Your Notre Dame Mormon on The Apostasy

[PaulDupre]

Also remember that no one except Paul ever referred to Paul as an apostle. There is no biblical record of his apostolic ordination. In Acts, Paul is “set apart” by the laying on of hands, along with Barnabas, for the missionary work to which they were assigned. But there is no record of his being ordained an apostle.

Paul seems to use the word in its generic sense, to mean “one who is sent”. In that respect, all missionaries are apostles. But one of the 12? No.

Paul

 

[kellie]

Hmm. Let’s hope so. So far no one has made any argument against the LDS postition (expecting Paul’s recent well stated post) except to say the LDS view is not the Catholic view. That is a given. The object is to show that, from truths the LDS accept, an apostasy could not have occurred. So far, only Paul has attempted it. And come awfully close, too, I might add.

So the simple arguments people here have said regarding logic don’t matter ?

 

[zerinus]

Also remember that no one except Paul ever referred to Paul as an apostle. There is no biblical record of his apostolic ordination. In Acts, Paul is “set apart” by the laying on of hands, along with Barnabas, for the missionary work to which they were assigned. But there is no record of his being ordained an apostle.

Paul seems to use the word in its generic sense, to mean “one who is sent”. In that respect, all missionaries are apostles. But one of the 12? No.

Paul

Wrong! The context of the his addresses, and the authority with which he makes it, and the work that he accomplishes with it, all testify that he was a true Apostle, putting himself on equal rank (even to the point of remonstrating with Peter on one occasion) with the other Apostles:

Romans 1:

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

Romans 11:

13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office

1 Corinthians 1:

1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, . . .

1 Corinthians 9:

1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord

2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

So it looks like he has fulfilled the precondition of an Apostle by having seen Him; and even has the “seal of his apostleship” to prove it.

1 Corinthians 15:

9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

2 Corinthians 1:

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, . . .

2 Corinthians 12:

12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

So he even has the “signs of an Apostle” to prove it.

Galatians 1:

1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead; )

Ephesians 1:

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints . . .

Colossians 1:

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, . . .

1 Timothy 1:

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope

2 Timothy 1:

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,

Only a true Apostle would address himself in this manner, as Peter also does:

1 Peter 1:

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

2 Peter 1:

1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

There is never any other “non-Apostle” that has ever addressed himself in this manner as Peter and Paul have done. Conclusion: Paul was a true Apostle, just as Peter was!

zerinus

 

[kellie]

Do Mormons believe ALL of the NT to be true?

 

[Anima_Christi]

This thread is about the Apostasy of the Christian church, not about Joseph Smith. Whether Joseph Smith is a true prophet or not, does not alter the fact that an Apostasy occured. If Joseph Smith did not restore the True Church, then somebody else will have to do it, because there was an Apostasy. And as it happens, the LDS Church is the only church on earth that makes anything near a viable claim to being that Restoration. There is no other church I know of that does that.

zerinus

Church of Christ/Campbellite movement does as well. So do the Seventh-day Adventists. A lot of Baptist groups do. Most of Protestantism claims to be a return to primitive Christianity. Oh, and this is in addition to the other Mormon sects that claim to be the restored church (RLDS, Strangites, TLM Manti, etc.)

 

[majick275]

1 Corinthians 9:

1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord

2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

[/INDENT]

So it looks like he has fulfilled the precondition of an Apostle by having seen Him; and even has the “seal of his apostleship” to prove it.
once again amgid is hoist on his own petard. Please direct your attention to his admission that a pre-condition of being an Apostle is actually SEEING the resurected Christ. Obviously Paul did. Which of the 15 current LDS apostles has? and why are there 15 now when Jesus only ordained twelve and they stayed at twelve after he died? Of course once everyone who had personally seen Jesus died then there were no apostles, ther couldn’t be. Thank goodnes they did as God directed and ordained Bishops.

 

[PaulDupre]

Wrong! The context of the his addresses, and the authority with which he makes it, and the work that he accomplishes with it, all testify that he was a true Apostle, putting himself on equal rank (even to the point of remonstrating with Peter on one occasion) with the other Apostles:

Galatians 1:

1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead; )

I think this quote goes against your position. Here, Paul seems to be saying that he was not ordained an apostle by men, but rather assumes this status because of his vision of the risen Christ.

1 Corinthians 9:

1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord

2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

Me thinks he doth protest too much! Why is it that Paul notes that others do not consider him an apostle?

There is never any other “non-Apostle” that has ever addressed himself in this manner as Peter and Paul have done. Conclusion: Paul was a true Apostle, just as Peter was!

zerinus

Except that the gospel writers all referred to Peter as an apostle and as one of the twelve. The only sources you quoted saying that Paul was an apostle were…from Paul (as I indicated before). There is no indication that Paul was one of the twelve. He seems to be using the term “apostle” in its generic meaning - “one who is sent”.

BTW, this is just my personal opinion, and is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. Whether Paul was one of the twelve or not is one of those non-essentials that permits freedom of speculation.

God bless,
Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

What we have so far firmly established in this thread:

1. That the qualifications for being an apostle are:

*a) Must have been a disciple of Jesus and traveled with the other apostles from Jesus’ baptism by John until his ascension into heaven.

b) Must serve as a witness to the resurrection of Jesus.*

• Acts 1:21-22

1. No man today meets these qualifications, therefore there can be no “modern apostles”. (As an aside, no Nephite met these qualifications either. So much for apostles in ancient America.)

Paul

 

[NotreDameMormon]

What we have so far firmly established in this thread:

1. That the qualifications for being an apostle are:

*a) Must have been a disciple of Jesus and traveled with the other apostles from Jesus’ baptism by John until his ascension into heaven.

b) Must serve as a witness to the resurrection of Jesus.*

• Acts 1:21-22

1. No man today meets these qualifications, therefore there can be no “modern apostles”. (As an aside, no Nephite met these qualifications either. So much for apostles in ancient America.)

Paul

I must argue it is not so firmly established.

Paul does not meet requirement 1(a) and it is only speculation that he did not recieve priesthood authority as an Apostle. It is granted that he was not called by men, but by Christ Himself. He was taken by Barnabas to the Apostles and stayed with them there in Jerusalem, teaching. This may be where he was ordained. Given his writings and treatment by other Apostles, I think the more natural conclusion is that he was an Apostle in every authoritative sense.

The second requirement has not been failed since the Nephites were witnesses of the resurrected Lord. (3 Nephi 11-12) And there is nothing that has prohibited Christ from revealing Himself to the current Twelve in the modern Church. They also claim a “special witness.”

“President J. Reuben Clark said it best: “Some of the General Authorities [the Apostles] have had assigned to them a special calling; they possess a special gift; they are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, which gives them a special spiritual endowment in connection with their teaching of this people…The Twelve Apostles “are called to be … special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world.” Boyd K. Packer, “The Twelve Apostles,” Ensign, Nov. 1996, 6

 

[majick275]

I must argue it is not so firmly established.

Paul does not meet requirement 1(a) and it is only speculation that he did not recieve priesthood authority as an Apostle. It is granted that he was not called by men, but by Christ Himself. He was taken by Barnabas to the Apostles and stayed with them there in Jerusalem, teaching. This may be where he was ordained. Given his writings and treatment by other Apostles, I think the more natural conclusion is that he was an Apostle in every authoritative sense.

I tend to agree with that.

The second requirement has not been failed since the Nephites were witnesses of the resurrected Lord. (3 Nephi 11-12)

interesting…I don’t disagree in theory, but were the nephites apostles? that would give us 24 on the earth at the same time and REALLY make one wonder about the validity of the Apsotasy theory, especially since 3 of them supposedly stayed around.

And there is nothing that has prohibited Christ from revealing Himself to the current Twelve in the modern Church. They also claim a “special witness.”

“President J. Reuben Clark said it best: “Some of the General Authorities [the Apostles] have had assigned to them a special calling; they possess a special gift; they are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, which gives them a special spiritual endowment in connection with their teaching of this people…The Twelve Apostles “are called to be … special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world.” Boyd K. Packer, “The Twelve Apostles,” Ensign, Nov. 1996, 6

nothing in that quote even implies that any of them have SEEN the resurected Jesus. notice he says special witnesses to teh NAME of Christ. Where can find an account of an LDS “apostle” after Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery actually seeing Christ like Paul did?

 

[zerinus]

I think this quote goes against your position. Here, Paul seems to be saying that he was not ordained an apostle by men, but rather assumes this status because of his vision of the risen Christ.

This is the most twisted way of interpreting that that is imaginable. Paul is affirming that his ordination to the apostleship came from God and not from man.

BTW, this is just my personal opinion, and is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Exactly. Paul has been recognized as an Apostle by all Christians since day one. You are the only one questioning that just in order to win a false argument by any means possible. You began on a false note from the start, and it does not deserve further consideration.

What we have so far firmly established in this thread:

1. That the qualifications for being an apostle are:

a) Must have been a disciple of Jesus and traveled with the other apostles from Jesus’ baptism by John until his ascension into heaven.

Wrong! The example of Paul proves that.

*b) Must serve as a witness to the resurrection of Jesus.

• Acts 1:21-22*

Agreed.

1. No man today meets these qualifications, therefore there can be no “modern apostles”.

How do you know they don’t? How do you know that the modern Apostles of Jesus are not witnesses of Him just as Paul was? They are called in modern scripture as “special witness of Jesus Christ”. That speaks for itself.

(As an aside, no Nephite met these qualifications either. So much for apostles in ancient America.)

Wrong again, on two accounts: Firstly, the Nephites DID see Jesus after His resurrection, therefore they would qualify to be His Apostles, if that be the criterion. Secondly, the Book of Mormon doesn’t say that there were any Apostles among the Nephites.

zerinus

 

[NotreDameMormon]

interesting…I don’t disagree in theory, but were the nephites apostles? that would give us 24 on the earth at the same time and REALLY make one wonder about the validity of the Apsotasy theory, especially since 3 of them supposedly stayed around.

Apostle jurisdiction is an interesting discussion topic. I would have to look into that a little. I do not think the LDS hold there can only be Twelve Apostles. They would argue, I think (though they certainly would not need to), that the Quorum of the Twelve only has twelve Apostles.

The three that were left (four, if we count John) are not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not they (or the keys and work they were given) were pulled by Christ when the apostasy became widespread.

 

[majick275]

yeah…probably better for another thread but an interesting topic and one that, so long as we stay in the theoretical realm, I probably don’t disagree with you much on.

 

[christianley]

What we have so far firmly established in this thread:

1. That the qualifications for being an apostle are:

*a) Must have been a disciple of Jesus and traveled with the other apostles from Jesus’ baptism by John until his ascension into heaven.

b) Must serve as a witness to the resurrection of Jesus.*

• Acts 1:21-22

1. No man today meets these qualifications, therefore there can be no “modern apostles”. (As an aside, no Nephite met these qualifications either. So much for apostles in ancient America.)

Paul

I might see it differently. Matthias was called to replace Judas. That’s it. It says he took his place with the other 11 apostles. That doesn’t mean the number of apostles is limited to 12. There is no reason to think more, many more, may have been called to be “apostles.” All the word means is one sent. Any missionary could in truth be called an apostle. I don’t know that making it an office in the church is even necessary. The only scripture that might support the limited view is in Revelations 21:14 where it says: “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” That seems to limit the apostles to just the first twelve Jesus called with Matthias replacing Judas. So there is the limited sense of the first 12 apostles and then a more general sense in which an apostle is simply one who is sent just like any missionary. In either case, the Mormon view of a continuing apostolic church office does not seem to me to be supported very well.

Mormons often use Ephesians 4:11-13 to support their view. It reads: “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and 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, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.”

It seems to me a step too far to say this scripture limits the title of apostles to just people who are at the head of a church. It certainly would not have to be seen as an office in the church. The only offices that seem to continually be found in the New Testament are those of Bishops and Deacons.

At any rate, a belief in the apostasy simply based on the idea that no church office seems to include apostles seems to really stretch the scriptures to the breaking point. It can’t be supported except by the supposed modern revelation of the LDS. My own view is that apostles simply meant those who were sent – missionaries. Thus Paul was the apostle [missionary] to the Gentiles.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

At any rate, a belief in the apostasy simply based on the idea that no church office seems to include apostles seems to really stretch the scriptures to the breaking point. It can’t be supported except by the supposed modern revelation of the LDS. My own view is that apostles simply meant those who were sent – missionaries. Thus Paul was the apostle [missionary] to the Gentiles.

And I agree that a belief in the Apostasy based solely on the definition and office of an “apostle” would indeed be ludicrous.

Where the discussion arose, and where it is properly tied, is in context of how the office relates to the priesthood keys and authority to reveal doctrine, and to lead and order the Church.

The apostasy (in the LDS view) is not the result of failure to call Apostles and bishops so much as it is failure of the Church (generally) to sustain the Apostles and the truth they taught, and Christ pulling the keys, priesthood, and/or the men who held them from the Earth.

 

[majick275]

I’m with you there NDM but here is what I find telling:

We have the writings in scripture, the traditions to contextualize them, historical record to verify and writngs back to the Didache that show us what the Apostles taught and what has been and still is taught in the Catholic church. We also have available what is taught in the LDS church. One (Catholic) seems consistent for almost 2 thousand years as an unbroken continuation of Christ’s church. The other, while calling itself a restoration appears to be completely new and different starting with Joseph Smith.

 

[christianley]

And I agree that a belief in the Apostasy based solely on the definition and office of an “apostle” would indeed be ludicrous.

Where the discussion arose, and where it is properly tied, is in context of how the office relates to the priesthood keys and authority to reveal doctrine, and to lead and order the Church.

The apostasy (in the LDS view) is not the result of failure to call Apostles and bishops so much as it is failure of the Church (generally) to sustain the Apostles and the truth they taught, and Christ pulling the keys, priesthood, and/or the men who held them from the Earth.

If that is the case then your apostasy is nothing more than opinion created out of whole cloth. You can’t really demonstrate that an apostasy ever happened, at least not based on New Testament teachings or the teachings of the Early Church Fathers. The “apostasy” just becomes an excuse for several groups to claim that a restoration was needed. That such an apostasy actually took place cannot be demonstrated from history.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

We have the writings in scripture, the traditions to contextualize them, historical record to verify and writngs back to the Didache that show us what the Apostles taught and what has been and still is taught in the Catholic church. We also have available what is taught in the LDS church. One (Catholic) seems consistent for almost 2 thousand years as an unbroken continuation of Christ’s church. The other, while calling itself a restoration appears to be completely new and different starting with Joseph Smith.

As Rage Against the Machine so eloquently put it:

“Who controls the past now controls the future.
Who controls the present now controls the past.
Who controls the past now controls the future.
Who controls the present now? Now Testify.”

I know *no one * here wants to get into conspiracy theories or historical cleansing.

Let’s just say history is subject to interpretation:

“History is not merely the “past”. It is usually the shape of the torments and struggles of the present That is why with history there are - and there must be - different historical interpretations. The task of an independently-minded person lies in analyzing the connections that exist among historical and social processes.” *Norberto R. Ceresole, ‘La falsificación de la realidad’ *

There are scholarly historical arguments on both sides of the table. Neither side, I believe is prepared to accept them as unbiased or without an underlying agenda. Let’s discuss things in light of that fact.

 

[majick275]

sure but that includes not disregarding history because of the possibility of biased historians. We can easily see the difference between waht events occured and what that meant in historical accounts. I would point out though that we appear to have the dissenters point of view avaialble in most cases and you would be hard pressed to prove that anyone “controlled” history to the orwellian level required to “hide” a complete, global apostasy.

For our purposes I have invited you to use JST and BoM as allegedly corrected and spared from error sources respectively.

 

[christianley]

I think we can at least agree there is no Biblical support for the necessity of Twelve Apostles at the head of the Church. I don’t think we can underestimate how key a point that is since it is one of the major claims in the Mormon missionary discussions. The lack of Apostles at the head of the Church is one of the major signs of an apostasy according to Mormon teaching. Having done away with any Biblical proof that a group of Apostles is necessary to run the Church, the Mormons are on shaky ground. At that point they really can only fall back on the claims for the extra-Biblical Mormon scriptures – Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. If we find these scriptures are true, perhaps the Mormon claim of priesthood authority holds water. If we find these scriptures are not what they claim themselves to be, the earth opens up and swallows Mormonism completely. I’ve made my judgment about Mormon scriptures and have to conclude the Mormon claim to priesthood authority is as unreliable as their scriptures.