|
David
Waltz
Forum Host
Posts: 16
(10/2/00 2:59 pm)
64.12.104.48
Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
Re: More on the Apostasy
Barry
Bickmore wrote on 9/5/2000
Hi guys! I have a few comments to throw in here, as well.
Paul said:
> So to answer (in a very roundabout way) David your question. To me the
> Spirit is enough. I keep in mind that on judgement day, when a word from
the
> Father will send me somewhere for eternity that neither J. Smith nor Pope
> John Paul II nor the Bab will be by my side. I will be alone before God.
I wouldn't be so sure about that, Paul. Consider this:
"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have
followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne
of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve
tribes of Israel." (Matt. 19:2
And this:
"And I exhort you to remember these things; for the time speedily cometh
that ye shall know that I lie not, for ye shall see me at the bar of God; and
the Lord God will say unto you: Did I not declare my words unto you, which
were written by this man, like as one crying from the dead, yea, even as one
speaking out of the dust?" (Moroni 10:27)
I don't expect you to believe the prophet Moroni at this point, but Jesus'
words ought to give you pause. Jesus appoints men - mere men, fallible men -
to do his work. He gives them power to bind and loose in heaven. He places
them as judges over those they have been charged to lead. In a word, Jesus
requires us to SUBMIT to the spiritual authorities He places over us, even
though they are fallible humans.
For that matter, Jesus requires that wives submit to their husbands, and that
Christians submit to political authorities, whom God has put in their place.
I am certainly not saying that God may not instruct men to go against
political authorities in some instances, or that He may not tell a woman to
refuse to submit to her husband when he is leading into evil. But in this I
see a pattern.
That is, we are ultimately responsible to make sure we are heading toward
salvation. God gives us His Spirit, which is the guarantee of salvation (not
because the Bible tells me so, as I have heard many a Protestant say), and He
expects us to follow where the Spirit leads. But in order to follow the
Spirit, we must learn to submit. But then, sometimes (I'm speaking from
personal experience) it is ever so easy to tell ourselves that we are
submitting to God, when in fact there are corners of our souls where we hang
onto our pride and wickedness. It's all too easy to rationalize that we are
"following God", because, barring an angelic appearance or
something, it's usually pretty easy to hear only what we want to hear from
God. But God just isn't that easy to get rid of. As C.S. Lewis said, when we
go to God and ask Him to help us change, God is not going to stop until the
job is done. We may be satisfied when we have kicked our more obvious faults,
but God isn't.
This brings me to the subject of spiritual authority. If it's easy to ignore
the voice of God when God says things we don't like, it's powerfully hard to
ignore your local minister, bishop, or Pope. A Protestant, when confronted by
such a thing, will often get mad and go "church hopping". A
Catholic might go liberal and find excuses not to believe in the
infallibility of Papal decrees on faith and morals. A Mormon might go liberal
and hold on to the fact that we have no infallibility dogma, and use that as
an excuse to "pick and choose". A Protestant, Catholic, or Mormon
might then go into some "nobody's perfect" routine to excuse his
wickedness. Or he could submit to the spiritual authorities. In doing so he
willingly exposes himself to God's "work crew" that comes in and
knocks out walls, sweeps out the cobwebby corners, adds on to the building,
and makes his shabby cottage into a palace.
To me, this is a BIG problem with modern Protestantism. It's just too easy to
adopt some private interpretation that caters to our secret pride and lust.
There are degrees in this, and when we compare ourselves to the world in
general, bent on hedonism, it is easy for us to think that we really are submitting
to God. To me, it seems like Catholics and Mormons see God as the "in
your face" God He is. We see that the spiritual authorities God has
placed over us are there to force us into a clear choice between our own
wills and the will of God.
So, when people like Rory and I see a fellow Christian like yourself who is
trying to submit himself to God, we naturally rejoice and say, "Come
with us, brother, and let's give God the chance to finish the job in
us."
One final note. I'm not talking about "blind obedience". I believe
that God will tell us directly, if we seek earnestly, where His appointed
authority lies. Once this is done, we have a good reason to submit.
Barry
Barry Bickmore wrote on 9/5/2000
Hi David -
I've heard the argument about the 3 Nephite apostles and John before, but I
think you should take the following information into account. Latter-day
Saints believe that these men were "translated," i.e. their bodies
were changed to a higher state, preliminary to the resurrection, and now "they
are as the angels of God." (3 Nephi 28:30) If, as Joseph Smith said,
translated beings are "held in reserve to be ministering angels,"
(TPJS 170) how could the fact that God left priesthood-holding angels on the
earth (who did not transmit their priesthood to others) have any bearing on
the question of whether the apostasy was "total"? Rather, this
illustrates the LDS belief in God's loving concern for His children even
during periods of apostasy.
And as for your question about whether any stray elder could have rebuilt the
Church on the authority of the priesthood he held, that is completely true.
However, you will notice the provision that this must have been done by
revelation. That is, God would have had to have commanded him to ordain new
apostles, etc.
Now think of Hermas. He says God revealed to him that all the Christians had
one last chance to repent, and then the Church would be completed. Anyone
left outside would be relegated to some inferior institution. In light of
this, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to suppose that God told anyone
with valid priesthood orders that the earthly Church was in shut-down mode,
and told them NOT to rebuild.
So, the question seems to me not to be whether someone *could have* passed on
valid priesthood orders if God wanted him to, because clearly that's the
case. The question is whether God told anyone to do that.
Finally, you say that you can't explain the Book of Mormon, but you also
can't explain the Quran, Science and Theology, the writings of Bahaullah.
What is it, exactly, about these books that you have trouble explaining?
Is it just that they seem too complex for a normal person to have written, or
that there seems to be some striking empirical evidence for their claims? You
know as well as I do that there is some pretty striking empirical evidence
for the proposition that the Book of Mormon is REAL HISTORY. Certainly this
proposition is not proven, but there are a number of things - outside of the
mere fact of the book's existence - that would be EXTREMELY odd if the book
were a fraud. E.g. what are the odds that Joseph Smith could have come up
with a route for Lehi's troupe that would hit a real place named NHM, turn
east, and hit a "bountiful" place on the Arabian coast that has
iron ore, cliffs, etc., etc.? What are the odds that Joseph Smith would come
up with the proper names that he did, many of which have been verified as
real, extrabiblical, Near Eastern names?
Anywho, I think it would be an interesting exercise for you to make a list of
"inexplicable" things having to do with each of the books you
mentioned. I don't know about anyone else here, but I think that would be an
extremely interesting thing to see, coming from someone like yourself.
Barry
|
|
David
Waltz
Forum Host
Posts: 19
(10/2/00 3:21 pm)
64.12.104.164
Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
Re: More on the Apostasy
David
Waltz wrote on 9/11/2000
Hi Barry,
Sorry that I have not gotten back to you sooner, but my wife has been giving
me to many chores of late!
You posted:
>Finally, you say that you can't explain the Book of Mormon, but you also
can't explain the Quran, Science and Theology, the writings of Bahaullah.
What is it, exactly, about these books that you have trouble
explaining?...Anywho, I think it would be an interesting exercise for you to
make a list of "inexplicable" things having to do with each of the
books you mentioned. I don't know about anyone else here, but I think that
would be an extremely interesting thing to see, coming from someone like
yourself. > (Barry, I do not know what you meant by "Science and
Theology").
To start the ball rolling, I will first deal with the Quran and the Islamic
dispensation.
In the book An Introduction to the Sciences of the Quraan the Abu
Ammaar Yasir Qadhi lists 10 miraculous categories concerning the Quran. I
will list the ones that are the most significant.
1.) The eloquence of the Quran above that of any human speech. I am told that
this aspect of the Quran comes out only in the Arabic. I have read from many
sources that the Arabic of the Quran is superior to any other Arabic
writings. Though Muhammad was not illiterate as some have held, he was
certainly not a learned man. Just as you find it impossible that Joseph Smith
could have produced the BoM without the aid of God——Muslims feel the same
about Muhammad and the Quran.
2.) Unlike the Bible and the BoM, the Quran makes the claim that it contains
only the words of God (Allah); and this means (for the Muslim), that the
Quran is fully infallible.
3.) Transmission of the Quran. Unlike the Bible which has thousands of
textual variants; the Quran has come down to our time via one official text.
The official text was codified shortly after the death of Muhammad by Uthman.
(On the transmission of the Quran, oral and written, see chapter 8 in Qadhi's
book). Muslims see the unique preservation of the Quran as a miracle of God.
4.) The Prophecies of the Quran.
a.) The purity of the Quran will be protected by God. "We have without
doubt, sent down the Message; And We will assuredly guard it from
corruption." (Surah 15:9)
b.) The unique dual prophecy of a future battle of the Romans with the
Persians, and the battle of Badr.. "The Roman Empire has been
defeated——In a land close by: but they, after (this) defeat of theirs, will
soon be victorious——Within a few years (Arabic: bibi' sineen, means
between 3 and 9 years). With Allah is the Decision. In the Past and in the
Future: On that Day shall The Believers rejoice." (Surah 30:2-4)
On this verse Qadhi writes: "Exactly seven years after the revelation of
these verses, the Romans attacked the Persians again, and this time were
victorious, and managed to regain their territory. This battle occurred on
the same day as the Battle of Badr, when the Muslims were themselves
'rejoicing' because of their victory over the Quraysh. Thus, this verse
predicted two events: the victory o the Romans, and the victory of the
Muslims." (p. 273)
Surah 54: 42-45 also predicts victory in the Battle of Badr. Numerous hadith
predict victory, a victory which in and of itself seemed miraculous——a mere
305 Muslims defeated 1,000 heavily armed Quraysh.
c.) Mecca and the Kabah to be taken by the Muslims. (Surah 48:27)
d.) Islam to succeed, and become the established authority in Arabia. (Surah
24:55)
e.) Jews to be driven from Medina. (Surah 33:60)
f.) Muhammad will be praised and glorified. (Surah 17:79)
5.) [This is not in Qadhi’’s book] The Bible predicts the advent of Muhammad
and Islam.
Isaiah 63:1-6 Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments
from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the
greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save.
Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that
treadeth in the winefat? I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the
people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and
trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments,
and I will stain all my raiment. For the day of vengeance is in mine heart,
and the year of my redeemed is come. And I looked, and there was none to
help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm
brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me. And I will tread down
the people in mine anger, and make them drunk in my fury, and I will bring
down their strength to the earth. {Note: Muhammad was a descendent of the Edomites,
and he been to Bozrah many times as a merchant, starting in his early youth.
Muhammad and Islam came with a sword (i.e. vengence)].
Isaiah 19:18,23-25 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt
speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be
called, The city of destruction. In that day shall there be a highway out of
Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian
into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians. In that day shall
Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst
of the land: Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my
people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance. [Note:
When did Egypt begin to speak the language of Canaan? (Arabic is a Canaanite
language); When did Egypt, Assyria and the land of Israel all worship the
LORD? They both occurred during the Islamic dispensation].
Isaiah 21:11-14 (NAS) The oracle concerning Edom. One keeps calling to
me from Seir, " Watchman, how far gone is the night? Watchman, how far
gone is the night? " The watchman said, The morning cometh, and also the
night: if ye will inquire, inquire ye: turn ye, come. The burden upon Arabia.
In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye caravans of Dedanites. Unto him
that was thirsty they brought water; the inhabitants of the land of Tema did
meet the fugitives with their bread. For they fled away from the swords, from
the drawn sword, andfrom the bent bow, and from the grievousness of war.
[Notes: Night equals apostasy, morning to come from Seir (Jesus); another
night comes after the morning, but morning will "come back
again"(Muhammad); Dedanites where a town and a tribe in Arabia during
the time of Muhammad].
Deuteronomy 33:2 And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up
from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten
thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.
The Muslim interpretation of this verse is an interesting one. The LORD first
comes from Sinai (Moses dispensation); then from Seir (Jesus' dispensation);
and then from mount Paran (Muhammad's dispensation. [Notes: Paran is in
Arabia, and Muhammad was said to have 10,000 Companions].
Lastly, I must mention the fruits of Islam itself. Historians acknowledge
that during the time of the "Dark Ages" of Europe, higher learning,
mathematics and the sciences were all flourishing in Islam. Many of the lands
that became Muslim were rank pagans before, and came to worship the one true
God. Historians also acknowledge that the Arabs of Muhammad's day were a
barbaric, pagan lot. Islam (like early Christianity), eradicated many of the
barbaric and paganistic practices of the lands that came under its influence.
So Barry, what say thee, was Muhammad a true prophet of God? Is the Quran
scripture? Is Islam a religion from God? How far will God allow Satan to go
in his attempts at deception? How much truth will God allow Satan to mix with
error? What must one do to be saved? What is the bare minimum? How much truth
must one have to be saved?
Now, related to the above is the question of the visible church——at what
point in time was the Catholic Church teaching to much error to no longer be
considered a "true" Church? And from a Protestant view point (this
is for Paul), at what time should one leave a visible community of Christian
believers to start another Church? This question is made even more difficult
in that NO church is free from ALL error.
Guess I have said enough for now.
In Christ,
David
|
|
David
Waltz
Forum Host
Posts: 20
(10/2/00 3:28 pm)
64.12.104.164
Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
Re: More on the Apostasy
Elijah
wrote on 9/20/2000
David,
Thank you for your informative post on Islam. I knew a Mormon Bishop who
spent time in Saudi Arabia with Muslims, and he verily believes that Muhammed
was a true prophet of God. There is actually well-documented proof of men
tampering with the Koran shortly after Muhoammed's death. This opens the door
that some of its statements that contradict the Bible may have been
post-Muhammed additions/corruptions, i.e., "Allah neither begets nor is
begotten", "Allah has no Son, tell the infidel if Allah had a Son,
I would be the first to worship him", etc. . . It does seem beyond
controversy, though, that Muhammed rejected the Trinity as polytheism, and
insisted that Jesus is not the Only True God, "cease saying Allah is
three, or that Jesus is Allah, when Jesus the messenger of Allah said, I
ascend to my God and your God".
That being said, I personally believe Muhammed was a true prophet of God (and
the Book of Mormon says God grants to all nations, in their own tongue, a
portion of his word, according to their faith), but that there was a Muslim
Apostasy shortly after his death which perverted and corrupted the Koran and
many of his teachings. If this is true, then it is not necessary to go
"either/or" with Islam and Mormonism, since its possible to believe
Islam also went into Apostasy as Chrsitianity did before it, so Joseph Smith
was needed to restore what both of these religions have corrupted.
As far as what Mormons mean when we speak of a Universal or Great Apostasy is
that the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" were given to Christ's 1st
century Apostles by Christ, Moses, and Elijah (Ma 16:19; 18:17,18; 17:2), but
the Jews and then the Gentiles rejected those "keys" believing they
could get along just fine without them (1 Pt 4:7 w/ Acts 3:21), necessitating
a future restoration of those keys through Angelic visitation (Ma 17:11;
16:28; Jo 21:21-23; Eph 1:10; Rev 14:6,7; etc.). These Angelic visitors were
Peter, James, and John, who came down from heaven, layed their hands on
Joseph Smith Jr., and ordained him as their Apostolic successors with the
"keys of the kingdom of heaven". Without these keys the ordinances
and commandments of God cannot be bound on earth or in heaven, so such
man-made Churches have no authority to administer the Gospel laws and
ordinances for the salvation of man.
Christ and his Apostles were violently rejected by both Jew and Gentile over
the course of the 1st century, so the Apostles appointed no public successors
to their authority. The Church went "into the wilderness" (Rev 12),
where man could no longer publically see her, i.e., translated beings
secretly roamed the earth, perhaps saving some, but never publically
appearing to man. Thus, when Mormons speak of a Great Apostasy, or even a
Total Apostasy, we are technically speaking of a Total Apostasy of all public
Churches on the earth, not disparate secret traditions that may have
continued outside public scrutiny. Protestants claim a "secret tradition",
as it were, but since they've never claimed the "keys of the kingdom of
heaven" through Angelic visitation, it is clear that their "secret
tradition" is not Apostolic nor having the true priesthood keys.
Now lets get to the crux of the Apostasy issue. Did Christ and his Apostles
predict an imminent Great Apostasy?
"The end of all things is AT HAND" (1 Pt 4:7; the "all
things" pertain to the Gospel power: 2 Pt 1:4; and the "all
things" would be restored before Christ's 2nd Coming . . .),
"Elijah truly shall first come, and restore all things" (Ma 17:11),
"the heavens must receive Jesus Christ until the time of the restitution
of all things" (Acts 3:21; Eph 1:10; Rev 14:6,7).
If the end of "all things" was not the Gospel, and the restoration
of "all things" was not the Gospel, then what was it? The
"end" spoken of by Peter could not have been Christ's 2nd Coming,
since that wasn't "at hand" at all (2 Ths 2:2,3; 2 Pt 3:8,9), so
clearely Peter was speaking of the end of the public Gospel on the earth with
Apostles and Prophets with the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
When was the anti-Christ and Apostasy prophesied of in 2 Ths 2:1-4 supposed
to happen?
"The myster of iniquity doth ALREADY work" (2 Ths 2:7; 2 Tim
4:2-5).
"Little children, IT IS THE LAST TIME: and as ye have heard that
antichrist shall come, EVEN NOW are there many antichrists; whereby we know
that IT IS THE LAST TIME" (1 Jo 2:18).
"Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the
first works; OR ELSE I WILL COME UNTO THEE QUICKLY, and will remove thy
candlestick out of his place, except thou repen" (Rev 2:5).
"And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the
church. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the
which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God,
which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that AFTER MY
DEPARTING shall grievous wolves enter in among you, NOT SPARING THE FLOCK.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw
away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space
of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears"
(Acts 20:17,28-31).
"This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia BE TURNED AWAY FROM
ME" (2 Tim 1:15).
This is a small sampling of verses that show the anti-Christ was coming
immediately, not just in some distant far-off epoch. The Church of Ephesus
(Acts 20:17,29; Rev 2:1,5) and the Church of the Romans (Ro 11:21-23) and the
Church of Galatians (Gal 1:6-9; 3:1,2) and the Church of the Corinthians (2
Cor 11:3,4,13-15) all obviously had no immunity from having their
"candlestick removed" (their Church removed from the earth Rev
2:5), so why would any of the other Churches have any such immunity? If
Christ could purchase the flock of Ephesus with his own blood (Acts 20:28),
only to have his blood-purchased flock totally killed off being "not
spared" from death and massive Apostasy (Acts 20:29; Rev 2:1,5; 2 Pt
2:1,19; Heb 10:26-29), what would give the rest of his flock immunity from
such martyrdom and wholesale Apostasy?
Thousands of more prooftexts could be advanced, but these few prooftexts
should give anyone pause before claiming the coming of anti-Christ with all
deceivableness and lying wonders hasn't happened yet (1 Jo 2:18; 2 Ths
2:4,7-9) or that the Great Apostasy wasn't already "at hand" in the
days of Christ's Apostles (1 Pt 4:7; 1 Jo 2:18; Acts 20:29; Rev 2:5; 2 Tim
4:2-5; 2:12-15).
The priesthood succession issue is very important. A "believer's
priesthood" is wholly absent from both the Old and New Testament, since
both Testaments show that priesthood ordination as well as belief were
qualifications for the priesthood. It is true that the Levitical priesthood
seemed to continue into the days of Christ, but this assumption seems
unwarranted. For instance, we must realize that Christ and his 1st century
followers were excommunicated by the leaders of the Levitical priesthood from
"Phariseeical Judaism" (Jo 9:22; Ma 10:32,33; etc.). So, if their
priesthood was legitimate, then their excommunication of Christ was
legitimate, which, of course, is absurd. So clearly the Levitical priesthood
had become corrupted to the point of illegitimacy by the time of Christ.
What about Zecharias? He had the priesthood by birthright, and he lived
worthy of his priesthood, so God called him and his son John the Baptist
through revelation and Angelic visitation to prepare the way for the Messiah.
Just because Zecharias, John, and perhaps a few other Levites legitimately
held the priesthood does not prove the rest of them did too. The rest of them
may have had the priesthood birthright, but they lived unworthy of their
priesthood, so I don't believe their priesthood was legitimate. After Malachi,
the last legitimate Old Testament prophet in regular succession from Moses,
died (400 b.c.), the Levitical priesthood degraded to the point of utter
corruption, so I don't believe they, in general, held a legitimate
priesthood, since they ceased having the gifts of prophecy and Angelic
visitations until the time of Zacharias and John (who schismated a separate
branch of Judaism, which was excommunicated by the Sanhedrin).
Jesus told his followers to obey the Pharisees and Saducees who sat in
"Moses' seat" (Ma 23:2,3), but I believe he was speaking of Moses'
political seat (i.e., the Sanhedrin was a political as well as religious
body) not Moses' spiritual seat. If Jesus was speaking of spiritual matters,
then how could Jesus ask his followers to accept excommunication for
believing in and confessing Jesus (Jo 9:22; Ma 10:32,33)? This strains
credulity. Jesus Christ founded a Church upon revelation through Peter and
the other Apostles (Ma 16:18,19), which had a completely seperate
ecclesiastical structure from Levitical, Phariseeical, Judaism, so it isn't
plausible to accept both priesthoods as legitimate. If so, do Jews still hold
a legitimate Levitical priesthood by birthright?
I know my thesis will be controversial to both Mormon and non-Mormon alike,
but I believe I can back it up. If my thesis is correct, then Evangelicals
who claim a believer's prriesthood, and Catholics who claim a non-prophetic
priesthood, have no real Biblical precedent for their priesthood claims. The
Bible priesthood, when exercised legitimately, was always accompanied by
Prophets with the gift of prophecy, while modern priesthoods have a
"form of godliness, but deny the power thereof" (2 Tim 3:5), i.e.,
the gift of prophecy. I don't know if anyone in Islam or Bahaiism have legitimate
priesthood claims, but I doubt it. This leaves us with the claims of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who claim regular prophetic and
Apostolic priesthood succession through Joseph Smith Jr. from Peter, James,
and John. This type of priesthood succession through ordination, prophecy,
and the Holy Spirit, is clearly Biblical, while the others clearly aren't.
|
|
David
Waltz
Forum Host
Posts: 24
(10/2/00 4:18 pm)
64.12.104.164
Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
Re: More on the Apostasy
Elijah
wrote on 9/23/2000
Holy cow!
David and Paul's responses overwhelmed me! David, have you written any books?
How do you keep so up to speed on so many scholarly sources? Paul, I can see
you've been studying your scriptures voraciously. I hope I can be concise
since its not possible to give a detailed response to all of your questions.
Let me start with David.
DAVID
As to the pre-Uthmanic codices noted Islamic scholars Bell and Watt had this
to say, "Thus on the whole the information which has reached us about
the pre-Uthmanic codices suggests that there was no great variation in the
actual contents of the Quran in the period immediately after the Prophet's
death. The order of the suras was apparently not fixed, and there were many
slight variations in reading; but of other differences there is no
evidence." ( Introduction To The Quran, 1970 revised edition pp.
46, 46).
ME
"Accordingly Bishop Theodoret of Cyprus can boast of having collected
and destroyed in his diocese more than two hundred copies of the diatessaron
New Testament.50 The Arabs, raised up in the same tradition, upon fixing the
final text of the Koran, so carefully destroyed all other texts that for 1200
years it was possible to maintain that the accepted text was the very one
dictated by the Prophet, though today we know that it was nothing of the
sort.52 In this wholesale destruction of texts to control the past, it is precisely
the religious who are least troubled by qualms of conscience,'for how' asks
Eusebius, 'could a man who writes against the Christians do anything but
lie?'53" ( Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Mormonism and Early
Christianity, Vol.4, Ch.6, p.226 - p.227;
50. Paul E. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (London Oxford Press, British
Academy, 1947); cf. 2nd ed., enlarged (1959), pg. 211.
52. Ibid., 29; cf. 192-97.
53. Eusebius, HE VI, 19, 9, in PG 20:561-72.).
"5. The fact that there was only one version of the book ever published
(with minor changes in each printing). This is most significant. It is now
known that the Koran, the only book claiming an equal amount of divine
inspiration and accuracy, was completely re-edited at least three times
during the lifetime of Mohammed" ( Collected Works of Hugh Nibley,
Vol.8, Ch.3, p.71).
"Where will you find another work remotely approaching the Book of
Mormon in scope and daring? It appears suddenly out of nothing--not an
accumulation of twenty-five years like the Koran, but a single staggering
performance, bursting on a shocked and scandalized world like an explosion,
the full-blown history of an ancient people" ( Collected Works of
Hugh Nibley, Vol.7, Ch.6, p.138).
Is not Paul E. Kahle an acknowledged scholar on the Koran? Muslims have
claimed for centuries that the Koran, unlike the Bible, is completely pure in
its text. In fact, Muslims officially believe Jesus was a true prophet of
God, and that the New Testament was inspired by God, but that the NT text was
later corrupted. That is how they explain away the doctrines of Jesus' divine
Sonship, vicarious atonment, and many other non-Mulsim doctrines in the
Bible. The hypocrisy is evident when we realize the Koran, like the Bible, is
not infallibly pure at all.
DAVID
With this in mind, I cannot accept the idea that the denial of Jesus’’
sonship in the Quran was due to textual "post-Muhammad
additions/corruptions". First, there is no textual evidence for it.
Second, the passages in the Quran which deny Jesus’’ sonship are just too
numerous. (See surahs 2.116; 4.171; 5.17, 72, 73, 75, 116-117; 6.100-102;
9.30-31; 10.68; 17.111; 18.4-5; 19.35, 88-92; 23.91; 25.2; 39.4; 43.81; 72.3;
112.1-4).
You accept that Muhammad rejected the Trinity and that Jesus was true God——on
this issue it is important to note that the passages in the Quran which
reject the above are significantly fewer than those which reject his sonship.
ME
Really this is one of the major sticking points between Islam and
Christianity. Both sides agree to a Virgin birth, but Christianity further
argues that Jesus himself is the divine Son of God in the flesh, which, of
course, is considered blasphemy by Islam.
If I was speaking to a Muslim I would simply point out that the Bible has
just as many, if not more, pointed references to Jesus' unique divine Sonship
as the Koran has against his divine Sonship; so if the Bible could be so
corrupted to add the concept why not the Koran to delete the concept?
If Muhammed did argue that Jesus being the Only Begotten Son of God in the
flesh is blasphemy, he would be no different than the Jews in Christ's day
(John 18:31; 19:7; 10:36,29,30; Mk 14:61-64; Acts 7:55-59; 13:33,45), nor
different than anti-Mormons who consider the idea that God the Father begat
an only begotten Son with Mary sheer pagan blasphemy. Perhaps Muhammed denied
Jesus being the "eternally begotten Son of God" (there was never a
time when Jesus "was not" before he was born but he was
"eternally born" whatever that means), and this was later
misconstrued as a total denial of Jesus' divine Sonship.
I know this is the weakest part of my argument. Yet how else do you explain
how an admittedly intelligent man like Muhammed can claim the Bible was
originally written by God, but yet deny Jesus' uniquely divine Sonship which
is so explicitly contained therein? And isn't it strange to hear Muslims
admit the Bible is of Allah but Allah casually allowed it to be corrupted,
but when it comes to the Koran Allah reversed himself and didn't allow it to
be corrupted? When I read the Koran myself I got the distinct impression that
more than one man (Muhammed) wrote it, so perhaps others "added" to
the text.
DAVID
However, that Muhammad and the others are true prophets called by God, this I
must currently reject.
ME
Most LDS would probably agree with you concerning Muhammed, but something, I
think the Spirit, whispers to me that Muhammed's writings were corrupted
(i.e., or why else would 7,8th century scribes burn all variant
manuscripts?), so I believe its possible Muhammed was a prophet. Perhaps a
Christian protagonist in the 7th or 8th century "took over" the
Isalmic religion in order to create a propoganda war against Christianity, so
he added a denial of Jesus' divine Sonship into the Koran to make Christians
appear as "blasphemous infidels" and thus worthy of death. Or
perhaps a "well-intentioned" Muslim in the 7th or 8th century
couldn't find anything in the Koran that spoke about Jesus' divine sonship,
so he added a denial of it because he thought that is what the ever-rational
Muhammed "would have said" if he had had a chance to comment on it.
DAVID
The above is one the best presentations of the apostasy from an LDS
perspective I have read to date.
ME
I can't believe translated beings were kept alive with the keys of the
kingdom of heaven for the "sole purpose" of giving Joseph Smith
their keys 1800 years later, so I believe they were also preserved alive to
serve as ministering Angels to save those in the Dark Ages who were worthy of
it, like Cornelius and the Ethiopian Eunuch who had mysterious visitors pop
out of nowhere to give them glad tidings (Acts 8,10).
DAVID
(Are you aware that Barry Bickmore uses a similar presentation in his book
Restoring The Ancient Church 1999...)?
ME
I first found this argument in Hugh Nibley ( Collected Works of Hugh
Nibley, Vol.4, Ch.4, p.111,136,149), 1948, over 50 years before Barry.
DAVID
Your argument that 1 Peter 4:7 refers to the apostasy rather than Christ's
second coming, though solid, is not totally conclusive.
[you cite some verses I comment on below]
ME
"The coming of the Lord is AT HAND" (Ja 5:8 NKJV)
"Exhorting, and so much the more as ye see the day COMING NIGH"
(Heb 10:25 YLT).
These two verses appear to specifically speak of Christ's Second Coming, and
use the same Greek word (SW1448) as 1 Pt 4:7. So you have a very good
objection to my "solid" interpretation of 1 Pt 4:7.
The "present distress" (1 Cor 7:27) is the "short time"
(1 Cor 7:29) the Corinthians had to prepare for their missionary calls when
they would pray and fast without sexual intercourse (1 Cor 7:5,17,24). Such a
condition means they must forsake all their wordly possessions including
their families and homes, so Paul adds "for the fashion of this world
passeth away" (1 Cor 7:31) to show them why it is better to seek for
treasures in heaven than treasures on earth.
"The night is far spent, the day is at hand" (Ro 13:12) . "The
night" seems to refer to their "past man of sin" lifestyle,
contrasted with the "new man of righteousness" lifetstyle which is
patterned after Christ. The closer they come to walking like Christ, the
closer they come to walking in the light as Christ is in the light, the
"nearer" and "nearer" (Ro 13:11) they get to salvation in
the fullest sense, becoming One with Christ, putting on Christ (Ro 13:14; 1
Jo 1:7; 2:6; Jo 3:21). So "the day" (Ro 13:12) spoken of appears to
be "the day of salvation" (2 Cor 6:2), not Christ's 2nd Coming.
Rev 1:3 & 22:10 say, "seal not the prophecy of this book, for the
time is at hand". The time for what? The time for the fulfillment of the
prophecy, "I will shew thee things which must be hereafter" (Rev
4:1). Thus, what was "at hand" was the fulfilment of the first
parts of John's prophecy, not necessarily the last parts of his prophecy
which speak of the end of the whole world and Christ's Millenial reign.
I'm surprised you forgot to mention these seemingly inexplicable scriptures:
"But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for
verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, TILL
the Son of man be come" (Ma 10:23).
"Verily I say unto you, THIS GENERATION shall not pass, till all these
things be fulfilled" (Ma 24:34; Mk 13:30; Lk 21:32).
"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that WE WHICH ARE
ALIVE AND REMAIN UNTO THE COMING OF THE LORD shall not prevent them which are
asleep" (1 Ths 4:15-17).
"Yet A LITTLE WHILE, and he that shall come WILL COME, and will not
tarry" (Heb 10:37,25).
Ma 10:23 is either a false prophecy or we need two comings of Christ. In the
same vein as Paul Hadik, the New Jerusalem Bible has this footnote for Ma
10:23, "the coming which is here foretold is not concerned with the
world at large but with Israel: it took place at the moment when God
'visited' his now faithless people and brought the O.T. era to an end by the
destruction of Jerusalem and of its Temple in 71 A.D., cf. Ma 24:1". I
think these translators have the right idea.
"And if he may come in the second watch, AND in the third watch he may
come, and may find it so, happy are those servants" (Lk 12:38 YLT; Rev
3:3; 16:15).
This scripture here opens the door for multiple "comings". His last
and great "coming" will grantedly be a literal millenial reign on
earth (Ma 24:27,30; Rev 20:4). But could he have other "comings" in
a different sense? Lk 12:38 refers to a a "second watch" and a
"third watch", which goes well with James 5:7,8:
"BE PATIENT therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold,
the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath LONG
PATIENCE for it, UNTIL HE RECEIVE THE EARLY AND LATTER RAIN. Be ye also
patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord DRAWETH NIGH"
(Ja 5:7,8).
Christ's coming in the "second watch" is the "early rain"
(which was "at hand" in the 1st century), his "third
watch" coming is the "latter rain" (which is what God was
extremely "patient" for: 2 Pt 3:4,8,9). The early rain is the early
day saints and the revelations they received, and the latter rain is the
latter day saints and the revelations they received, which give water and
life (water=spirit=Christ's living words, i.e., Jo 6:63; 7:37-39; Ma 4:4) to
the world. This brings us to the book of Revelation which speaks directly of
a previous "coming" of Christ:
"SURELY I COME QUICKLY. Amen. Even so, COME, LORD JESUS" (Rev
22:20,7,12).
Why would Jesus "come quickly" in the 1st century? What is to usher
in his Millenial reign or for Judgment on his Church?
"Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the
first works; OR ELSE I WILL COME UNTO THEE QUICKLY, AND WILL REMOVE THY
CANDLESTICK OUT OF HIS PLACE, EXCEPT THOU REPENT. REPENT; OR ELSE I WILL COME
UNTO THEE QUICKLY, AND WILL FIGHT AGAINST THEM WITH THE SWORD OF MY
MOUTH" (Rev 2:5,16; 2:25; 3:10,11).
Clearly, Jesus was "coming quickly" to Judge his Church (1 Pt
4:7,17), not to usher in his millenial reign, and to "remove the
Churches" that wouldn't repent. Of course, Mormons believe none of the
earthly Churches repented, so they were all removed, i.e., Ephesus (Acts
20:28-31; Rev 2:1,5; Eph 5:8), Romans (Ro 11:21-23), Galatians (Gal 1:6-9),
Corinthians (1 Cor 1:11-13; 2 Cor 11:3,4,13-15), etc. First Jesus' own
people, the Jews, rejected him (Jo 1:11; Acts 13:46), then the Gentiles
rejected him (Lk 17:24,25 w/ 2 Ths 2:2,3,7; Ro 11:21-23; Rev 2:1,5; Acts
20:28-31; 2 Pt 2:1,2,4; Acts 19:26 w/ 2 Tim 1:15; 4:2-5). Peter clearly
manifests this understanding by claiming that God's Judgment on his fallen
people was at hand (1 Pt 4:7,17; 2 Pt 2:1,2,4,19; 1 Jo 2:18,19; Rev 2:1,5),
but Christ's 2nd Coming probably wouldn't be for at least a thousand years (2
Pt 3:8,9). Paul shows a clear understanding of the fact that a Great Apostasy
would happen before Christ's 2nd Coming, "BE NOT TROULBED AS THAT THE
DAY OF CHRIST IS AT HAND, let no man deceive you by any means: for that day
shall not come EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY [Greek "Apostasia"]
FIRST . . . the mystery of iniquity DOTH ALREADY WORK" (2 Ths 2:2,3;
Acts 1:6,7 w/ Ma 24:3-5; Lk 17:24,25; Ma 17:11,12; 2 Tim 1:15; 4:2-5).
Clearly, Paul and Peter did not believe Christ's 2nd Coming was at hand, but
they did believe Christ was "coming" to Judge his people for a
Great Apostasy.
I hope this is enough to chew on for now. I'll get to Paul Hadik's questions
soon. I agree with Paul that 1 Pt 4:7 pertains to "the end" of the
Jewish nation, but I believe this spelled the Apostasy of God's people,
Gentile as well as Jew. More on this later.
Elijah wrote on 9/25/2000
PAUL
1) So are you saying that Islam in its original state was an attempt at a
Restoration on the part of God? That soon after the death of the Prophet we
experienced another Grand apostasy? (this would seem to make God 0-2 not
counting Noah's Ark)
ME
God planned out his dispensations (restorations/apostasies) from before the
foundation of the world. Those who didn't hear the Gospel in Noah's day will
surely have a chance to hear the Gospel in the spirit world (1 Pt 3:19,20),
just as those who lived during a time of Apostasy will have a chance to hear
the Gospel from an Apostolic Church in the spirit world (1 Pt 4:6,7; Jo
5:28,29). So clearly God doesn't "fail" when he allows men the free
will to Apostatize, he just works on a different timetable than man,
according to his own foreorained and eternal plan. If the Angels could sin
and fall (2 Pt 1:4; Jd 6), why couldn't the members of the earthly Church
apostatize and fall (the chosen ones being martyred)?
PAUL
2) If your argument is that the Apostasy came due to the rejection of Christ
and the Apostles and later the corruption of the teachings of Islam, why
reject the possibility that the LDS church is also in a state of Apostasy
now? Begun in 1830, it was rent with infighting and apostasy in just a few
years. The Prophet was definitely rejected by his fellow countrymen and
murdered. They were then kicked out to the far corners of the country,
basically declared war on by the US government with things getting so bad
that God had to sanction a mini-apostasy with the removal of the law of
plural marriage. Possibly the Church of Christ branch is the legitimate
branch with the emphasis on historical early church teachings of Mormonism
and the Utah branch is a more Reformation type branch? Why is God showing
more patience with the LDS then he did with a: the whole earth in Noah's
time; b: his own people the Jews in His Son’’s time and c: the followers of
Islam?
ME
1) The LDS branch is the most legitimate branch of Mormonism because 9 out of
the 12 Apostles ordained by Joseph Smith followed Brigham Young who was
President of the Twelve Apostles at the time of Joseph's death, and Sidney
Rigdon, the only surviving member of the 1st Presidency, never claimed to be
Joseph's successor; Brigham's succession was according to scripture and
revelation, while all other pretenders were not.
2) Plural marriage was always an optional "law" of God meant for
special circumstances, so its hardly apostasy for the LDS to obey the law of
the land, and abandon the principle through new revelation from God (Jacob
2:30, Manifesto), i.e., LDS ascribe to new revelation so we aren't bound by
the same static restrictions as Catholics or Evangelicals.
3) Why is God showing more patience? He isn't, he foreordained the coming
forth of many wise spirits who were foreordained to become Apostles and
Prophets in this dispensation, thus ensuring Apostolic succession and
continuation of priesthood keys. This was all part of his plan from the
beginning. Other generations rejected the prophets, and even claimed they
could get along just fine without them, so God granted their wishes.
PAUL
3) I have some problems with your usage of Scripture. In I Peter 4:7, and
Acts 3:21 couldn't Peter be talking about the destruction of Israel (close at
hand) with the restoration then being a national promise and not a doctrinal
promise? Please note the limiting phrase in Acts "the restitution of all
things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the
world began". From Abraham to Malachi the prophecies emphasized the
Kingdom of Israel so heavily that the coming of Christ was heralded by his
followers as a fulfillment of these prophecies, causing them to overlook his
main purpose as the Deliverer.
ME
I believe the promises to ancient Israel and their descendants were both
physical and spiritual. Since "salvation is of the Jews" (Jo 4:22),
"to whom pertaineth the adoption and the giving of covenants" (Ro
9:4; 3:1,2), and "the root beareth thee not thee the root" (Ro
11:16-18), when the Roman Gentiles and others boasted themselves against
their Jewish roots becoming basically anti-Semtic (Ro 11:21-23), this spelled
disaster and a Great Apostasy. None of the Early Church Fathers were Jewish,
so they founded a purely Gentile institution cut off from its Jewish roots.
When the Jews apostatized and Jerusalem was destroyed, this spelled the end
of true prophetic Judaism, and because "salvation is of the Jews"
(Jo 4:22), this spelled the end of true prophetic Christianity also. I think
I agree with your exegesis of Acts 3:21 and 1 Pt 4:7 (at least in part), but
I would further argue that there is no salvation without prophets of literal
Israeli descent. The members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, and their Prophets, are literal descendants of Joseph the son of
Jacob, thus having the birthright to promises of restoration.
PAUL
4) Where do you find any Scripture to back up that Moses and Elijah gave any
keys to the disciples?
ME
This is strong inference, not explicit. Jesus promises Peter he
"will" (future tense) give him "the keys of the kingdom of
heaven" (Ma 16:19), and after the Mount of Transfiguration incident
Jesus speaks to the Apostles as if they already have these keys (Ma 18:18),
so what happened in the interim on the Mount of Transfiguration for Peter and
his fellow Apostles to obtain the keys?
"And Jehu the son of Nimshi you shall anoint king over Israel; and
ELISHA the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah YOU SHALL ANOINT AS PROPHET IN YOUR
PLACE" (1 Ki 19:16 NASB; Lev 16:32; 6:22).
"Let the LORD set a man over the congregation, which may go out before
them, and which may go in before them, and which may lead them out, and which
may bring them in; that the congregation of the LORD be not as sheep which
have no shepherd. And the LORD said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of
Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, AND LAY THINE HAND UPON HIM; And set him
before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation; and give him a
charge in their sight" (Nu 27:16-19,23; ).
"And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; FOR MOSES
HAD LAID HIS HANDS UPON HIM: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him,
and did as the LORD commanded Moses" (Dt 34:9; Moses was translated: Dt
34:9 w/ Jd 9).
"LAY THINE HANDS SUDDENLY ON NO MAN" (1 Tim 5:18,22; Acts 14:33;
etc.).
Thus, in both the Old and New Testaments, authority is transferred through
the Holy Ghost and officially/visibly/publically through the laying on of
hands, unless, of course, translated beings are the givers of authority and
authority is transferred in secret, but revealed openly. Jesus publically
chose Peter as his successor (Ma 16:19; Jo 21:15-17). The Jewish way, in both
Old and New Testaments, of transferring this authority is laying on of hands.
A new dispensation was being formed so it was appropriate that the head of
the old dispensation (Moses), and the restorer (Elijah), should be there to
restore the keys of their dispensation (i.e., from Moses to Joshua, from
Joshau to Elijah, from Elijah to Elisha, from Elisha to Malachi, there was,
according to Jewish tradition, an unbroken succession of prophets; Malachi
appointed no successor, so Moses was translated centuries beforehand to make
up the gap with Peter, James, and John).
Why were Moses and Elijah translated to appear to Jesus, Peter, James, and
John, on the Mount? Obviously, for an authority transfer through physical
bodies, hence, Jesus promises Peter keys (Ma 16:19), he gives them keys with
the translated Moses and Elijah (Ma 17:2,3), and he speaks of them having
those keys when they come down from the Mount (Ma 18:18). Ma 17:11
specifically speaks of Elijah in the context of restoration, and Ma 17:10
shows the Apostles believed Elijah just restored something to them (but they
were surprised at the time of Elijah's coming since he was supposed to come
before the public showing of the Messiah not afterward as he then appeared to
them on the Mount). Why did the Apostles believe Elijah just restored
something? And what was it that Elijah just restored? The context of Ma 17 is
sandwiched between the all important topic of keys of authority (Ma 16:19
& 18:18), and a discussion of translated beings (Ma 16:28; 17:2,3), and a
discussion of Restoration and Apostasy (Ma 17:11,12; Lk 17:24,25).
God revealed to Joseph Smith specifically what happened on the Mount of
Transfiguration, and the Bible fully supports, although doesn't specificaly
prove, his position. Or else how do you explain the discussion of keys of
authority, restoration, apostasy, physical translation of Jewish prophets,
all within the context of the Mount of Transfiguration? That is the bottom
line.
PAUL
5) I didn't quite understand your comment on secret traditions which may have
existed during the Apostasy if you could clear that up for me. I do ask
though as I have asked before, in light of Christ's promise that "where
ever two or three are gathered in my name there I will be also" are you
saying that the presence of Christ in these secret gatherings was not
sufficient to lead into all truth?
ME
Ma 18:20 is in the context of a Church possessing the keys of the kingdom of
heaven through ordination and Apostolic succession (Ma 16:19; 17:2,10;
18:18). Modern non-LDS Churches do not have these keys of binding and losing,
so Christ in Ma 18:20 wasn't speaking of these Churches. You might just as
well think Jesus was speaking of JWs, Muslims, or Hari Krishna, because many
of them preach belief in Jesus, so why doesn't Christ lead them into all
truth? Because they don't have the gift of the Holy Ghost, and they don't
have the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Same goes for Evangelicals.
In the days of Christ, two leading schools existed in Phariseeical Judaism
(which later became codified in the Talmud): 1) Shammei, 2) Hillel. Shammei
was very strict in his Torah interpretation, HIllel rather loose. So the
proverb came, "what Shammei hath bound Hillel hath loosed". Yet
strangely each school acknowledged the legitimacy of the other school,
although each school taught contradictory things to the other schools. Each
Rabbi came in the name of another Rabbi, but none were prophets who came in
the name of the Lord (Jo 5:43,44; 7:16,17). Jesus founded a Church with one
doctrine, with one law of commandments, that given through his Apostles to
whom he gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven so "whatsoever thou shalt
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on
earth shall be loosed inheaven" (Ma 16:19; 18:18), unlike the schools of
Judaism who clearly couldn't lose or bind anything in heaven or even on
earth, since they would merely allow another school to contradict their
commandments and ordinances without denouncing their competitors as false.
The same situation now exists in professing "Christianity",
although each denonmination contradicts each other on many often essential
points, no one has any authority to say who is right and who is wrong, which
is true and which is false.
That generation rejected living Apostles, believing old scripture (OT) is
good enough without needing "men" to reveal new scripture (NT); and
this generation does the same thing to living Apostles, saying, "I have
no need of thee" (1 Cor 12:21-24,28; Eph 4:11-14; 2:19-21; etc. . .).
PAUL
6) In regards to the Apostasy. Hypothetical situation. I am a 1st century
Christian. Many of my family have been persecuted and killed for our belief
in Christ. We meet in deep catacombs. We have lost all. But we have the joy
of knowing Christ. One Sunday we have a great 'service' of rejoicing and
praise. The following Tuesday, St. John, the last living Apostle is
(according to LDS teaching) translated. The following Sunday am I now
attending an Apostate church?
ME
The successor of a King is a King, so the successor of an Apostle is what?
Another Apostle of course. Bishops and non-Apostolic Elders are not
successors to Apostles by any means, but were contemporary members of
Christ's body placed beneath the Apostles in Church hierarchy (1 Cor 12:28;
Eph 4:11; etc.). When all the Apostles were finally killed off, or left the
scene, the true members of the Church were left to themselves, either to face
martyrdom for Jesus, or to apostatize and found their own Churches, usurping
the position of Apostles for themselves, thus indeed usurping the position of
the living Christ who alone should lead his Church Body through living
revelation to living Apostles. Many Church members knew God was
"shutting things down", "removing Churches" from the
earth (Rev 2:1,5; Ac 20:29-31; 2 Tim 1:15; 4:2-5), so these individuals
"in the know" carried on a true priesthood after the death of the
Apostles, but didn't pretend to be successors to the Apostles or their
teaching authority.
PAUL
7) If this Grand Apostasy and the coming of the Anti-Christ are to combined
in the 1st century and Paul taught this in II Thess 2. What was he thinking
when he ended the chapter by stating "...even our Father, which hath
loved us, and hath given us EVERLASTING consolation and hope through grace,
Comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work."
Comfort us with what? Shouldn't he be telling us that a decision has been
made somewhere to remove all Apostolic leadership, not replace it on a
successful basis for 1800 years and that maybe we should start stocking up on
tin foods?
ME
I could go on into great detail about 2 Thessalonians, but I don't think it
would be fruitful. Paul says "the mystery of iniquity DOTH ALREADY
WORK" (2 Ths 2:7), and plainly says let no man deceive you as that the
day of Christ is "at hand" (2 Ths 2:2), but there must come an
"Apostasia" (falling away) FIRST. Will this deception be powerful
or wimpy? The anti-Christ, the Devil, will come "with all deceivableness
and lying wonders" (2 Ths 2:8-10). The "everlasting
consolation" is to the very electt who have been diligent to make their
calling and electure sure, who despite massive Apostasy (2 Tim 4:3,4), held
out faithful in matrydom and preaching the true Gospel to the end of their
lives (2 Tim 4:2,5,7,8). This is the "consolation" prize. The New
Testament gives Early Church members two options: 1) martyrdom, 2) apostasy.
Paul and the Apostles chose option 1, never speaking in glowing terms of the
near future of Christ's earthly Church, but always speaking in very negative
terms like "that day shall not come except there come an Apostasy
first" (2 Ths 2:3,4).
PAUL
8) In light of Christ's promise that "the way is narrow and few there be
that find it" should we then not accept that apostasy (defined as a
purposeful rejection and attack on God's plan) has existed since the Fall of
Lucifer, through the Garden, the time of Noah, about 25 minutes after the people
of Israel in Ex. 19 said "WE will do ALL that you command us" down
through history? When has there ever been a time when apostasy has not been
rampant? Can the LDS church honestly claim that there has never been a time
in their history wherein apostasy has reared its head? Did all 11 witnesses
remain true to the church the rest of their lives? Can the Latter Day
movement claim that they have remained a single unified church since the time
of Joseph Smith?
ME
See Questions 1 & 2. The Apostle Judas apostatized, some Galatians
apostatized (Gal 1:6-9), some Ephesians apostatized (Rev 2:1,5; Ac 20:29-31),
all Asia apostatized (2 Tim 1:15), the Jews rejected and killed their Messiah
(Jo 1:9); but despite all that, Paul still speaks of a great future Apostasy
"already at work" (2 Ths 2:7), saying, "that day shall not
come except there come an Apostasia first" (2 Ths 2:2,3; 2 Tim 4:3,4). I
could quote the many other scriptures, which speak pointedly of a Massive and
Great Apostasy in the near future, which I cited before, but you'll probably
just ignore them again.
PAUL
9) Let's talk about the priesthood for a minute. To begin with the Levitical
priesthood did not exist until after the Law. Its purpose was one of mercy.
God in His graciousness knew that His people had been rash in their promises
of Exodus 19 and gave them a way unto forgiveness. Hence the Levitical
Priesthood. The death of Christ as the supreme Lamb of God, the Final
Sacrifice coupled with the miraculous tearing of the veil sheltering the Holy
of Holies signified the end of the need for a Priesthood.
ME
So you don't believe in even a "believer's priesthood'? If you claim all
priesthood was destroyed, how do you explain the dozens of references in the
NT to a "priesthood"? Paul says the priesthood was
"changed" (Heb 7), not obliterated, and that the "order of
Aaron" was replaced with the "order of Melchizedek" (Heb 7),
not that no priesthood order existed anymore. Was Aaron's "order"
consisting of just one or two persons? So Melchizedek's "order"
didn't either.
PAUL
10) If during his life Christ felt the priesthood no longer legitimate why
then did he require the lepers in Luke 17 to show themselves to the priests
in accordance with Mosaic Law? If Matthew 23:2,3 is talking about
"Moses' political seat" as you suggest, how do you handle the rest
of the chapter to verse 12 with his obvious references to religious
interpretations under the law?
ME
Jewish goverment in Christ's time was a limited theocracy under Roman rule.
The Sanhedrin had authority to impose any sentence short of capital
punishment. The High Priest was an appointee of the King of Judae, who was an
appointee of Caesar. Church and State was totally blurred, so the Levites
served both a spiritual and political function, and lepers, by law of the
land and by the law of Moses, were supposed to report to the priests, and the
High Priest was also supposed to be obeyed by law of the land and by the law
of Moses. Jesus obeyed both the law of the land and the law of Moses. But
when the Sanhedring excommunicated and put to death Jesus' followers, do you
think Jesus wanted his followers to accept such sentences as "of
God"? I doubt it.
PAUL
11) Finally, if you reject the "priesthood of the believers" how do
you interpret Hebrews 4:16 giving me the power to personally approach the
"throne of grace" the exact function of the Levitical Priest.
ME
Citation that this was the "exact function of the Levitical
Priest"? Heb 5:4-6 says high priests must (present tense) must be called
of God as was Aaron, i.e., prophecy and ordination. Heb 7 says the priesthood
was "changed" from "order to Aaron" to "oder of
Melchizedek", not obliterated.
Jesus, the High Priest, himself is the Mediator between the One God and man
(1 Tim 2:5; Heb 7:25; Jo 14:6). Thus Jesus fulfils the function of a High
Priest in the highest sense, serving as High Priest to all men in all
dispensations of the world, not just individual generations of men. Do you
think Jesus didn't fulfil this Mediatorial role in the OT? Do you believe men
in the OT couldn't "approach the throne of grace"? Jesus was
Mediator to David in the OT, and David also approached the "throne of
grace" in the OT; so all this shows nothing to advance the Evangelical
concept of a believer's priesthood which has no hierarchial
"order".
Many these days don't like "organized religion", but the Bible,
both Old and New Testaments, is full of it: "OBEY THEM THAT HAVE THE
RULE OVER YOU, AND SUBMIT YOURSELVES: for they watch for your souls, as they
that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for
that is unprofitable for you" (Heb 13:17). Who appointed these Bishops
(Shepherds/Pastors)? They were ordained by the Apostles themselves,
"firstly Apostles, second Prophets, third Teachers, eatc." (1 Cor
12:28).
|
