I think you are sticking too close to the dictionary definition of the apostasy. By “complete apostasy” we mean complete loss of priesthood authority, not that all the Christians became completely depraved, and stopped being Christians. We believe that there was a serious apostasy (in the dictionary definition) by a large section of the Christian community in the early days; but that did not mean that everyone became apostate in that sense.
I never said that this was your position. My understanding is that for there to be a complete apostacy the Church (i.e its teachign authority - the bishops) had to completely reject the Christian faith, because that is what an apostacy (as opposed to a heresy) is - the *complete *rejection of the Christian faith. Without a complete apostacy by the Church there is no need for a restoration. Reformation perhaps (and this is the protestant view) but not a complete restoration. Others have posted this very assertion, and it resonates at the beginning of your blog article as well.
zerinius:
There were still many faithful Christians left in the world.
I concur. But for you to assert that a Great Apostacy occurred, you must believe that these faithful Christians are such
despite what the “apostate” Catholic Church teaches and not because of it.
zerinius:
But that initial apostasy had serious consequences for the Christian church as a whole, the most important being that the institution of the Twelve Apostles could not be perpetuated in the church.
Again, I think that in order for the theory of apostacy to be correct it must be shown that the Church (i.e. the teaching authority as opposed to individual disciples) completely rejected Christianity. If the teaching authority held to any Christian doctrine, then it could not be said to be completely separated from Christ.
zerinius:
The persecution of the Christians at that time also played a part in that. By Christian tradition, all the Apostles were martyred during their missions. Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome. The rest were martyred in other parts of the world. The condition of the world was not conducive to the perpetuation of that institution in the church at that time. With the Apostles gone, the priesthood authority of the church was also lost, because they held the keys of the priesthood over the whole church.
First, it should be noted that John was not martyred. But that’s another issue. It is shown in the Scriptures that the Apostles passed on what they were taught to good men -bishops like Timothy who had the authority to teach. These bishops are the successors to the Apostles. And the early history of the Church shows that their doctrines mirrored those of the Apostles. I see no great change in teaching between the Scriptures and the writings of the Early Church Fathers. So, I’m not sure that you have shown even a small diversion from Christianity, much less a complete apostacy.
zerinius:
This did not mean that there were no more good Christians left in the world. It simply meant that the priesthood authority was lost. It does not mean that the church lost the Holy Spirit altogether either.
How can a Church commit apostacy to the point of losing its priesthood authority while still remaining in the Holy Spirit. Do you not see these two points as completely contradictory?
zerinius:
Those who remained true and faithful still had the Holy Spirit which testified to them of Jesus Christ. This phenomenon was described by the Lord in the New Testament in the parable of the wheat and the tares. That is the state in which the Christian church was, and remained until the Restoration in the latter days.
The parable of the wheat and the tares speaks to the hearts of men and women - all growing in the same field (the world). The parable does not speak to the state of the Church. Presumably, the wheat and the tares are growing in a field that is tended. It does not say the field (the Church as you presume) was abandoned - then restored. But I think it is wrong to presume the field is the Church since the field is defined by Jesus as the “world” in the next few verses. (Mt. 13:38)
zerinius:
That is what we mean by the Apostasy of the Christian church. Now if you think that that does not square with the dictionary definition of the word apostasy, or if you think we are making an incorrect use of the word apostasy to apply it to that scenario, that is okay. If you can recommend to us a better word to use, we will use that one. At the moment I can’t think of a better word to use, so I will stick to the word apostasy for now until you can recommend me a better one.
I think you are stuck with the words your Apostles and Prophets used… The Great Apostacy. And I think that your position (losing priesthood authority but remaining with the Holy Spirity) is internally inconsistent. You can believe that individuals remained “true believers” but the strongest inference is that they did so by holding to beliefs contrary to what the “apostate” Church authorities (bishops) taught. I think your whole proposed scenario breaks down when you look closely at the early Church and see it is consistent through the centuries, despite the post-reformation interpretation that the LDS Church has adopted. I’m not saying that your position is entirely inconsistent with the protestant position (with respect to the Catholic Church at least), but it is inconsistent with my continuing studies of Church history.
zerinius:
I hope that has answered your question. If it hasn’t, please tell me what part of it was not clear, and I will try again.
I think you made your position pretty clear. But to me it still seems inconsistent with the plain language that the LDS Church chose to describe the state of the early Church, and your argument is internally inconsistent to the extent it describes a Church that was “apostate” enough to lose the priesthood authority but not “apostate” enough to lose the Holy Spirit.
zerinius:
That may be the explanation of the problem. Too much gin in your head can stop you from thinking clearly.
LOL! I drink only on rare occasions, and never to excess. I dare say my brother’s copious sugar intake is more of a concern than my occasional alcohol intake.
We had a wonderful visit.
Peace,
Robert
