Great Apostasy theory: Failing Gamaliel's Test

[Arandur]

I don’t think an Evangelical would disagree with this.

Great! What I find so interesting about our new (after Christ’s Incarnation and his gift of the Spirit) mission, as Christians, to insist on truth (orthodoxy) as well as right relationship with God (orthopraxy) is that doctrine does matter. Many Christians have decided to be against “organized religion,” thus ditching both orthodoxy and orthopraxy in favor of relativistic non-denominational complacency. Yet we have this imperative for truth… I don’t see how those reconcile.

In context, neither would Gamaliel or the Apostles. Either the Church and its doctrines are true, or they are not. We cannot have versions, and we cannot have an institution set up by God failing, for God does not abandon His covenants no matter how faithless His people are–that’s the lesson of Israel, is it not? (And even Adam, for that matter)

Again, no Evangelical would disagree with this. Gamaliel’s test proves that Christianity is true. But there is no specification of a specific denomination or belief. All Christians and pseudo-Christians claim the heritage of the apostles. They all claim that this “test” is validated through their respective faithful.

I think you are disagreeing with it. I am arguing that Gamaliel’s test applies to the authoritative organization of the early Church, as represented by the Apostles in question, commissioned by Christ (as the previous false messiahs had commissioned their own followers). He’s not even applying it to doctrine, for he is targeting his demand for evidence at the success and durability of the institution that those men head and set up, and inferring from that success that it could be of God, and that it’s message, then, would be as well. But the “Christianity is true” conclusion only applies after the divine institution is evidenced.

Since this is applying to an organization and an authority, it very much must apply to a specific organization. You can argue which organization this was, but it must be able to show continuity in structure, teaching, and authority with the original if it is to be the same organization. Gamaliel wanted proof that this thing of Jesus’ doing would last just as the Jewish people insisted on preserving the Mosaic Law had lasted, despite exiles and conquests and persecutions. Just as the Levitical priesthood had lasted, even if they had lost a temple in which to sacrifice. That was the basis from which his judgment came, the only other standard against which he could compare Christ’s Kingdom (his Church).

I do not think you can maintain that all denominations claim descent from the Apostles. Many don’t believe there was a real church organization for Gamaliel to even have applied his test against. Many more don’t believe in an authoritative church, relying instead on personal interpretation–again lacking a body to be tested. Many others hold beliefs that explicitly reject doctrines found in the early Church. And then there’s the question of whether new beliefs or organizations have any evidence even in prototypical form in the early Church–particularly problematic if, indeed, beliefs to the contrary seem to be held, or if those promoting the innovative beliefs also don’t believe in an authoritative church.

The point is that Gamaliel’s insight was that God’s work cannot be foiled; His work is through man and divinely-instituted, communities of man with authoritative leadership; and that whatever form this Church that the Apostles on trial were leading and spreading would have to persist in form, in authority, and in its core laws and teachings just as God had shown His prior covenants to persist.

It is according to your eyes, as a Catholic, because you believe the Catholic Church is the one and only Church, and the oldest by far. But not all Christians accept this premise. And this passage does not suggest this either. This institution could very well be any Christian church. But you believe it refers to the Catholic Church because you start from the premise that the Catholic Church is the first and only Church. But Protestants all reject that notion.

Do you think Gamaliel considered the Samaritans to be of God? They maintained many of the same beliefs…but were not seen as having authority since the splitting off of the 10 tribes. Indeed, they were reviled as worse than Gentiles–they were traitors.

If the Samaritans would not have passed Gamaliel’s test, in similar way, any denominations of Christians that split off could not be seen as God’s work.

 

[Arandur]

But what about the other side of it?

Doesn’t “Gamaliel’s Test” imply that any religion that prospers and flourishes is of God?

Wouldn’t that imply that Islam, for instance, was true?

So I wonder how strictly one can take “Gamaliel’s Test” as a doctrinal principle. If we do, we will have to become pluralists. . . . .

Only if you take it on the most superficial level. It still applies if you delve deeper to consider where Gamaliel was coming from, what example he had in mind and what measuring stick he could hold a new covenant of God up against: the preservation of Judah and Mosaic Law over time and many persecutions, along with an authority structure by which to maintain and administer that covenant.

If you look judiciously into the details (remember, they were holding court, so were presumably willing to consider the case on more than just the superficial level), I don’t think any of those other religions have the evidence to back up a claim of 1) a preserved people; 2) a preserved law and teaching; and 3) a preserved authority structure despite 4) being persecuted and conquered, ruled over. The Christian experience matches the Jewish measuring stick in these regards more completely than any other religion that I know of–another evidence of God working through history.

So that’s one way (with several important sub-points) in which the test proves out for Christianity as opposed to any other long lasting religion.

In a broader sense, and without having to put each religion on trial, I think we can even accept your premise that the test had primarily to do with enduring preservation of a religion. Without debating whether an Islamic or Buddhist authority structure ever died out or if one still persists today, we can still apply Gamaliel’s Test against any theory of Total Apostasy–which was my whole point.

Remember, Total Apostasy theory requires that the entire Church of Christ dies out. It all becomes apostate (rejects Christ). It loses any and all authority Christ gave it. THIS would fail Gamaliel’s simple test–a test derived from the witness of God’s faithfulness to His covenant with the Jews.

In other words, Gamaliel’s Test tells us that God must be at least as faithful and providential to any new covenant of the Messiah as He was to the Covenant with the Jews. It does not necessarily tell us (or at least not without much investigation into particulars) which claimant to the true covenant and to authority is correct. But it does tell us that whatever claimant it is must be able to demonstrate unbroken continuity–there can have been no “total apostasy.”

 

[Jack_Mormon]

If the Church does fail (“come to naught” in this translation), like so many others as Gamaliel cites, it is proof positive that Jesus was not sent by God and is not who He or Christians claim him to be.

First of all, I was not aware that Catholics believed that Gamaliel, who never believed in Jesus, was actually the reigning authority on who was and who was not sent by God. I think that Gamaliel’s statements show him to be a wise and tolerant man, but I’m not sure his words were meant to be prophetic.

Second, I don’t think that the church “came to naught.” Most educated Catholics that I know will admit that some things were lost. Your church worked admirably hard to put the New Testament together from the disparate sources, to sort out true documents and prophesies from false ones, but correct me if I’m wrong, there’s still some dispute among the faithful as to which books should or should not have been included.

As to your title, if you can’t find it in yourself to respect the LDS church, most of us still respect yours, and hope we can proceed in the spirit of friendship.