurrection. Obviously, Paul only qualified under the first provision because he didn’t “company” with the others until after the resurrection. But that indicates that a new apostle could be chosen from anyone who was an eyewitness of Jesus’ resurrection.

and since it couldn’t possibly be that Jesus intended his Church to die out after their deaths, it is obvious that a succession was needed,

This is where I think you’re mistaken. Jesus intended his church to remain as long as the members accepted his overseers. When the time came that everyone rejected Paul in Asia–surely they cut themselves off from fellowship of the apostles. If the same thing occurred elsewhere (and I contend that it did), sending more apostles to people who reject them wouldn’t allow the church to continue. “And he gave some apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith.” (Ephesians 4:11-12) The fact that all are not in “the unity of the faith” indicates that apostles and prophets are still part of the program. The reason a “succession was needed” is another evidence that the apostasy took place; for if apostles had continued in the church no bishop would have dared to assume the position of the apostles in directing the whole church.

and then come bishops, who are the successors to the Apostles.

I think the Bible indicates otherwise. 1 Corinthians 12:28 tells us who God placed in the Church and in what order: “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues…” Notice that bishops aren’t even specifically in the list unless you consider them part of “governments” and if so, they rank below prophets and teachers and healings.

continued next message

 

[Alma147]

A bishop couldn’t be an Apostle, because he wasn’t a physical witness to the life, ministry, and death/resurrection of Jesus.

And that is precisely my point. God could at any time call more apostles as he did Paul–making him a witness of the resurrection of Jesus. That God did not do so, is why these local overseers could not qualify as apostles or even prophets.

But he still possesses the same Apostolic authority, which is passed down through ordination, according to Biblical standards.

The apostolic authority, while clearly conferred through ordination also contains a qualification: eyewitness–which does not come by the will of man. Paul was an apostle because he could testify of what he knew. That’s the strength of the apostolic position: “…which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled.” (1 John 1:1)

Second, about visions and revelation. Where do you get that Churchmen and -women ceased to have visions and revelations? The history of the Catholic Church has been full of mystical manifestations of God, Jesus, Mary, and the Saints.

That’s the problem. We go from biblical instances of Christ coming in person to Paul, and sending angels with specific instructions on how to direct His church to the apostles and prophets to “mystical manifestations” to little children, bleeding icons, and manifestations of Mary. These aren’t directions for the church from God to its leaders; but rather spectacles that do nothing to testify of Jesus and his resurrection.

We test these visions and revelations according to standards, otherwise we are subject to being misled by other spirits. It can’t be acceptable that a man stands up and pronounces visions and revelations, and then finding these to contradict Scripture and Tradition, even in tiny matters, be thought true.

John tells us not to believe every spirit but to use this standard: “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.” (1 Jn. 4:2-3) Can you tell me how the incidents at Fatima or Padre Pio “confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh?”

My understanding is that Mormons test their revelation according to feelings, and against materials thought to be “scripture” but which couldn’t possibly be.

There certainly is an element of perception, just as Peter perceived that Jesus was the Christ; but our revelation consistently confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. I’d be interested to know how you have concluded that something “couldn’t possibly be scripture.”

Time and again I hear Mormons claim that Jesus said this or that to Joseph Smith, yet they have no shred of evidence that such a thing took place.

Certainly they do. They have the same evidence that God used to prove the resurrection: witnesses. We have people who saw, handled, and heard and subsequently gave witness of those events. One might as easily discount Paul’s claim that Jesus said something to him because he didn’t have a shred of evidence of that fact either; but part of the gospel hinges on believing the witnesses God appointed. “Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God.” (Acts 10:40-41)

In fact, when you look at the fruits of these visions a revelations, you find a church out of communion with historic Christianity in fundamental ways.

That’s the point of a restoration isn’t it?

{quote]True revelation would lead Mormons into communion with historic Christianity.

It wouldn’t lead Mormons into communion with historic Christianity if “historic Christianity” were the result of an ancient apostasy would it?

Alma

 

[Allweather]

But Jesus did return on occasion to give direction. Paul is the most graphic example since Acts tells us how Jesus appeared to Paul and gave him instructions. Acts 23:11 further says that years later, “…the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.” When the 11 apostles chose Matthias, they concluded that there were two qualifications: 1) he must be an eyewitness of Jesus’ resurrection and 2) he must have “companied” with the others from the time of his baptism until his resurrection. Obviously, Paul only qualified under the first provision because he didn’t “company” with the others until after the resurrection. But that indicates that a new apostle could be chosen from anyone who was an eyewitness of Jesus’ resurrection.

I’m not thoroughly familiar with the whole Paul-as-Apostle issue, so I won’t be able to argue that, though I’m pretty sure others can, and hopefully will. But for the moment I’ll go with your statement that “a new Apostle could be chosen form anyone who was an eyewitness of Jesus’ resurrection.” FWIW I accept that God can make an Aposlte out of a rock, if he wants to. So the idea that God could designate any man on Earth an Apostle, is not something I have a problem with. The question is, has He? Are you saying that the Mormon apostles have all seen Jesus?

This is where I think you’re mistaken. Jesus intended his church to remain as long as the members accepted his overseers. When the time came that everyone rejected Paul in Asia–surely they cut themselves off from fellowship of the apostles. If the same thing occurred elsewhere (and I contend that it did), sending more apostles to people who reject them wouldn’t allow the church to continue.

Taking Paul literally, for the sake of argument let’s accept that every soul in Asia Minor went apostate. I think that that is a stretch, but let’s go with it. You are then going on and saying that this also happened everywhere else, which is even MORE of a stretch, and one which is completely illogical. Jesus said “I am with you always, even unto the end of the age” (my paraphrase, I am not looking at a Bible right now). He established a Church upon Apostolic foundations and promised that Hell would not be able to destroy it. I find no time limitations or other conditions here. He didn’t promise that the Church would be without problems, corruptions, even regional apostasies, but he did say that the Church would survive until he returned to fetch it.

The reason a “succession was needed” is another evidence that the apostasy took place; for if apostles had continued in the church no bishop would have dared to assume the position of the apostles in directing the whole church.

My understanding is that the bishops are Apostles in terms of authority. They exercise all of the authority the Apostles did, only we don’t actually call them Apostles because that is a term reserved for the special men of the Bible who were personally taught by Jesus. Otherwise, there is not a rank differential between Apostles and Bishops. Bishops were made necessary because, as became obvious, the Parousia did not occur during the lifetimes of those original Bishops, the Apostles. The tarrying of Jesus and his return to fetch the Church is the reason for the succession, and no other. I’m not an expert in these matters, so if I’ve got this a little wrong, I hope someone who knows will correct me.

I think the Bible indicates otherwise. 1 Corinthians 12:28 tells us who God placed in the Church and in what order: “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues…” Notice that bishops aren’t even specifically in the list unless you consider them part of “governments” and if so, they rank below prophets and teachers and healings.

Again, it seems to me that you’re making a rank differentiation between the Apostles their successors, who came to be called Bishops That would explain why bisops aren’t specifically mentioned in the verse you cite. Simply insert the word Bishop in place of Apostle, and you’ve got the Church that went forward after the deaths of the Apostles.

 

[Allweather]

Alma147:

…to “mystical manifestations” to little children, bleeding icons, and manifestations of Mary. These aren’t directions for the church from God to its leaders; but rather spectacles that do nothing to testify of Jesus and his resurrection.

These manifestations are not mere spectacles. Your interpretation of Guadalupe, Lourdes, Fatima, stigmatics, etc, is incorrect. These are intensely faith-building events. In the Mass there is a phrase, “From age to age you gather a people to yourself so that a perfect offering may be made to your glory” I believe that God uses things like these divine manifestations to gather people to himself.

“Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.” (1 Jn. 4:2-3) Can you tell me how the incidents at Fatima or Padre Pio “confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh?”

Isn’t that obvious? Since St. Francis there have been people who bore the bleeding wounds of Christ, some for many years, as in the case of Padre Pio. Wounds that bleed profusely, never heal, cause intense pain, and attended by miracles associated with the blood. You wouldn’t consider that in and of itself to be a witness to the Risen Lord? God doesn’t leave us without evidence. He puts markers all over the place, so that anyone with an eye and a desire to know, can see, feel, and hear.

There certainly is an element of perception, just as Peter perceived that Jesus was the Christ; but our revelation consistently confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

Peter would have to have been a complete idiot not to “perceive” that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah. He certainly didn’t need any burning bosom to get this message. By the time of his confession of faith, he’d walked on water himself, had seen perhaps hundreds of miracles performed by Jesus, including the dead raised to life. Given the extent to which Jesus tutored him and the other 11 personally, it wasn’t a matter of Holy Spirit Warming of Cockles that led them to believe in Jesus. It was their eyes, ears, hands and feet.

We have people who saw, handled, and heard and subsequently gave witness of those events. One might as easily discount Paul’s claim that Jesus said something to him because he didn’t have a shred of evidence of that fact either; but part of the gospel hinges on believing the witnesses God appointed.

Again, the test of validity, or at least one of them, has to be orthodoxy. If these so-called Mormon witnesses had really seen and handled what they apparently claim, then they’d have incorporated themselves into the historic Church that Jesus established. The fact that they didn’t, makes them just another breakaway sect formed during a period of religious hysteria in a country given over to weird religious behaviors. It seems to me that the ambience of the day is important. If Joseph Smith were the only one making claims of prophetism and new-churchism in the early to mid-19th century, then he’d have more credibility, I think. But, since he is only one of dozens, then it seems pretty obvious that there is something else going on here.

That’s the point of a restoration isn’t it?

Anyone who thought that the Catholic Church needed restoring in 1830 was ignorant, which isn’t surprising given the nature of the United States in those years. A Protestant country founded in large measure by people who were religious nutcases fleeing from other religious nutcases, all Protestant. That is the setting for Joseph Smith and his peepstone, folk magic, indian mound theories, etc. Little was known in that area about true historic Christianity.

It (true revelation) wouldn’t lead Mormons into communion with historic Christianity if “historic Christianity” were the result of an ancient apostasy would it? Alma

True revelation is true revelation. One big test of validity is orthodoxy. We must be able to judge claimed visions and revelations, because these are being claimed all the time. Most are false, by far most. Joseph Smith’s were false because they lead away from orthodoxy. They ultimately led to false concepts of the Trinity, which is the central doctrine of the Christian Church. It ultimately led to polygamy, and later the renunciation of polygamy. God didn’t give us a squishy church with hard-to-define beliefs that change as conditions require. He gave us a Church and a promise that He would stand guard over it and insure its ultimate survival against Satan himself. An apostasy would make a liar of Jesus, so we can know that there was no apostasy, because Jesus is not a liar.

 

[Allweather]

Here is a short excerpt from the article under the heading “Apostles, The” in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

""…it remains certain that in the second century the general Apostolic authority belonged, by a succession universally acknowledged as legitimate, to the bishops of the Christian churches. (See APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.) The bishops have, therefore, a general power of order, jurisdiction, and magisterium, but not the personal prerogatives of the Apostles.""

The full article can be found here:

newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm

It has a section that discusses the “personal prerogatives of the Apostles.”

 

[mjf001]

I feel like a broken record, because I say the same thing every time the issue of the apostacy comes up. The Mormons are the people who make the claim of an apostacy; therefore, the burden of proof falls on them. Subjective responses don’t cut it. Absent some empirical data, historical evidence, or proof the bible was changed, the apostacy will remain what it is, a myth.
With the evidence as is stands, it seems clear to me that Joseph Smith was a fraud. I felt this way when I left the Mormon church, and my journey to the Catholic church has only served to strengthen this opinion.
I pray that our Mormon friends, throught the grace of God, find their way home.

Michael

 

[Tmaque]

Paul declared, “Be not soon shaken in mind, or troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, not by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by many means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first.” (2 Thessalonians 2:2-3).

A falling away from what ? Is it the Gospel will The Christ only return after a falling away , that’s what it is saying. In simple terms an apostasy will happen before the second coming.

.

Montague,

Have any large groups “fallen away” from the LDS Church? We all know they have! By your own definition that means that the LDS Church is in a state of apostasy.

Paul was not talking about a falling away OF the church, but a falling away FROM the church. As we all know there have been many chuch occurences.

 

[Allweather]

Originally Posted by montague
Paul declared, “Be not soon shaken in mind, or troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, not by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by many means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first.” (2 Thessalonians 2:2-3).

A falling away from what ? Is it the Gospel will The Christ only return after a falling away , that’s what it is saying. In simple terms an apostasy will happen before the second coming.

This “falling away” isn’t necessarily describing a universal apostasy, and it certainly isn’t describing the removal of divine authority from the Church, which is what the Mormons are claiming is what happened sometime between 100 and 500 a.d.

It is more likely describing the secularization of societies that started after the Protestant Reformation, and has gathered momentum ever since. The Western World is definitely in a post-Christian era. But that doesn’t mean the Church no longer exists, but rather that it has grown smaller, and has less influence upon the nations. This secularization, this “falling away” is one sign of the end of the age, no doubt. The Church will grow smaller, and Pope Benedict is known to favor a smaller, more fervent Catholicism, but it will never pass away. Even if there be one Christian left in the world, the Church will not have passed away.