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

Rebuttal to contention 1: Formal Sufficiency and Material Insufficiency Chris and I lead with the same area in scripture, Matt 16:15-18, only his focus comes from the beginning and mine at the end but there is one other difference. My first premise is Formally Sufficient, Chris has some Material evidence but it falls short. I will illustrate is Mark Shea’s analogy, “What's the difference between material and formal sufficiency? It is the difference between having a big enough pile of bricks to build a house and having a house of bricks.”[1] In premise 1, I have achieved Formal sufficiency. Jesus promised to build his church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Enough said, it is out of the mouth of Jesus. Some of the brush of Jewish tradition with Greek and Hebrew words had to be cleared up but my brick house is clearly there. My opponent on the other hand, relies on the biblical fact of Simon receiving a revelation, which is material evidence, it is a brick but the other bricks had to be caricatured in. Chris says, “The Church Jesus Christ, as said by Matthew 16: 15-18, is built upon revelation.” But Jesus did not say, “Upon your revelation, which is Rock, I will build my Church.” Nor does he say, “This is how you will receive all knowledge in faith, morals, and doctrine. He says, “Thou art Peter (rock), and upon this rock I will build my church.” Chris Says,” The apostles did not dispute over doctrine with each other.” However, scripture gives us a different story in Acts 15 which details the Judaizers who believed that to become Christian, one must practice Mosaic Law and be circumcised and debated this issue with Paul and it eventually went before Peter. Acts 15:7 puts it plainly, “And when there had been much disputing…” So clearly they did dispute doctrine. The results of which continue through Acts with peter weighing the evidence and making a decision that I then carried by four messengers to spread word of the new dogma for the church. Chris Makes use of Andrew C. Skinner (which I will address in full later) to claim that the apostles died and were not succeeded. Unfortunately Mr. Skinner fails twice in this regard. First, God is ultimately in control. Acts 12 reveals that when Peter was imprisoned and under guard, he miraculously escapes his fate. If nothing else this is evidence that God isn’t going to let Peter die until He is good and ready. Second, how does Mr. Skinner know history shows that Christian Leadership didn’t make appeals to heaven for authoritative direction because they did not possess the keys of the kingdom? In what historical document did this come from? He certainly doesn’t give us one. Though we are debating the Great Apostasy in the New Testament, I still expect the supplementary claim to be substantiated. Rebuttal to contention 2: Thank You Paul. Firstly, we agreed to use King James Version of the bible.. The Negative violates this rule by using the Joseph Smith Translation of the bible fore 2 Thess 2:3-4. For that reason, my rebuttal will refer to the KJV as agreed. 2 Thess. 2:3-4, “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away 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 this verse, Paul is not addressing a Great Apostasy but the Second coming of Christ. (v.2) Paul adds that there are two signs of the second coming of Christ, one of which is a falling away. I will point out the obvious here, Paul does not say it is a total or complete falling away. In fact, Paul already told them in 1 Thess 4:17 says that those who are alive and remain will be called up the cloud Christ comes down on and will ever be with him. Obviously, those people will not be apostate. Secondly, the negative Claims, “The Apostle Paul predicted this would happen in the early Church” but in context, the falling away will occur just before the second coming of Christ. If anything, Paul is telling them that this falling away will not be soon at all, hence why they should not be troubled. (again, v.2) The second sign of 2 Thess is that the man of sin would be revealed. The Negative inserts (or Satan) next to the “son of perdition” as if to say that this is Satan himself; however, Paul is talking about an earthly ruler who will claim to be God or a god like roman emperor. This is evident when Paul says, “Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.”(v.9) Here the man of sin is contrasted with Satan so Paul can’t be talking about Satan. (Also see Matt 24:24, Christ says there will be false Christs and false prophets having power but are not Satan.) The Negative also claims that the temple of God Paul is talking about is the Church but he is more likely talking about the actual and only temple of God in Jerusalem. Here is why. Scholars have nailed down the date 2 Thess was written to about 51-52 A.D.[2],which is two decades before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem which occurred around 70A.D.[3] 2 Thess gives us some details about the “man of sin” so we will know who he is. About 10-12 years prior to the writing of this letter, a roman emperor, Gaius, tried and ultimately failed to put his image in the temple of Jerusalem to be worshiped as God.[4] Likely still fresh in the mind of the Thessalonians, Paul tells them that the man of sin will succeed where Gaius filed as he expresses he told them this before. (v.5) Lastly, these two signs are tied together and are said to happen just before the second coming Christ and final judgement (Luke 21:25-36) and not immediately after the apostolic age. 1 Tim 4:1-3 Before addressing the scripture Chris quotes, I will point out the portion of the verse used that seemed to have gotten missed. Verse 1 reads, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.” Again, Paul is not talking about a Great Apostasy but that only some shall depart from the faith, not all and as we are concerned with a Great Apostasy and not just some departing, Chris will have to explain why this is relevant. Rebuttal to contention 3: The Solid Foundation Probably the least relevant of all, the Negative submits Eph 2:20 which does demonstrate the foundation of the Church being the apostles but then tries to tie it into Rev 12:6 to demonstrate that false brethren to drive the true Church "into the wilderness" First, I will address two points where Chris is absolutely right! 1) I agree Ephesians 2:20 does show that the Apostles are the spiritual foundation of the church with Christ as the capstone. 2) Chris correctly interprets the woman in Rev.12 as the True Church established by Christ. Where Chris misses the mark on Eph 2:20 does not indicate demonstrate the loss of the apostles or a teaching about the loss of their lives. When the entire chapter does show is the spiritual oneness of the Christians. Verse 21 likewise shows that it is Christ himself who hold this spiritual structure together structure and verse 22 says,” In whom ye also are built together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” It is all Christians whom he builds together for a spiritual habitation for God. Instead of showing a crumbling foundation, Paul tells us how strong a foundation it is and how strong the power of Christ is to pull us into this spiritual structure. Which only support the promise made in Matt 16:18. In Rev. 12:6 Chris makes the same error as 2 Thess 2 only instead of identifying men as Satan, he identifies Satan as men when he says, “false brethren to drive the true Church "into the wilderness" (Rev. 12:6)” but in Rev. 12:9, makes reference to the one making war with the woman. “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” So he clearly cannot be false brethren and therefore not a reference to a Great Apostasy. Further, the woman is protected and nourished in the wilderness. (v. 14) Rev. 12 makes no reference to a restoration of the church anywhere, likely because one is not required no matter how tightly the negative would like to press the phrase, “until the promised restoration.” To Rev 12:6, it doesn’t become scripture. With the last point, I am going to address the elephant in the room. This entire time, I’ve actually been debating Andrew C. Skinner as the negative has drawn from him all but verbatim. The piece I will cite here is the Negatives final point: “Modern scholars have labeled the post-apostolic era an “obscure period.”… "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles shows that self-seeking and fraudulent claimants to divine guidance were soon preying on the churches." <portion regarding Eusebius omitted> Clement wrote to correct “the abominable and unholy schism”… Here two important truths are corroborated: mass apostasy destroys the faith of many, and it is hard to curtail.”[5] Just use the CTRL + F function on any phrase above to confirm. That said, it is my guess that the Negative has never read the Didache or, The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles or Clements letter to the Corinthians but only what MR. Skinner wants him to read of them. Not to mention, Acts 6; 1 Tim. 2, 1 Tim. 3; Titus 1. If he had only read Acts 6 as Skinner correlates, He would have read how the apostles call the multitude of disciples and told them to pick seven members who would become Deacons. Sure, the apostles laid their hands upon Steven and the others but it was the disciples who chose them. Which is perfectly consistent with the Didache. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com...