Do Any Writings of the Early Church Fathers Support the Theory of a "Great Apostasy"

[amgid]

majick275:

There has never been a complete, universal “great” apostasy in the history of the world. God has always cared for his people on earth in a very direct manner.

If the following scripture does not signify apostasy, I don’t know how else one could describe it:

Genesis 6:

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
If the following scripture does not signify apostasy, I don’t know how else one could describe it:

Matthew 21:

43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
amgid

 

[amgid]

edmondhall:

I think the pattern of sin and redemption more directly characterizes God’s dealings with humans.

I recknon it looks a lot more like apostasy and restoration.

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgid:

If the following scripture does not signify apostasy, I don’t know how else one could describe it:

Genesis 6:

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
If the following scripture does not signify apostasy, I don’t know how else one could describe it:

Matthew 21:

43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
amgid

read the whole chapter especially verse 45:

When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew he was talking about them.
So he took away the kingdom of God from the chief priests and pharisees. This is a very specific reference to a very specific group. He did NOT take it from the whole earth. He did not “restore” it later. He was already in the process of building his church that HE said the gates of hell would not prevail against. I do’t deny that there has been, is now and will continue to be apostasy. All of the scriptures point out that it is individuals and groups that this applies to, NOT the entire earth.

as to your genesis 6, read verse 18:
But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you.

God took out the apostates but still preserved his “church” on the earth. No restoration here as the church didn’t get taken away just the wicked poeple.

Notice the pattern that is consistent throughout the Bible. God is always with us on the earth. His church is always here. He has never abandoned the entire planet, rather than that he destroyed the wicked and kept safe only his faithful. We sure see evidence of that in the history of the Christian church. He preserves his church on earth just as he always has.

 

[edmondhall]

amgid,
The relationship of Israel to the church is simply not analogous to the relationship claimed by LDS between the ‘apsotasy’ and ‘restoration’. Consider, for instance, Matthew 5:17:

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill”.

Christianity is the fulfilment of God’s promises to Israel, not a restoration of some type. It’s the end of a linear progression that begins in Genesis.

 

[dennisknapp]

Brad Haas:

Funny you guys should mention that. It was the subject of one of my first articles.

Excellent article, Brad! You hit the nail on the head. How could a Mormon argue against another great apostasy…they can’t, at least not without cutting their own feet off.

Hey, I started a new thread about this. Its at:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=85402&goto=newpost

Peace

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hello All;

It’s been a few days since I posted. Other matters have kept me from thinking about TOm’s post until this morning. But I went back and read the Title of this thread, then reviewed TOm’s response and considered where we are going in this discussion. These are my thoughts:

(1) TOm’s strongest argument is that, “but for” the concept of development in doctrine Catholicism would easily be shown to be apostate. This is not much of an argument, since Catholicism has accepted the concept of development in doctrine from the beginning. Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pp.6ff. For example, St. Gregory the Great states: “With the progress of the times the knowledge of the spiritual fathers increased; for, in the Science of God, Moses was more instructed that Abraham, the Prophets more than Moses, the Apostles more than the Prophets.” (in Ezechielem lib. 2 hom. 4, 12).

In addition, I think that TOm spends little time distinguishing the difference between Revelation, and those doctrines and truths revealed by the Church as intrinsically connected with the truths of Revelation so that their denial would undermine revealed truth. These “Catholic truths” can include theological conclusions, dogmatic facts, and truths of reason - none of which are the type of continuing “Revelation” that the LDS Church professes to still hold. In the end, the argument is not justification for or against a Great Apostasy, but merely underscores the importance of the idea of an apostasy as a real lynchpin of LDS faith.

Regardless of the above, I think the argument really does not address the topic of this thread - where the Church Fathers would Support a Great Apostasy.

(2) Regarding the citation to ECF authority, I think that TOm makes the best possible argument for the LDS church from the position that apostate “truths” are evidence of a difference of opinion that existed at the time of the early Church. To focus my point, I am willing to concede - arguendo - that one can parse statements taken from the writings of the ECFs and other early christian writers to support the hypothesis that certain theological ideas that existed in the early church were rejected by the leaders of the early Christian church. But, even if that is a given, one must ask whether that - in and of itself - is evidence of a great apostasy. I do not think so, although it is evidnece of apostasy. The support for early LDS beliefs, however, comes from adopting the apostate position as opposed to that which was contemporaneously espoused as the catholic or universally accepted understanding. Again, I do not find this postion to be persuasive, and that is without even questioning the veracity of the espoused source of “early LDS” doctrine.

(3) Nothing in the sources quoted by TOm shows concern by early Christian writers that members of the Church are falling away in great numbers. To the contrary, history evidences the emergence of localized apostates that speak out against the established Church hierarchy, but the sources do not evidence the hierarchy apostasizing from what has been taught to them by the Apostles. Similarly, there is no evidence of outside sources hostile to the christian church addressing a massive “falling away” or total apostasy.

(4) I find it interesting that the LDS position must acknowledge the authority that existed in the Church at the time the Scriptures were canonized…

TOmNossor:

The “authority that established the New Testament” in my opinion deals a strong criticism to Biblical inerranists and Sola Scripturist. The formation of the New Testament was done by the Catholic Church AND it did not perfectly follow any set rules. If the Bible is inerrant (including complete) then surely these men had authority to do what they did.

… yet it must also take the position that shortly after the death of the last apostle the Church apostasized. Does a similar factual inconsistency exist within the Catholic faith? I do not think so.

Ultimately, I think the LDS position comes down to the “burning in the bosom” position. In other words, “I believe what I feel to be true, so now I must set out to prove my truth to be true, though reason and history be damned.”

 

[Brad_Haas]

Chris Jodrey:

Do you believe that the Jews of today have the same authority they had during Bible times?

No. Did something I said imply that? I referred to God’s people, not to the Jews.
Chris Jodrey:

On top of that, isn’t it also unfair every time some person dies without having heard of Christ? This is essentially what happened during the apostasy. Even though the Catholic Church existed, it didn’t exist everywhere, so even if it is the true Church there were a lot of people that missed out, which baqsically equals the consequences of mass apostasy.

I can answer this question, but I don’t see how it’s related to the topic. Can you clarify?
Chris Jodrey:

I think, though, that this isn’t the main problem for Catholics (even though they concsiously think and say it is). The real blow is that they would feel disillusioned and personally snubbed by God if the apostasy did indeed happen, or in other words, if their belief was false. I think my advice would be to not take it personally. What was done was done with God’s wisdom, as TOm said, and we need to learn to be humble and accept that.

The same isn’t true for LDS, or anyone who currently believes something that’s not true? I don’t appreciate the subtle implications that Catholics are too proud and/or lazy to face up to the truth.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Chris Jodrey:

I think, though, that this isn’t the main problem for Catholics (even though they concsiously think and say it is). The real blow is that they would feel disillusioned and personally snubbed by God …

I believe that in the psychological discipline, this is what they would call “projecting.”

 

[majick275]

exactly. imagine if you had given 10% of your income away all your life, even when your family had to endure hardship as a result. imagine you had left friends and family for two years, not going to school or working so that you could devote all of your time and effort to converting people to your religion. what if you had spent all of your spare time, even causing your family hardship at times, to working in church callings. Waht if your whole social life was invested in your church. What if you had married someone primarly because of your church and followed marital counsel of church leaders. What if you had married young because your church said to even if you weren’t ready. What if you had done all of this, dedicating your life (think mormon temple covenants) to your church and you finally had to admit that the emperor’s new clothes just weren’t there? You see DNA evidence, archeological evidence, historical evidence disproving your churches claims. You find out your church history was “revised” and even your “scriptures” were revised to paint a more “faith promoting” picture. You see evidence that the man who started your church was a fraud who conned people out of money and women of their virtue. You see proof that church leaders outright lied and punish those who expose the lies. How would you react? Think you might be a little “disillusioned”? maybe even “snubbed by God”? would you maybe react with denial and respond with emotional appeals that it can’t be wrong because you KNOW it’s true? All the while ignoring the truth and continuing to reject Gods real message because the temptation is so strong to be a God someday…just like Satan said…(Genesis 3:4,5 and especially the Mormon Temple ceremony)

Repent and be baptized, enjoy the blessings of the true kingdom of God. Even now you can still be saved.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

read the whole chapter especially verse 45:

When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew he was talking about them.

So he took away the kingdom of God from the chief priests and pharisees.

You do greatly err, not understanding the scriptures. The kingdom never belonged just to the “chief priests and the Pharisees” in the first place, that it should just be taken away from them. The kingdom belonged to the house of Israel.

God made a covenant with Abraham that through him and his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed. So He raised up Moses to give them the Law, and to lead them out of the Egyptian bondage, and gave them the land that He had covenanted their fathers, and gave them many prophets, an chose them above any other nation on earth to be the worshippers of the only true God. But they repeatedly abused His laws, and apostatized from the truth; and He chastened them many times by allowing them to be taken captive by their enemies, or be taken into exile. Then when they had finally apostatized one more time from His truths, God sent them Jesus to bring them round.

Jesus Himself never preached to the Gentiles in His lifetime, and specifically commanded his disciples not to do so. He commanded them exclusively to go to the house of Israel (Matthew 10:5-7; 15:21-24). The Lord’s Mission was exclusively to the House of Israel initially. It is only after the Jews had rejected His message, and had Him crucified instead, that the dispensation of the gospel was taken from the Jews, or the house of Israel, and the Apostles were commanded instead to take it to the Gentiles. The kingdom belonged to the house of Israel, not just to the Pharisees. The chief priests and Pharisees were the chief offenders in the transgression, being the leaders of the people; but the offence was committed by the nation as a whole, not just by the Pharisees (see Mark 15:11-15; Acts 4:10). That is why the entire nation of the Jews had to be destroyed and scattered among the Gentiles, as prophesied by the Lord, not just the Pharisees (Luke 21:24).

This is a very specific reference to a very specific group.

Yes, the “specific group” it refers to is the whole house of Israel, not just the Pharisees.

He did NOT take it from the whole earth.

Nobody said anything about the “earth”. Previous to the coming of Christ, the Jews were entrusted with the dispensation of the gospel, or with the knowledge of the true God, and they were charged with the responsibility of carrying it to the Gentiles, according to the covenant God made with Abraham. But the Jews failed to live up to that responsibility, but corrupted the original teachings and doctrines. That is what is meant by apostasy. At that point it can indeed be saith that the gospel was “taken from the earth”. If the Jews were the only ones who had it, and they had corrupted it to the point of making it useless as a means of blessing themselves and the rest of mankind, then you can say that it was “taken from the earth”.

He did not “restore” it later.

Jesus did indeed came to “restore” it; and at the same time to add to it the higher law that Moses originally wanted to give them, but was not able to because the Jews were not ready for it at that time.

He was already in the process of building his church that HE said the gates of hell would not prevail against. I do’t deny that there has been, is now and will continue to be apostasy.

I can’t make much sense out of that.

All of the scriptures point out that it is individuals and groups that this applies to, NOT the entire earth.

It applies to the House of Israel, see above.

as to your genesis 6, read verse 18:

But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you.

God took out the apostates but still preserved his “church” on the earth.

So we agree that the world had apostatized. Well, Noah’s mission was to “restore” it; and that is what he did; except that this time the apostate world had become so wicked that God had no choice but to destroy it completely. So the “restoration” took a rather drastic turn. But it was a “restoration” nevertheless.

No restoration here as the church didn’t get taken away just the wicked poeple.

See above.

Notice the pattern that is consistent throughout the Bible. God is always with us on the earth. His church is always here. He has never abandoned the entire planet, rather than that he destroyed the wicked and kept safe only his faithful. We sure see evidence of that in the history of the Christian church. He preserves his church on earth just as he always has.

This makes no sense to me.

amgid

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

amgid:

This makes no sense to me.

amgid

Really? Did Christ not ask the Father to send the Holy Spirit as He promised He would? Do you dispute this verse and Christ’s own words here:

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

He says the gates of hell will never prevail against His Church. Any claim that the Church apostasized distrusts Christ immensely and is a slap in His face and calling Him a liar.

What about Saint Paul, who says that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth?

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

How can a Foundation apostasize?

 

[Brad_Haas]

amgid:

You do greatly err, not understanding the scriptures. The kingdom never belonged just to the “chief priests and the Pharisees” in the first place, that it should just be taken away from them. The kingdom belonged to the house of Israel.

It seems the authority belonged to them…
“Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.’”

• Matthew 23:1-3

 

[amgid]

Brad Haas:

It seems the authority belonged to them…
“Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.’”

• Matthew 23:1-3

You seem to have overlooked what I said. Here is a quote from the third paragraph of my post:

The chief priests and Pharisees were the chief offenders in the transgression, being the leaders of the people; but the offence was committed by the nation as a whole, not just by the Pharisees (see Mark 15:11-15; Acts 4:10). That is why the entire nation of the Jews had to be destroyed and scattered among the Gentiles, as prophesied by the Lord, not just the Pharisees (Luke 21:24).
The fact that the kingdom belonged to the house of Israel, and was taken away from them because of transgression, and given to the Gentiles, is supported by many other scriptures too numerous to quote.

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgid:

You do greatly err, not understanding the scriptures. The kingdom never belonged just to the “chief priests and the Pharisees” in the first place, that it should just be taken away from them. The kingdom belonged to the house of Israel.

Right but the whole kingdom wasn’t being taken away from everyone. Jesus was letting this group know that it was being taken from them.

amgid:

God made a covenant with Abraham that through him and his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed. So He raised up Moses to give them the Law, and to lead them out of the Egyptian bondage, and gave them the land that He had covenanted their fathers, and gave them many prophets, an chose them above any other nation on earth to be the worshippers of the only true God. But they repeatedly abused His laws, and apostatized from the truth; and He chastened them many times by allowing them to be taken captive by their enemies, or be taken into exile. Then when they had finally apostatized one more time from His truths, God sent them Jesus to bring them round.

But he never abandoned them. That covenant was true, he never took it away from the whole earth. He DID show that it could apply to people in new ways when he told them they weren’t guaranteed salvation just because they were abrahams children. He said he could make anyone abraham’s heirs and that those who did the works of abraham were his true heirs.

amgid:

Jesus Himself never preached to the Gentiles in His lifetime, and specifically commanded his disciples not to do so. He commanded them exclusively to go to the house of Israel (Matthew 10:5-7; 15:21-24).

and yet in 15 v 28 he does bless the canaanite woman. They were sent to the israelite community first but they didn’t deny those others who sincerely sought them out.

amgid:

The Lord’s Mission was exclusively to the House of Israel initially. It is only after the Jews had rejected His message, and had Him crucified instead, that the dispensation of the gospel was taken from the Jews, or the house of Israel, and the Apostles were commanded instead to take it to the Gentiles. The kingdom belonged to the house of Israel, not just to the Pharisees. The chief priests and Pharisees were the chief offenders in the transgression, being the leaders of the people; but the offence was committed by the nation as a whole, not just by the Pharisees (see Mark 15:11-15; Acts 4:10). That is why the entire nation of the Jews had to be destroyed and scattered among the Gentiles, as prophesied by the Lord, not just the Pharisees (Luke 21:24).

 

[majick275]

(continued)

I’m not sure what you mean by dispensation it does not appear to be the same definition that I was taught when LDS. In any case not ALL jews rejected Jesus, the initial Christians were Jews. The house of Israel was given the Gospel first but it wasn’t removed when it went out to the rest of the world. The Jews who believed still had it. The Jewish Christians were the ones doing the initial preaching and teaching. Pauls letter to the Hebrews shows that the gospel was still being taught and practiced by the faithful Israelites. Once again though we find no global apostasy nor do we see the “church” removed from the earth.

amgid:

Yes, the “specific group” it refers to is the whole house of Israel, not just the Pharisees.

Obviously not since he was still at that point preaching and teaching to other Israelites who are NOT denied the kingdom. The letter to the Hebrews shows this continuing even after his death and resurrection.

amgid:

Nobody said anything about the “earth”. Previous to the coming of Christ, the Jews were entrusted with the dispensation of the gospel, or with the knowledge of the true God, and they were charged with the responsibility of carrying it to the Gentiles, according to the covenant God made with Abraham. But the Jews failed to live up to that responsibility, but corrupted the original teachings and doctrines. That is what is meant by apostasy. At that point it can indeed be saith that the gospel was “taken from the earth”. If the Jews were the only ones who had it, and they had corrupted it to the point of making it useless as a means of blessing themselves and the rest of mankind, then you can say that it was “taken from the earth”.

Okay for clarity I take dispensation to be LDS measures of time. Religious epochs if you will. Once again NOT ALL Jews apostatized. We have Jewish Apostles and Jewish congregations in the NT. We see the corrupt teachings being actively corrected. We still don’t see the Gospel being taken from the Earth. It’s still there in the Apostolic writings of the NT. They act and teach as if it won’t go away. There is simply no biblical support for Christ’s church being taken from the earth.

amgid:

Jesus did indeed came to “restore” it; and at the same time to add to it the higher law that Moses originally wanted to give them, but was not able to because the Jews were not ready for it at that time.

It hadn’t left, it couldn’t be restored. It WAS incomplete. Jesus FULFILLED the old covenant. He did add the higher law that GOD wanted to give. Jesus came at the right time. You imply that God mistakenly jumped the gun because he didn’t know when the people would be ready. They WERE ready. The fact that people believed and shared their belief and literally built up his church SHOWS this.

amgid:

I can’t make much sense out of that.

Please… this is the differentiation between individuals and groups falling into apostasy versus the whole world apostatizes.

amgid:

It applies to the House of Israel, see above.

and members of the house of Israel WERE faithful. Much of Israel went into apostasy but NOT ALL.

amgid:

So we agree that the world had apostatized. Well, Noah’s mission was to “restore” it; and that is what he did; except that this time the apostate world had become so wicked that God had no choice but to destroy it completely. So the “restoration” took a rather drastic turn. But it was a “restoration” nevertheless.

No we don’t. MOST of the world was apostate at the time of Noah. The “church” wasn’t removed, the WICKED were. Noah didn’t restore anything he CONTINUED it in an unbroken timeline.

amgid:

See above.

YES see above.

amgid:

This makes no sense to me.

amgid

That God acts consistently makes no sense to you? It is obvious so obvious. God has NEVER removed the “church” from the earth. He has gone so far as to remove everyone else on the planet but he never left his children in complete darkness. He promised us he would be with us always. He keeps his promises. The Gospel never went away. The church that Jesus founded did not go away and come back. It stayed here all laong.

 

[dennisknapp]

majick275:

The church that Jesus founded did not go away and come back. It stayed here all laong.

You are not going to get anywhere with him. Amgid has had a spiritual testimony; therefore what he assert is true just by uttering it.

It is interesting the position the LDS take on the issue regarding tests for truth.

They have made it so that they can never be wrong. How do they do this you might ask? Well…

1. Everything, and I mean everything, is based on a subject religious experience. This experience can’t be proved or disproved because we don’t have access to people’s minds or hearts.
2. Because it is entirely based on a subjective experience, all those who do not have this experience are wrong. Only those who have the experience are right.
3. So, using this “method” of discerning truth the LDS will always be right, for they have had an experience informing them so.
4. Therefore, for them to be wrong is for them to have misunderstood what they experienced or they experienced nothing at all but wanted what they believe to be true, so thought they experienced some when in fact they experienced nothing.

My problem with this… It can prove anything. A Buddhist can use it, or a Catholic, or a Muslim, anyone. It gets to the point where the experience becomes meaningless because everyone is claiming to have had an experience, yet they are at the same time attempting to prove contradictory things.

This “method” goes nowhere and accomplishes nothing except to psychologically reinforce already held beliefs. It boils down to wishful thinking.

Peace

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Right but the whole kingdom wasn’t being taken away from everyone. Jesus was letting this group know that it was being taken from them. . . .

You have written a lot and said very little. I don’t think there is any need for me to give a lengthy response to your post. You have not addressed the main points I had raised, therefore my original post stands.

The antediluvians apostatized and sinned, and perished in the floods; and the true gospel was restored and preserved through Noah.

The Israelites sinned and apostatized from the truth, and rejected the Messiah; therefore that nation was destroyed and scattered among all the nations of the earth, and the kingdom of God was taken away from them and given to the Gentiles.

Present day Christendom has apostatized from the original gospel of the Lord and His Apostles, “changed the ordinances and broken the everlasting covenant,” lost the priesthood keys and the divine authority to lead and direct the church by revelation from God; therefore God has restored them again to earth by divine revelation and angelic ministration, through a great prophet in our time, for the salvation and redemption of all mankind.

The pattern of God’s dealings is clear and consistent in all generations throughout the history of man.

amgid

 

[dennisknapp]

amgid:

Present day Christendom has apostatized from the original gospel of the Lord and His Apostles, “changed the ordinances and broken the everlasting covenant,” lost the priesthood keys and the divine authority to lead and direct the church by revelation from God; therefore God has restored them again to earth by divine revelation and angelic ministration, through a great prophet in our time, for the salvation and redemption of all mankind.

The pattern of God’s dealings is clear and consistent in all generations throughout the history of man.

amgid

You really have no way of proving this (see post 96), and the Fathers speak against you. The Scriptures never speak of a total apostasy, yet another strike against you.

I really see no rational way to accept the LDS position (see post 96).

To sum up the LDS position: I assert it and feel it, therefore it must be true.

Peace

 

[majick275]

consistently throughout the scriptures the Lord has NEVER removed his church form the earth and thus there has never been a “restoration”. Playing word games and waving off the documenteted truth as unworthy of a response doesn’t change things.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Dear amgid;

I think you’re avoiding the topic of this thread.

You are arguing only that the scriptures support the position that a great apostasy would occur.

But the topic of the thread was to discuss the evidence that such an event ever really occurred. If a total apostasy occurred early in the life of the church - shortly after the death of the last apostle - then evidence of that total apostasy would be present somewhere. Evidence would be in the writings of the period. It would be present in the writings of those who supported the alleged apostasy. It would be present in the writings of those who were fighting against the alleged total apostasy, and evidence of an alleged total apostasy would certainly be present in the writings of those who were attacking the fledgling and persecuted christianity.

Your argument that scripture can be interpreted to support the idea of a total apostasy is one that I’m willing to concede for the purpose of *this * thread. My question is even assuming *arguendo * that the scriptures could be interpreted to support the idea of a total apostasy sufficient to result in the absolute removal of the church from the earth, where are the writings showing that - as a matter of history - this occurred during the early years of the Church, following the death of the last apostle.

In other words, even assuming a total apostasy is foretold in scripture, where is the evidence in the writings of the period showing that this has happened? My point, in citing Catholic teaching from the beginning, and in showing lack of comment on any alleged total apostasy, is to show that history is silent on the issue. Thus, one can only conclude that the idea of a total apostasy is completely unsupported and so far removed, and in some places implicitly contradicted by, the historical evidence that it cannot be accepted as true.