New Testament Reveals: A Church Indefectible; or a Great Apostasy

Trio of Strawmen The negative claims I have committed a few errors. Let us shed some light on them. Strawman 1The first claims is that I defined Apostasy in my opening statement, premise 3: “Apostasy (according to WalkingTarget): When Jesus leaves his Church to be orphans.” As this statement is found nowhere in my opening statement. I challenge the reader to use the CTRL + F function to see where this definition first appears. As it won’t be found, this claim of fallacy is his first strawman designed to divert the reader’s attention from the negative’s burden of proof. In my opening statement, I laid out what our respective burdens are, “Does the New Testament teach that Christ instituted an indefectible Church that would last until the end of time or does it teach that this Church Christ established would die on the vine and need restoration?” Unless I am mistaken, the LDS position is that “Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (B.H. Roberts, History of the Church 1:XL) ”[1] That is the negative’s burden and I will take him to task again if he tries to avoid it. Strawman 2The Negative claims I threw a flaming scarecrow at him! Since both strawman and scarecrow are the same fallacy we should probably define what that is. Strawman Fallicy: “Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.”[2] The negative commits this fallacy by misrepresenting the analogy in premise 3, “My opponent threw out this flaming scarecrow in a attempt to demoralize my arguments.” This is both distortion and exaggeration for a few reason. 1. The analogy was to make clear that it would be immoral of Christ to promise that they would have the Holy Spirit abiding with his Church for ever only to have the Church abandoned anyway. The Analogy adds strength to my premise as the negative already concedes Jesus will not break his promise and validating my third premise. 2. I was the first to go in round one, I can’t demoralize his argument when he hasn’t made it yet. Nor did I say what my opponent will argue. So unless I am incorrect about the LDS doctrine of the Great Apostasy as explained by B.H. Roberts, I have not committed this fallacy but it is the negative who has and for a second time now. Strawman 3The last strawman is the claim to a loaded question the negative claims I gave, “Did the Great Apostasy destroy Christ's promise?” He quotes me on this but you will not find this quote in my opening argument or my rebuttal. Please use the CTRL + F function to prove this question was never posed by me and appears first in the negative’s rebuttal. This is a blatant distortion and a question I would never ask because it presupposes that a Great Apostasy occurred and I do not believe one happened at all. I also find it ironic that the negative would put quotes around it for the sake of misrepresentation and not put quotes around the paragraphs written by Andrew C. Skinner which made up the bulk of contention 3 and at least half of contention 2. Moreover, he hasn’t said one thing to his shameless plagiarism, perhaps hoping that his crying wolf will distract from the fact.Rules of Engagement In addition to the above, the negative is continuing his trend for abandoning the rules he agreed to. In his opening argument, he diverts from the KJV New Testament for the use of the Joseph Smith Translation, now he isn’t using it at all. The rule are clear: 1) All bible verses will be provided by www.kingjamesbibleonline.org. Both sides affirm that the NT is not up for debate and is equipped to make our cases. All other outside sources are considered supplementary. Both sides also affirm that Jesus Christ is an infallible authority.” 2) As the debate is centered on the New Testament, it must be used as the primary source material for examination. All other historical data, to include expert commentaries, statistics, etc. is in a purely supportive role. Not only is the agreed upon New Testament not on display in his rebuttal but also commentaries, historical data, leaving only conjecture and opinions about what he believes about my arguement. In Defense of Premise 1 Matt 16:15-18 The Negative starts by conceding this piece of my premise. He then tries to distort the issue by giving us a process not found in Matt 16:15-18 or the rest of the New Testament for that matter, “When a Church leader dies in a righteous time in the Church, the Church divinely replaces the leader and moves on. But when a Church leader dies in a apostasy stricken Church, apostasy continues to dissolve the Church. So in the early Christian Church, when the apostles died (in a apostasy stricken Church), the Church fell into apostasy. The now apostate Church didn't divinely replace the apostle, self appointed bishops decided to replace the apostles. So Jesus was right, death will never overcome his Church, but due to agency, apostasy overcame the Church.” Not only was this idea not found in the New Testament and contradicts the evidence plagiarized from Skinner about the Didache which instructs the church members to appoint Bishops and Deacons with a certain set of criteria, which demonstrates that Bishops and Deacons were not self-appointed as the Negative claims but appointed by the Church body. I’ve also given one example to the contrary where the disciples of the apostles are instructed to pick 7 men who would be deacons in Acts 6 ironically cited by Mr. Skinner. Matt. 28: 19-20 & John 14:16 & John 16:13-14 As the negative fails to demonstrate a cause for his opinions from the New Testament or anywhere else, they must need no further explanation. In Defense of Premise 2 The Negative says, “Yes, Jesus Christ promised to build and be with his church, but that doesn't eliminate apostasy.” My case is not that an individual or groups can become apostate but that the Church Christ established cannot fall into a complete or total apostasy because he promised that death would not prevail against it, He is with it forever, He sent the Holy Spirit to teach and guide it and remain with it forever. I have backed each claim with a promise from the mouth of the Lord in the New Testament it is those infallible promises that negate the idea that His church in its entirety would become an apostate church. If it is the negative’s case that Christ’s promises can be broken or that they don’t matter, the negative has to provide evidence from the New Testament to demonstrate it. In Defense of Premise 3 The Negative opens by saying, “Jesus Christ will never break his promises, but we can break our promises to Christ if we fall into apostasy.” But where in the New Testament do the apostles make promises to Christ or establish a covenant? If they had, it would invalidate premise 2 but as the promises Christ made to His Church were not contingent upon anything the ones receiving his promises (His Church) must do or not do. Therefore, allowing death to overcome his church, not being there always, and the Holy Spirit not leading and guiding the Church forever would constitute breaking promises which the negative concedes Christ cannot do. Further, it would show Christ’s extreme lack of forethought to promise something that would not happen and people could rightly call him a fool to have a foundation that would crumble faster than quicksand. This too is out of the mouth of the master builder as already demonstrated. (Luke 15:28-30) As to my analogy, it applies perfectly to my premise as it is Christ Himself who describes his Church body as those who would be made orphan and promised he would not leave them orphans. He knows that his Church would be like children lost without their parents and so, has a moral obligation to send a comforter to teach and lead them especially after he guarantees it with a promise. The negative also tries to distort my analogy proposing the idea that the eight year old was really, bad drug using sexual deviant. Does abandoning this child then become morally good? No, it becomes worse than the analogy I gave because the child clearly needs more help. Conclusion: The Debate title is, “New Testament Reveals: A Church Indefectible; or a Great Apostasy” It is that dichotomy that we are investigating as it pertains to the New Testament, not what our opinions and feelings are. The Negative needs to remember that individual apostasy is not on the table. He may be surprised that I agree, that individuals can become apostate from Christ established. (Rom 11:22 and 2 Peter 2:19-22) but my positive claim is that Christ’s promises about His church demonstrates his foreknowledge that his Church is Indefectible because Christ is the head of his church and the Holy Spirit guides and protects it. Comments like, “…he gates of hell shall not prevail against it; “…lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” and “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.” are definitive statement that negate a Great Apostasy of the primitive church as described by B.H. Roberts. They do not give an inch for selective interpretation on what forever mean. For ever means for ever, not forever minus 1700 years. Always, even unto the end of the world means, always until the end of the world (without exception). The definitive end, death, not having its normal effect of putting an end to things does not mean that it will until a restoration, and after that it won’t. The words of Christ in the New Testament are definitive, and their meanings clear and no amount of subjective conjecture is going to distort it.I ask the voters to consider the plagerism, the disregard for the rules, and cryng wolf. [1] http://www.mrm.org... [2] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...