A Review Of A Recent Debate On The Great Apostasy
By Bro. Nathan
So there is a recent debate na nangyari between a Latter Day Saint at sa isang Baptist and the topic ay about sa the Great Apostasy or ang total apostasy. the link of this debate ay nakalagay below :
https://web.facebook.com/markanthony.magno.315/videos/3692451697550573
So i made a review of this debate na may nangyayaring mali-maling exegesis sa scripture, irrationality, and may others. to the debate, there's a lot of assumptions going on gaya ng unnecessary attacks etc.
I
first, irereview ko yung mga proof-textes na ginamit sa first statement nung baptist.
Isaiah 9:6-7
(cf. Dan. 7:13-14; Lk. 1:32-33)
"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this. " (Isa. 9:6-7) ESV
Ginamit ito ng baptist as a proof text against sa total apostasy by interpreting incorrectly yung " the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end" (Isa. 9:7a). ay verse ay crossreferenced sa Daniel 7:13-14 and sa Luke 1:32-33 which same speaks about sa endless na rulership ni Jesus Christ.
First, Latter Day Saints belief na ang Church is not ang one-to-one na equivalent sa Kingdom of God, since ang event na ito, in context, ay eschatological. it is a future event. the same na mensahe can be found sa Luke 1:32-33, which reads :
" He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” (Lk. 1:32-33) NKJV
Ang eschatology ng Latter Day Saints ay Pre-milleialism , in which naniniwala kami na ang promises that was contained in this prophecies ay mafufulfill when Jesus Christ will come to the herald in the parousia. when qinuequestion ng Sanhedrin si Jesus Christ, He described Himself to the Jewish authorities as ang Son of Man coming down from the clouds of Heaven as described sa Daniel 7:13-14, in which here, Jesus states na isa itong future event :
" Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Mt. 26:64) NKJV
The opponent is not sincere and can be seen in the fact, if ang Daniel 7:13-14 ay tumutukoy sa first century church, bakit pa ba kinailangan ng Kingdom ang reformation? bilang isang protestant ay mahirap tanggapin sa kanila na ang Roman Catholic Church ay ang "Kingdom" of God before nagkaroon ng reformation. iaargue nila na may mga faithfull daw na tao who still held the truth as it perceives it (gaya ng 5 solas) pero nahihirapan na i-fit in sa Daniel 7:13-14. kailangan nila muna na pagisipan ulit nang mabuti ang eschatology.
In other places sa bible confirms na isa itong eschatological event even after ng resurrection of the dead :
" Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6) NKJV
John Calvin commented :
" He showeth that the apostles were gathered together when as this question was moved, that we may know that it came not of the foolishness of one or two that it was moved, but it was moved by the common consent of them all; but marvelous is their rudeness, that when as they had been diligently instructed by the space of three whole years, they betray no less ignorance than if they had heard never a word. There are as many errors in this question as words. They ask him as concerning a kingdom; but they dream of an earthly kingdom, which should flow with riches, with dainties, with external peace, and with such like good things; and while they assign the present time to the restoring of the same. they desire to triumph before the battle; for before such time as they begin to work they will have their wages. They are also greatly deceived herein, in that they restrain Christ’s kingdom unto the carnal Israel, which was to be spread abroad, even unto the uttermost parts of the world. Furthermore, there is this fault in all their whole question, namely, that they desire to know those things which are not meet for them to know. No doubt they were not ignorant what the prophets did prophesy concerning the restoring of David’s kingdom, they had oftentimes heard their Master preach concerning this matter."
Matthew 16:18
" And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Mt. 16:18) ESV.
Since gates, even ang gates of impyerno (Hades/Sheol) do not attack and destroy churches (or anything else), it is clear that Jesus could not have meant that hell would not destroy the church. gates are intended para makulong ang mga prisoners o para hindi makapasok ang mga outsiders. but since ibinigay ni Jesus kay Peter ang keys (v. 19). it seems clear that he intended that the church should open the gates of hell and release its prisoners (cf. 1 Pt. 3:18-20; 4:6) This is what he meant about the gates of hell not prevailing over the church. That this is the case can be seen in the fact that na ang Greek word rendered “prevail” sa KJV at ESV, is κατισχύσουσιν (katischusousin), the third person plural future indicative active of κατισχύω (katischuo), literally, “be strong against,” and it is often used in the sense of “restrain.” As for Matthew 20:28 naman, ito ay isang promise sa mga apostles if babasahin nang mabuti yung context.
" Catholic apologists often counter this point [the charge of apostasy] by noting that God promised the indestructibility and infallibility for his church in passages such as Matt 16:18 and 28:20—promises never granted to Israel. But such an assertion is incorrect. The people of Israel were given many promises that they would never cease to be God’s chosen people, as in the following passage:
“This is what the Lord says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that it waves roar—the Lord Almighty is his name: “Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,” declares the Lord, “will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me.” This is what the Lord says: “Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel because of all they have done,” declares the Lord. (Jer 31:35-37)
Moreover, Paul insists that it was to the Jews that God entrusted his word (Rom 3:1-2; 9:3-5). He further asserts of “the people of Israel” that:
“Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!” (Rom 9:4-5)
According to these passages Israel was promised at least as much as the church was promised. Based on these promises the Pharisees might have made a similar argument for their own authority as Catholic apologists make today regarding the authority of Rome. The Pharisees alone, it could have been argued, were capable of interpreting the Old Testament and the “Fathers” (since they alone were entrusted with God’s word, and were promised the Law, the Covenants, and the Patriarchs). Similarly, they might have staked a claim to sole ownership of the tradition of the liturgy (since Paul includes “temple worship” in his list). And, of course, how could anyone deny that they possessed eternal life since they were granted “adoption as sons” and the Messiah himself? Indeed, these statements by Paul and Jeremiah are decidedly at least as strong as (if not much stronger than) those made in reference to the church.
As much as Catholic apologists are reluctant to do so, they must face the fact that their claims to indestructibility (based on the promises of Jesus to his church) are virtually indistinguishable from those made by Israel (based on Jeremiah, and later, Paul). More importantly, they must come to terms with the fact that Israel was dead wrong in just how those promises were to be understood! Israel was promised at least as much as the church was promised. The problem is, they thought they were invincible by virtue of their association with Moses (1 Cor 10:1-5) and their pedigree to Abraham (Matt 3:9)—and they wrongly defined “true Israel” as an institution. These are the same errors made by the Roman Catholic church. Sadly, those who ignore history are destined to repeat it.
In the end, because of her long history of disobedience and moral corruption, Israel as an institution was rejected by God; God then turned to the Gentiles who accepted his word with gladness. It is such a surprise then that God, after tolerating centuries of abuse and moral corruption, would finally say “enough!” (Eric D. Svendsen, Evangelical Answers: A Critique of Current Roman Catholic Apologists [Lindenhurst, N.Y.: Reformation Press, 1999], 112-14; comment in square brackets added for clarification)
Matthew 28:18-20
" And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen." (Mt. 28:18-20) NKJV
Ang passage na ito if read in context ay isang promise only given to the apostles and not to the whole church. ang greek word dito na αἰῶνος (aionos) tells us na ang "world" ay ang lifetime o lifespan and it applies sa lifetime ng mga apostles.
John 6:39
" This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day." (Jn. 6:39) NKJV
B.J. Oropeza commented :
There are at least two important considerations which make this interpretation untenable. First, Paul begins 10:1-13 with the metaphors of salvation through the concepts of election and baptism-initiation in the Spirit and water (10:1-4). Elsewhere in 1 Corinthians those whom Paul addresses are considered to be saints, called, saved, cleansed, justified, sanctified, members of the body of Christ, and operating in the Spirit (e.g., 10:1, 6, 11 cf. 1:1-9, 18, 32; 4:15; 6:6, 11, 19f; 12:13). Paul stresses the solidarity of "all" of the Israelites who were called into these divine privileges indicating the genuine nature of these experiences. In Israel's tradition-history which Paul adopts, both Caleb (who made it through the journey) and Korah (who did not make it) participated in the "same" (το αυτο) exodus/wilderness experiences. Paul thus implies a common election that was experienced by all. Moreover, Paul calls the Israelites "our fathers" and transfers the salvific language of this passage to the Corinthians whom he believes are Christians. In his discourse on idol meats, Paul's language assumes the strong are genuine believers: 1) they, along with Paul, find their life through the same God and Lord (8:5-6); 2) they are not to offend the weaker αδελφος who belongs to Christ (8:11f); 3) they became Christians directly through Paul's effort (9:1ff); 4) they participate in spiritual matters and the new era (9:11, 24ff); and 5) they are members of the body of Christ (10:16ff).
Second, Paul's binary usage of the words "stand" (ιστημι) and "fall" (πιπτω) in 10:12 reinforce an interpretation that a genuine standing in grace and a real danger of falling into apostasy is at stake. Paul uses the perfect tense of ιστημι here as in Romans 11:20-22 where he gives another warning in the milieu of apostasy and high-mindedness. He also uses the word elsewhere in relation to apostasy and perseverance (Gal. 5:1ff; cf. 2 Thes. 2:14). Related to this usage is Paul’s understanding of ιστημι as denoting the idea of one’s standing in faith and grace or in the message of the Gospel (1 Cor. 15:1f; 16:13; 2 Cor. 1:24; Rom. 5:2; 11:20; Phil. 4:1; cf. 1 Pet. 5:12) . . . The idea of standing in faith might have as its basis the ancient Jewish concept of one establishing or standing on the word of the covenant (cf. Psa. 104:8-10 LXX). In the Deuteronomic tradition, standing in the covenant is set in contrast with departing from it (Deut. 29:13-18). In a broad sense, then, Paul may have understood this nuance of “stand” as pointing to the new eschatological covenant of the Christians. Hence, the converse of standing in a new covenant would be to fall away from it . . . Paul himself associates the terms “stand”/”fall” and “beware” with apostasy in some of his other letters. If the Galatian Christians stand in the liberty of Christ, they could escape falling from grace which occurs by attempting to be justified through the law (Gal. 5:1-4). Paul warns that those among them who are seeking to be justified by the law are “cut off” from Christian and “fallen from grace” (5:4: κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ, οἵτινες ἐν νόμῳ δικαιοῦσθε, τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε.). In this letter, Paul is anxious that the Galatians will fall back into confining ritual and social practises; hence, he fears that the original gospel of liberty through the Spirit they received may have been in vain (3:4; 4:11; cf. 2:2; 2 Cor. 6:1; 1 Cor. 15:2) . . Particularly significant is that the Corinthian argument of Paul in 10:1-13 is perfectly consistent with what he does in other letters. Similar to the Corinthian situation, the Galatian warning (βλεπετε μη—Gal. 5:15 cf. 1 Cor. 10:12) is set in the situation of falling away from grace (Gal. 5:1, 4 cf. 1 Cor. 10:5, 12), being hindered from running a course (Gal. 5:7 cf. 1 Cor. 9:24ff), ad being severed from Christ (Gal. 5:5; 4:30 cf. 1 Cor. 5:5; 10:4-10). Paul also mentions leaven as a negative influence on the believers in both letters (Gal. 5:9; cf. 1 Cor. 5:7) and a condemnation on those who practise vices such as discord, dissensions, and factions. Such works of the flesh prevent one from entering the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19-21; 6:7-8 cf. 1 Cor. 5:8f; 6:9-10; 10:7-10; Rom. 8:12-13). In relation to apostasy, the essential difference between the two letters is that the Corinthian warning focuses on the danger of apostatising through the abuse of liberty. In Galatians the congregations were erring in the opposite extreme—they were entangled by the works of the law and needed more liberty in Christ (Gal. 3-5). For Paul, those who taught another Gospel that hindered one’s liberty in Christ were accursed and their message was a perversion and desertion or turning away (μετατιθημι) from the true Gospel (Gal. 1:6-9 c. 1 Cor. 16:22). (B.J. Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy: Eschatology, Perseverance, and Falling Away in the Corinthian Congregation [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2007], 194-95, 196-97)
John 10:27-29
" My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand." (Jn. 10:27-29) NKJV
Isa ito sa mga ginamit ng baptist na verse epara sabihin na "walang total apostasy" by assuming na may eternal security therefore walang apostasy and in this debate ay nadidivert ang ecclesiastical topic about apostasy sa soteriological na assurance ng believer. ginamit dito ang John 10:27-29 by interpreting na no one can ay makakagaw sa tupa mula sa mga kamay ni Cristo, therefore suggesting ang eternal security. but it is read badly out of context.
The Baptist pastor thern makes a strawman argument na ang total apostasy daw ay walang natirang mananampalataya. Latter Day Saints on the other hand says na no person on earth hold the priesthood keys and no authority to preach the gospel and no truth in them. don't go around making scarecrows to fight on instead of attacking the real thing.
One critic of the various formulations of Protestant soteriologies wrote the following in response to the common eisegetical approach to this passage:
In reference to Jesus giving eternal life to the sheep in Jn 10:28-29, advocates of eternal security also commonly say that "if eternal life can be lost, then it is not eternal lost." This kind of argumentation if quite naïve. It confuses the possessor with what he possesses. One can possess eternal life at one time and lost it again at another without changing the quality or nature of eternal life. For example, one can possess a license to drive a car. If he drives recklessly, the state that issued the license can take it away. However, the revocation of the licenses does not change the quality or nature of a driver's license. Anyone else who possesses a driver's license will be able legally to drive on the road, provided of course that he, too, obeys the rules. Similarly, if one's name is included in a will, we can safely say that he "possesses" the inheritance. It is just a matter of time until he will reap the benefit of the inheritance. This does not mean, however, that it is impossible to disinherit him if the benefactor judges his behavior to warrant such action. Likewise, if God disinherits us from eternal life--a possibility, as we have seen earlier, which Paul does not hesitate to warn us if we sin and do not repent (cf. Gl 5:21; 1Co 6:9-10)--this does not change the meaning of eternal life but merely defines how one can lost it. Peter tells us in 1Pt 1:4 that the inheritance itself is incorruptible, and he also tells us in 1Pt 1:5 that our possession of it is through "faith." But the individual, Peter tells us in 2Pt 1:5-10, must cultivate this faith with good works; if he does not, he is "blind" and cannot "make his calling and election sure." According to Peter, we can possess the inheritance through faith, but then lost the inheritance through faithfulness. In 2Pt 2:20-22 he writes:
If they escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are given again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: 'A dog returns to its vomit,' and, 'a sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.'
Since Jesus opened the context by speaking in Jn 10:1-10 of the robber who enters the sheepgate by stealth to steal away the sheep, and in Jn 10:14-16 of the hired and hand who does not protect the sheep when the wolf appears, it is obvious that Jesus is emphasizing his faithfulness to the sheep in contrast to the evil intent and carelessness of others. He is not attempting to teach that the individual sheep know absolutely that they themselves will remain in the fold . . . We must also realize that Jesus is speaking to Jews who consistently showed their stubbornness and hardness of heart. Other passages make it clear that Jesus experiencing repeated rejection of God's message to Jews, knew that God had blinded them so that they could not understand the gospel (Mt 13:11-17). Hence, they were not sheep of his "fold" and could not understand his voice. Jesus remarks about the inability of certain sheep to understand him and the ability of others to understand (Jn 10:1-5, 16, 26). Though some Jews did understand and follow Jesus (Mt 13:11), the nation as a whole had rejected Jesus, and Jesus in turn is rejecting the Jewish nation. He will turn to "other sheep that are not of this sheep pen" and "bring them also" . . . He is not teaching that any one individual can be certain that he will be saved. The individual can be certain of God's plan of salvation, and that if he is faithful to God that God will allow no one to snatch him out of it, but he cannot be certain that he himself will remain faithful. If he could be certain, then Paul's waring in 2Tm 2:12-13 and many other passages simply have no relevant meaning. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], 253-54, 256-57; emphasis in original)
1 Corinthians 13:6
" Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" (1 Cor. 13:6) NKJV
GInamit ito ng baptist to support nanaman ang walang apostasy at ang eternal security by saying na dahil temple of God daw ay hindi na magigiba, and even assumes yung mali-maling exegesis and sounding like sinasabi niya na parang wala nang agency ang believer when tinanggap niya si God.but if we read it again in context, Paul then says :
" If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are." (v. 17)
That it can be defiled by others, and ang kanilang sarili mismo, by disobeying the commandments. the context suggest the sacredness of the body of a believer that a believer should always keep his temple clean and be worthy to face God (cf. Phil. 2:12-17; 2 Pt. 3:14-18). this has nothing to do with the baptist doctrine of eternal security.
Jude 1:3
" Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3) NKJV
Robert Boylan commented :
The term translated as "once" is απαξ. It simply means "once" and does not, in and of itself, denote finality. Had Jude wished to convey such, he would have used εφαπαξ, which is used in the Greek NT for the once-for-all sacrifice and death of Christ (Rom 6:10; 1 Cor 15:6; Heb 7:27; 9:12; 10:10).
Notice how απαξ is used in the NT:
Thrice was I beaten with rods, once (απαξ) was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck a night and day I have been in the deep. (2 Cor 11:25)For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again (απαξ) unto my necessity. (Phil 4:16)Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again (απαξ); but Satan hindered us. (1 Thess 2:18)Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more (απαξ) I shake not the earth only, but also the heaven. (Heb 12:26)
Two verses later in this text, Jude again used απαξ:
I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once (απαξ) knew this, how that the Lord having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
LDS scholar, John Tvedtnes, commented on this verse thusly:
If the gospel (more correctly, faith) was to be delivered but once to men on the earth, then Paul would be wrong in writing that the gospel had been revealed earlier to Abraham (Galatians 3:8f). And if the gospel was revealed in the days of Jesus, never to disappear from the earth, there would be no necessity for the angel John saw coming in later times to reveal the gospel to the inhabitants of the earth (Revelation 14:6-7). We can either conclude that Jude 1:3 does not give the whole story, or we must conclude that the Bible contradicts itself. That is, the same argument used against Joseph Smith can be used against the writers of the biblical books, if one misinterprets this passage. (source: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Restoration.shtml#jude)
The burden of evidence is based upon the person arguing their point that απαξ denotes once-for-all/sense of finality. Jude 1:3 is not evidence, however, against the LDS view on the nature of the Apostasy and/or a need for a Restoration.
II
Evidences Of The Great Apostasy
John Tvedtnes and Roper provides scriptural evidences of the great apostasy :
Wilson addresses the various New Testament passages that Latter-day Saints have used to show that there would be an apostasy and finds them wanting. He also cites other New Testament passages that he believes provide evidence against an apostasy. We shall examine these here.
Wilson maintains that “Christ promised that His church would never fall into total apostasy: ‘I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ (Matt. 16:18)” (p. 29). Christ cannot have meant, in this passage, that the Church would never fall. The Greek word rendered “prevail” in the King James Bible is katisxusousin, literally, “be strong against,” and it is often used in the sense of “restrain.” Gates do not attack churches (or anything else) with the intention of destroying them. Gates are not offensive weapons! They are intended to keep people in or keep people out. The gates of hell (Hades in the Greek text) are obviously intended to keep people in, as prisoners. Christ, however, opened those gates when he went into the spirit world to make it possible for the wicked of previous eras to hear the good news of redemption (1 Peter 3:18‑20; 4:6). Christ’s visit to Hades (the realm of the dead) is a common theme in early Christian literature, where we often read that Christ broke down the gates of Hades. The keys he gave to Peter in Matthew 16:18-19 and which came to all the apostles (Matthew 18:18) are the power of sealing people up to everlasting life. They release us from the captivity of the devil, opening the gates of hell for even the dead.
Wilson claims that “the New Testament nowhere predicts a total apostasy” (p. 29). A total apostasy, however, is not required in order that plain and precious truths be lost from sacred writings. In 2 Thessalonians 2:2-3, Paul wrote that Christ would not return to the earth until after a “falling away” (the Greek work is apostasia, from which we get “apostasy”). Wilson objects that “this verse and its context (1:7-2:12) describe apostasy in terms of end-time event, especially the coming of the Antichrist, and there is no indication that it will be universal” (p. 29). To be sure, Christ’s second coming is an “end-time event.” But Paul says that Christ would not return until “there come a falling awayfirst.” He does not say how long before Christ’s return that event would take place, so we need not consign it to the last days. Indeed, Paul noted that “the mystery of iniquity doth already work” (2 Thessalonians 2:7), indicating that the apostasy he foresaw wasnot an “end-time” event.34
An examination of the full text of 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 is revealing: “Let no man deceive you by any means: that day shall not come, except there come a falling away(apostasia) first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” In Ephesians 2:21, Paul indicated that the Church is the temple of God. From this, Paul’s meaning in his letter to the Thessalonians is clear. The Lord’s coming will be preceded by a time ofapostasia or rebellion against God in which the evil one will usurp the Church as his own. The temporal structure will apparently remain, but because of rebellion and iniquity it is no longer the Lord’s Church and kingdom. Paul further noted that there was a restraining influence (the original meaning of “let” in 2 Thessalonians 2:7). A restraint on false teaching was the apostles who had the power and authority to correct false doctrine (Ephesians 4). From Paul’s statement, we learn that this restraint would soon be removed or “taken out of the way.”
Paul’s declaration to the Thessalonians is supported by Peter, who declared that, before Christ would return, there would be a “restitution [the Greek word means “restoration”] of all things” (Acts 3:18-21). If nothing had been lost, there would be no need of a restoration. Significantly, Peter also noted that “the end of all things is at hand” (1 Peter 4:7), implying that the loss of all things was imminent.
Wilson discounts Paul’s words in Acts 20:30, saying that it does not suggest a universal apostasy. He adds that, from the evidence of “Revelation 2:2 we find that the Ephesian saints heeded the warning of Paul,” having detected the false apostles among them (p. 30). Had he read a few more verses, he would have found the Lord telling the church at Ephesus, “Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love . . . repent and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, andwill remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent” (Revelation 2:4-5). Since, in John’s vision, “the seven candlesticks . . . are the seven churches” (Revelation 1:20), the Lord’s threat is clear: Unless they repent, he will remove the Ephesian church!
Wilson argues that John’s reference to the saints being overcome by the beast (Revelation 13:7) only has reference to events during the last days before the Lord’s second coming (p. 30). While we do not wish to be too dogmatic, there is merit to the argument that the first ten verses of Revelation 13 may refer to the apostasy of early Christians. John foretold that the beast would make war with the saints and overcomethem. We disagree with Wilsons claim that “this passage is not describing apostates, but heroes of the faith” (p. 30). A careful reading of John’s revelation indicates that John uses the word overcome in reference to those who overcome sin and the world and are thereby saved (Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 21:7). It refers to salvation, not physical survival, except in Revelation 11:7, where the beast overcomes the two prophets, who are slain. Consequently, when John observes that the worldly kingdoms exemplified by the beast overcome the saints this may refer to apostasy of remnant of the Church who survive with whom the devil makes war (Revelation 12:17). After the beast’s triumph over the saints of the Church he then has power over the all the earth. In chapter 14 an angel from God comes so that the gospel may be preached to all that dwell on the earth. Why would an angel need to come with the gospel and preach it to everybody? As chapter 13 makes clear, it is because the saints of an earlier time had been overcome by the world allowing evil one to usurp the Lord’s kingdom.
Wilson claims that “Christ promised his Apostles that their converts’ faith would endure” (p. 30), citing, as evidence, Jesus’ words to his apostles that he had chosen them to bring forth fruit that their fruit “should remain” (John 15:16). Wilson fails to show how this statement shows that there was no apostasy. The Lord obviously blessed the apostles in their mission and many were saved through their labors, but Jesus also foretold that the time would come when the apostles would be killed. He told them,
Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved (Matthew 24:9-11).
From this passage, we learn that only those who endure the temptations and persecutions of the world faithfully and are not overcome will be saved.
As evidence that there was no apostasy, Wilson notes that, in the early chapters of the book of Revelation, “Christ commended faithful churches at the twilight of the apostolic era” (p. 30). While it is true that the Lord commended the faithful saints of the seven churches, yet a careful reading of chapters 2-3 of Revelation reveals a church struggling against and in some cases apparently losing the battle against worldliness and apostasy. The Lord, through John, used the symbols of candlesticks to represent each of the churches (Revelation 1:20). Christ warns the Ephesians that if they do not repent he would remove their candlestick out of its place (Revelation 2:5). In other words Christ would take away his Church from them. Five of the seven churches are threatened with judgment or destruction. Two churches appear to have been singled out as being especially faithful, the churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia (the ones to which Wilson makes reference). The Church at Smyrna is commended, but warned that they will experience tribulation, imprisonment and martyrdom, yet they are to find comfort in the fact that they will thus receive the crown of eternal life and not be hurt by the seconddeath (Revelation 2:10). The Lord speaks of keeping the faithful of Philadelphia “from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth” (Revelation 3:10). Wilson cites this passage as evidence against the apostasy, yet the reference to the “hour of temptation” which comes upon “all the world” can just as plausibly be interpreted as a reference to the great apostasy. Wilson assumes that their being kept “from the hour of temptation” must refer to the physical survival of the Philadelphian saints, yet it can just as easily refer to the faithful Philadelphians being taken out of the world through martyrdom before the Apostasy is complete. If the seven churches are typical of other Christian congregations of the time, it is clear that apostasy was a serious problem.
Wilson also cites 2 Timothy 2:2, where Paul instructs that his teachings should be committed “to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also,” and adds that “if universal apostasy immediately followed the apostles, either these inspired instructions were inadequate, or the apostles themselves failed to follow them” (p. 30). There seems to be no logic behind this conclusion, except to assume that whenever Paul gave instructions they were always followed—which, from passages cited earlier, we know not to be the case. The apostles and Timothy may have done everything in the power to teach the truth and still have people reject it.35 Even Jesus could not convince everybody. This is not because there was something wrong with the message or with the messenger, but simply because people knowing better often choose evil anyway. In a passage not cited by Wilson, Paul also warns that the time will come when they would no longer listen to Timothy’s counsel and teachings, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers having itching ears And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
As evidence that there was no total apostasy, Wilson notes that “Matthew 24:4-5, 10-13 says that “‘many will be deceived . . .’ Many, but not all” (p. 29). Similarly, “1 Timothy 4:1-3 predicts that ‘in the latter times some shall depart from the faith,’ but not all,” while “2 Peter 2:1-3 predicts that ‘many,’ but not all, will follow the pernicious ways of false prophets to come” (p. 30). While his point regarding these scriptures is well-taken, they actually contradict one of his earlier assumptions, i.e., that Latter-day Saints are wrong in proposing a “very early dating for the New Testament Scriptures,” for “it requires us to believe that the spiritual condition of the Christian community and its leadership in the very shadow of the apostles was so bankrupt that major extractions could be made from their writings, undetected, or unchallenged . . . One can only label such a radical view of events an ‘instant apostasy’” (p. 29). Indeed, the apostasy was already under way in the time of the apostles, as noted earlier.
Footnotes for the Above:
34. Paul made a number of statements indicating that apostasy was already a problem in his day. To the Galatians he wrote, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ" (Galatians 1:6-7). To Timothy, he lamented, "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me" (2 Timothy 1:15). This seems to have fulfilled the prophetic warning he issued to the elders of Ephesus: "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" (Acts 20:29-30).
35. Perhaps we should ask Mr. Wilson if people such as Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Bakker were "faithful men . . . able to teach others also." If so, how did they fall? Could the same thing have happened to Christians of Paul's day?
And for Patrological evidences of the apostasy on the pre-nicene church, Errol Amey provides some helpfull resources :
1. Cannot be argued that good works as necessary for salvation is an apostate teaching as all of the early Christians believed this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJceuCdgKI0
2. Cannot be argued that baptism as necessary for salvation is an apostate teaching as all of the early Christians believed this:
3. Cannot be argued that the possibility of losing one's salvation is an apostate teaching as all of the early Christians believed this:
4. Cannot be argued that the souls of the dead being detained in an intermediate state as opposed to going directly to Heaven is an apostate teaching as all of the early Christians believed this:
5. Cannot be argued that Christ delivering salvation to those in the aforementioned intermediate state for the dead is an apostate teaching as all of the early Christians believed this:
6. Cannot be argued that a Subordinationist view of the Trinity is an apostate teaching as all of the early Christians believed this:
7. Cannot be argued that the strict and uncompromising separation of Church and State is an apostate teaching as all of the early Christians believed this:
8. Cannot be argued that the prohibition of the veneration of icons is an apostate teaching as all of the early Christians believed this:
Note that this is by no means an exhaustive list of ecumenical patristic teachings which cannot be argued to be apostate unless one is willing to admit that the first 300+ years of the Christian Church was in Apostasy.
And that's my review of this debate.
