How can Mormons insist that there was a total apostasy when there is no evidence? They claim that “total” apostasy overcame the church following apostolic times, and that the Mormon Church (founded in 1830) is the “restored church.” If the Mormon Church were truly a “restored church,” however, one would expect to find first-century historical evidence for Mormon doctrines like the plurality of gods, and God the Father having once been a man, etc…. Such evidence is completely lacking. Besides, the Bible disallows a total apostasy of the church (Matt. 16:18; 28:20; Eph. 3:21; 4:11-16), warning instead of partial apostasy (1 Tim. 4:1). Mormons, stop believing in lies.
Okay, so let's just talk about this; let's check out each of the content that says in favor of his ideology, and I think he made his point using this scriptural passage.
Matthew 16:18 says this -
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Was this all about the No Total Apostasy declaration, or was it Christ talking about the authority he holds from heaven, where, of course, he built his kingdom through it? So, you see, this first scriptural reference you're taking to has nothing to do with the future apostasy, even if that may have come to pass. Rather, it was Christ who declared that his kingdom would be built and that none could go against it. The subject was all about the metaphoric statement, and the Kingdom will be built upon it.
So was it all about the No Apostasy revelatory declaration? Again, the context says nothing about it but rather about building up his kingdom of the church, and none could stop the work of Christ that he will do according to his promise during that period. Nothing more. And if this seems to be the stand of the doctrine of Protestants or Evangelicals against the foretold apostasy. Then obviously, none of them would choose Protestantism or Evangelicals for the sake of no apostasy that has occurred. This alone would be the basic ground of Catholicism, and that Protestantism and the rest of the evangelicals were false. So why don't you agree on it, Shaun Archer?
Matthew 28:20, so here's another one -
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Does this sound like the No-Apostasy-Theory will ever happen, or was Christ ordaining and delegating the work to his Apostles? I don't know how you read that part without reading and understanding the context prior to it. Christ is telling them to declare his words abroad and teaches them about the Gospel, or in other words, Christ has given them the task to do missionary work for the sake of salvation to every nation of every creature, as he said. If you read the words prior to that, you will come to understand the importance of declaring the Gospel to everyone. Yes, it has nothing to do with total apostasy in general. Still, this authority given to them to declare his words and perform ordinances was soon to be lost because of the tribulations that had come to Christ's apostles. Simply reading and comprehending the scriptural context leads you to understand the meaning of Christ's words rather than making up your own ideology, Shaun Archer. You totally missed the point here. This rock of revelations and authority from Christ was removed because the gospel has been corrupted and people change the doctrine, practices, and ordinances, while Shaun Archer says no, it wasn't, while it's obvious enough, having the actual result in these days. Seriously, bro?
And the rest of your concerns will be addressed in our next post. Thank you, and have a nice day.
Check out these Scriptural Verses on how apostasy occurred even during the early Christian Era and its relevance in the future apostasy.
- 2 Thessalonians 2:3
- Hebrews 6:4-6
- Luke 8:13
- 1 Timothy 4:1
- Matthew 24:5, 9-12
- John 6:66
- Galatians 1:6-7
