[MORMONISM. The Faith of the Twenty-first Century. Section 7. Edward K. Watson. (Liahona Publications. Copyright © 2002 Edward K. Watson.) pp 161-178. MORMONISM: Section 7, Chapter 12. All rights reserved.]
CHAPTER 12
The Protestant's Dilemma
Or more accurately, The Non-Catholic, Non-Mormon Christian's Dilemma, since this chapter can apply with equal validity to the Christian churches who refuse to be labeled “Protestants” like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Church of Christ (Iglesia ni Cristo from the Philippines).
Anti-Mormons insist that the universal apostasy never occurred. They say there were some false teachers who drew people after them but the church always continued. Are most of our critics Catholic by any chance? No, the majority of them are Protestants. It's amazing non-Catholic Christians deny the apostasy because the denial is devastating for the Protestant's cause.
If the Apostasy never occurred, the only possible true church will be the Catholic Church because it is the only church (aside from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) that can show their line of authority directly to Peter.
The denial of an Apostasy is the strongest argument Catholics use against Protestants. Any Catholic in the sixteenth century or now who understood this concept and believed it, can never convert to Protestantism because they would be considered heretics following a false teacher like Martin Luther.
The primary argument Protestants use is the Catholic Church became corrupt and it was necessary for them to separate themselves and preserve True Christianity. The Catholics have a good analogy that likens the church to a tree. The Protestants said the tree became corrupted and used this to justify their separation. If the tree were corrupted or dead, what would happen to a branch if it were separated from the tree? It would die. If the tree weren't dead, what would happen to a branch if it were separated from the tree? It would still die. Regardless of the Catholic Church losing its authority, the mere fact Protestants separated themselves from it shows that they don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to authority.
Any anti-Mormon who is not a Catholic should take a good look at himself in the mirror before condemning us about the Apostasy when, if it didn't take place, shows he too is guilty of apostatizing from the true church.
Where do Protestants get their authority?
They have two claims. God gives them authority by being believers and they receive their authority from the Bible.
(a) The Sola fide (faith alone) argument is comprised of various segments (Faith alone is needed for authority. Faith alone is needed for salvation. Faith alone is needed to understand the Bible), of which, only the first is pertinent to this topic.
Protestants will use Matt 18:19-20 as their primary argument with 1 John 2:27 as support.
Matt 18:19-20 says:
Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
They utilize these two verses to mean all that is needed for authority is for two or more believers to gather together. This is taken out of context,
Matt 18:15-20 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or more witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for themof my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
The context shows Jesus describing various scenarios of a member of the church committing an offense towards another. If the offender refuses to listen to the offended in private, the offended should get one or two more people to act as witnesses “that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word be established.” If the offender refuses to listen to them, the matter must be brought to the church which has the final say on the matter and the offender would be expelled from the church body if he refuses to listen to their counsel. Because of this, it is obvious that the first century church had an organization and the church body always superceded the choice of an individual member.
Matt 18:18 has Jesus giving the sealing power to the church via his disciples and causes any decision of the church to be binding in heaven as well. Verses nineteen and twenty has him telling his disciples, “Verily I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Who was Jesus talking to? He was talking to his first century disciples (Matt 18:1,21). When two or three of his first century disciples will gather together in his name, Jesus will be in their midst.
Does Matt 18:19-20 grant every believer equal authority with every other Christian? Does it mean the true church is whenever two or more believers are gathered together? The supremacy of authority possessed by the church mentioned in Matt 18:17 disproves this assumption as does Christ's granting of the sealing power in Matt 18:18. Do our Protestant critics really expect us to believe that any believer automatically inherits this incredible power? If one believer binds and another loosens, what will be the object's status in heaven? The individualistic and contradictory nature of Protestantism disqualifies it from possessing this power.
The Protestants will also appeal to 1 John 2:27 which says:
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
They claim this verse means we don't need a church teaching us what to do or believe since the Holy Ghost alone is necessary.
While it is true the Holy Ghost can teach us all things (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13), the focus should be on how the Holy Ghost teaches truth. The Holy Ghost gives us personal revelation but predominantly speaks through one's church leaders, or in other words, the Holy Ghost speaks through the church:
Acts 1:2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen.
(b) Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
(c) Acts 16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.
(d) Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.
We can see that the Holy Ghost spoke via the church and his decision became a decree that the entire church had to adhere to. Apostles and prophets received guidance from the Holy Ghost (Eph 3:5) and in turn tell the members of the true church God's will.
Unity and chain of authority
Any true Christian will always submit to the decision of the Church via the appointed leaders who speak and act in the place of Jesus (Matt 10:40; Luke 10:16; John 13:20; Gal 4:14; 1 Th 2:13; 2 Ne 33:10-11; D&C 1:38; 21:4-5; 43:25; 84:36,89; 99:2) over his own opinion so that members of the true church must always be “in the same mind and in the same judgment” (John 17:20-23; Acts 1:14; 4:32; 15:25; Rom 12:16; 15:5-6; 1 Cor 1:10; 11:1-2; 2 Cor 13:11; Eph 4:5; Phil 1:27; 2:2; Col 3:15; Heb 2:11; 1 Pet 3:8; 1 John 1:7; 2 Ne 1:21; D&C 38:27). If the waters obey Moses' voice as if he was God himself (Moses 1:25) so should we obey our appointed leaders.
The members of the church need to be united with each other and have that unity centered upon our leaders, which will prevent us from being tossed by strange and diverse doctrines (Eph 4:11-16; Heb 15:9). We have to be orderly (Mosi 4:27). Bypassing the chain of authority causes one to be vulnerable to apostasy since, if Satan can transform himself into an angel of light, so can false ministers pretend they are ministers of righteousness (2 Cor 11:13-15). We must not presume to command those whom God placed in authority over us (D&C 28:6) but there are checks and balances (D&C 107:22-32, 82-84).
The leaders of the church are charged to watch over the members (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:1-4) and delegate various responsibilities to others by the laying on of hands (Acts 6:3,6; 1 Tim 4:14; 14:23; 2 Tim 1:16). They must be examples of their flock (1 Pet 5:3). The seriousness of the responsibility of church leaders causes them to receive a harsher judgment than regular members at the last day (Luke 19:46-47; Jas 3:1; Jac 1:19; 2:2). “Unto much is given; much is required,” (Luke 12:48) since they are not only responsible for their own salvation but for those placed in their care (Luke 17:1-2; D&C 72:3-4). We need to magnify our callings or else we won't get sanctified (D&C 84:33). If we don't magnify our callings, they and their attendant blessings will be given to someone else (D&C 114:2). Just because they are the appointed leaders doesn't give them the right to become arrogant and proud. Our church leaders are servants of Jesus and in fact are servants of their flocks (3 Ne 12:1). The servant isn't greater than his Lord, or the sent isn't greater than the One who sent him (John 15:20). Our church leaders need to be humble just as Jesus was humble who demonstrated his humility by washing the feet of his disciples (John 13:5-17) and they need to be servants of their flock (Matt 20:26-27; 23:11; D&C 50:26).
In order to acquire the gift of the Holy Ghost, one needs to receive it from legitimate possessors from the laying on of hands (Acts 8:12-19; 19:1-6) who were in a specific church hierarchy with centralized authority (Acts 15).
The incident with Sceva's seven sons (Acts 19:13-17) clearly demonstrates the importance of possessing legitimate authority since they believed in Jesus and Paul, but despite believing, the demon didn't recognize their authority over him.
How does one receive authentic authority?
Heb 5:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
No one can ordain himself. No one can get authority from God on his own initiative or will. One can only receive it if he's called of God just like Aaron. How did Aaron receive authority?
Ex 28:1,41 And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons ... And thou shall put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and shall anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office.
God spoke to the living prophet at the time, Moses, and told him to select Aaron and his sons as the high priests over the Israelites. After Moses told Aaron he and his sons were chosen by God, Moses then anointed and consecrated Aaron and his four sons.
According to Heb 5:4 no one can receive the priesthood authority unless he was chosen by God like Aaron.
John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
We can't appoint ourselves and neither are our appointments valid if they don't come from Jesus. Only Jesus can choose and ordain ministers for his church and the transference of authority grants those chosen to in turn, choose others (Num 27:18-23; Matt 10:1; 28:18-20; Mark 16:15).
For any Protestant minister today to have authentic authority, he must either have a current prophet tell him he's chosen by God to become a minister, and have that prophet anoint and consecrate him, or, he needs to possess a line of succession that traces his authority to such an occasion. Notice the pattern: God » his prophet » minister, who is called and ordained. Legitimacy and worthiness isn't the same thing. By strictly following the Bible, only the Catholics and Mormons have claims that are plausible.
The problem of Protestantism and especially Non-Denominationalism
Were the first-century Christians in a loose federation of believers or were they in a specific church body with a centralized hierarchy?
(1) 1 Cor 12:12-31 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are, one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing?If the whole were the hearing, where was the smelling? But not hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet show I unto you a more excellent way.
(2) Rom 12:4-5 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
1 Cor 12:12-31 and Rom 12:4-5 describes the true church as one body with different members or positions, some of which are apostles, prophets, and teachers. There shouldn't be any schism in the church. All of the members must adhere to common beliefs and practices (John 17:20-23; Acts 1:14; 4:32; 15:25; Rom 12:16; 15:5-6; 1 Cor 1:10; 11:1-2; 2 Cor 13:11; Eph 4:5; Phil 1:27; 2:2; Col 3:15; Heb 2:11; 1 Pet 3:8; 1 Jn 1:7) and love one another (John 13:34-35; D&C 42:45; 88:123) or else we aren't Christ's (D&C 38:27). Christ is the head of the church (Eph 1:22-23; 5:23; Col 1:18), with only one body. He is the only foundation of the gospel (1 Cor 3:11) and is also the chief corner stone of the church (Matt 21:42; Acts 4:11; Eph 2:19-20; 1 Pet 2:6-8) with us being joined together with Christ in a spiritual house offering spiritual sacrifices to God (1 Pet 2:4-5).
Do these biblical passages describe Protestantism, with its thousands of different sects, and multiplicity of interpretations and practices? Is the body of Christ schismatic and contradictory? Do they have unity of the faith? Is God the author of confusion? (1 Cor 14:33)
Let us examine the ancient church some more:
(3) Eph 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God.
The church is the vehicle for truth. It delivers the wisdom of God not only to us upon the earth but also to the principalities and powers in heaven. It has to have specific beliefs and practices instead of the confusion that is Protestantism.
(4) 1 Th 5:12-13 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves.
(5) Heb 13:7,17,24 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation … Obey them that have 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 ... Salute all them that have rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.
The ancient church had rulers over the members who give account of their performance to their superiors in the hierarchy.
(6) Jude 3-4,8,10-11 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ … Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignitaries … But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsayings of Core [Korah].
Jude is condemning certain members who fight against the first-century church's hierarchy with his specific reference to Korah who was guilty of such an offense (Num 16:1-40). How could Jude warn against those who oppose the early church's hierarchy, if Christ's church didn't possess a specific hierarchy? In fact, Korah was insisting that “all the congregation are holy” (Num 16:3) in arguing the Israelites didn't need a specific central hierarchy which is identical with Protestantism's “priesthood of all believers.” God will visit vengeance upon the disobedient (2 Th 1:8). God chose Moses to rule over the Israelites even if the people didn't recognize his authority (Acts 7:35).
(7) Matt 5:14-16 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Protestants argue there is a `visible' church and an `invisible' church to explain the indisputable fact that the only church that existed from the fourth to sixteenth centuries was in reality the Catholic Church (despite its division). The doctrines of Protestantism such as sola scriptura, sola fide, priesthood comprised of all believers, the Protestant Canon, etc. are absent in all the period before Martin Luther. Catholic apologists always use Matt 16:18 against the Protestants in arguing there's only one church, namely, theirs, since the church will never apostatize. Knowledgeable Protestants realize the historical evidence shows the existence of only Catholic practice, hierarchy and dogma and consequently came up with the idea that the Catholic Church was the `visible' church which became corrupted while True Christianity, namely, Protestantism, went underground from the second century and only re-emerged during the sixteenth century and was the `invisible' church.
However, this Protestant idea of visible and invisible church is untenable since the church is always describes as being visible in the nearly 120 times its mentioned in the Bible (but the separation between the heavenly portion and the earthly portion does have validity). A city that is set on a hill can't be hidden. The church (via its members) is to be the light of the world. How could its light shine before men, enabling people to see its good works and glorify God as a result, if it's invisible? How can others glorify God if Christ was only referring to individuals? He had to be referring to the church.
(8) Matt 10:40/Luke 10:16/John 13:20 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. / He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me./ Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that receiveth whosoever I will send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
(9) Gal 4:14 And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
(10) 1 Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
Legitimate representatives of the Savior speak and act in the place of Jesus Christ. “Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (D&C 1:38). Refusal to submit to them is refusal to submit to Christ since they act and speak in his place. Those who dispute his authority will be destroyed (Luke 19:14,27; 3 Ne 28:34). Could ministers who teach contradictory doctrines all speak for Jesus? If so, Christ is contradictory. Can a church divided by itself be Christ's? (Matt 12:24-30; Mark 3:22-26; Luke 11:15-20). Could Protestantism be Christ's church?
(11) Matt 16:19/18:18 And I will give unto thee [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. / Verily I say unto you [his disciples], Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The teaching authority and sealing power Christ possessed (Mark 1:22; Rev 3:7) that he gave to the church (Hela 10:7; D&C 1:8-9; 128:9; 132:43-46 [the sealing power's scope is quite interesting]) is astonishingly powerful. It not only gives a life-long influence, but also gives an eternal one. Could this power be entrusted to anyone who simply believes? Since evil spirits believe in Christ (Luke 4:33-37,41; Acts 19:15; Jas 2:19) are they also given this power? Of course not. The sealing power Christ entrusted to his disciples was not meant for everyone.
(12) John 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
(13) 2 Cor 2:10 To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also: for if I forgive anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ.
(14) 2 Cor 5:18-20 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given unto us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
The power to forgive sins was also entrusted by Jesus Christ to the church. He gave his representatives power to forgive men's sins. Could this authority be entrusted to anyone who simply believes?
God is ultimately the only one who can forgive sins but those to whom the injury occurs has the right to forgive the offender. For example, if I sinned about my neighbor, to whom must I seek forgiveness?
1) God. Because I broke his law.
2) My neighbor. Because I injured him.
3) Church. Because I broke the moral law of the church and acted in a manner unbecoming a member.
Who can forgive me?
1) God can forgive me.
2) My neighbor can forgive me.
3) The church can forgive me.
Why? Because all three suffered injury because of my actions. Admittedly, the power of forgiveness entrusted to the church has greater consequences than the forgiveness I can receive from my neighbor because God gave the church the authority to act in his name while my neighbor didn't receive such a personal endowment.
(15) 1 Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, our pillar and ground of the truth.
If the house of God is the church, anyone outside the true church is outside God's house. In addition, the church is the pillar and ground of truth. Is faith alone then all that's needed for truth? Definitely not. Being a member of the true church is vitally important.
(16) 2 Pet 1:20/3:15-16 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. / And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; And also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
The Scriptures can't be interpreted privately. Who then is authorized to interpret them for us? Who will tell us what particular passages mean since the Scriptures aren't self-interpreting? How did the first-century church interpret the Scriptures? They had living prophets and apostles who knew the will of God and they taught others who in turn, taught the remaining Christians (2 Tim 2:2), just as Philip possessed the authority to teach the correct interpretation of Isaiah to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:28-39). In other words, the church was the only one who could interpret the Scriptures. Peter pointed out how easy it is to misinterpret the Scriptures, especially Paul's writings, by going the personal route. The absence of living prophets and apostles, explains the confusion present in Protestantism.
(17) 1 Cor 5:1-13 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in the body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that has so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no one to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
The church enforces discipline and excommunicates evil-doers (Matt 18:15-17; Gal 5:12; 2 Th 3:6,14-15; Alma 6:3; 3 Ne 18:31; D&C 42:28). Would that fornicating member have equal authority with the church and Paul? Did Paul act superior to the fornicating member? Does his order to the Corinthian church imply the church isn't superior to the offending member? Of course not. Even if this offending member had faith in Christ, his faith is still subservient to the authority of the church.
By now it should be obvious that the N.T. church had a centralized hierarchy which was the source of authority for the early Christians and the Protestant idea that faith is all that is needed for authority is a false concept. Jesus created a church. It was a denomination with numerous branches with all the members adhering to common beliefs and central authority.
Can the Bible give authority?
(b) The second claim of authority the Protestants make is they say the Bible gave them their authority and is part of their sola scriptura (Bible alone) doctrine.
An obvious problem is the absence of any passage in the entire Bible that says the Bible is all mankind needs for salvation (the sola scriptura theory is examined thoroughly in MORMONISM. Volume 5, Section 13). An additional problem is the finalization of the Bible didn't take place until three and a half centuries after Christ's resurrection. The leaders of the church never relied solely on the Scriptures during the church council mentioned in Acts 15-16.
The problem of the Protestants can be summed up as:
If there wasn't an apostasy and the true church has always continued since its inception in the first century, then the only possible true church is the Catholic Church because the Protestant churches didn't exist until the sixteenth century. There is no trace of purely Protestant doctrines or organizations in the thirteenth, eleventh, ninth or fourth century. This absence is a devastating blow to any claim of authority by Protestant churches if they deny the Apostasy. On the other hand, if there was an Apostasy, how is it possible for a Reformation to bring back the Original Church? Christ founded his church upon the apostles and prophets. Upon men. He gave authority to men to build the church, (Mark 3:14; 16:15-16; John 15:16; 20:21; Heb 5:1-6) never to a book or group of books (the Bible), which did not even exist for over two hundred years after the church, was organized. Because of this, it is not possible for an individual or group to reorganize the true church from reading a book. The Bible can never, ever restore the true church. Neither can men on their own initiative restore the true church (Dan 2:44-45; John 15:16; Heb 5:4; 3 Ne 11:21-27; D&C 27:12; 42:11; 65:2; A of F 5). Only God can do that by appointing chosen men with the priesthood authority.
There is absolutely no proof the Bible gives authority to anyone but goes directly against the numerous biblical passages which shows the church and church leaders as being the sole repository of authority for the first-century Christians.
No matter how good the arguments of the Protestants are against the Catholic Church (in reality, they're not very good), the authority issue coupled with the falsity of sola scriptura is the Achilles heel of Protestantism.
This problem caused Roger Williams (1603-1683) to abandon the very church he created in 1639. He freely acknowledged that the church he created didn't have the authority from God to be the true church. He realized that an Apostasy occurred and because of the Bible, knew that the only way for the true church to be restored was for God choosing new apostles and prophets. Roger Williams created a group (the Seekers) that looked forward to the restoration of the true church. What was the original church he started? It was the founding Baptist Church in North America. All other Baptist Churches in the U.S. came from it.1 This raises an interesting question,
How can present-day Baptists claim to be the true church when their founder, Roger Williams, abandoned the very church he created, saying it wasn't the true church because he didn't receive any authority from God to restore the true church?
This lack of authority is why a lot of intelligent Protestants are abandoning their religions and converting to the Catholic Church despite being initially unable to accept certain Catholic doctrines. They force themselves to accept these doctrines because they feel they do not have a choice because of the strength of the Catholic position due to history. One of the greatest Christian thinkers of the nineteenth century, John Henry Newman (1801-1890) abandoned Anglicanism and became a Roman Catholic because of this obvious weakness of Protestantism.2 It is obvious that he wasn't aware of the teachings of Mormonism because if he did, I believe it unlikely that he would so readily become a Roman Catholic because the existence of another possibility for authentic authority.
The real issue is modification vs. absence. The Catholic claim of the indefectibility of the church is used as the basis for the continuance of legitimacy despite modification. No matter how they change the rituals or beliefs, the church will still be true because of Matt 16:18. To change or modify the church doesn't make it a completely different church especially if the ordination of succession and the central tenets remain the same. On the other hand, if the true church in the first century was Protestantism and the gates of hell will never prevail against it, why don't we find its existence from the fourth to fifteenth centuries? Why don't we find an unbroken existence of any group of believers subscribing to Protestant thought?
There can only be two choices
How does the Mormon position stand in comparison to the Catholic and Protestant? We have always stated there was an Apostasy (original tree became corrupted) and restoration (not a branch but a new tree) and the authority was given by the presidency of the Original Twelve Apostles, Peter, James and John, to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in 1829 by the Susquehanna River between Harmony and Colesville (D&C 128:20),3 under orders from God. Since baptism is necessary for acceptance, both Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery baptized one another after receiving the authority to do so from John the Baptist himself.
Out of all the Christian churches, it is only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that has a claim that can rival the Catholic Church. This should give pause to all (especially Catholics) who are aware of the argument of authority.
It is remarkably easy to determine if a church has a valid claim to authority. This is as easy as finding out who started the particular church and asking how he or she received their authority to restore the true church. One must inquire who baptized the founder into the true church and where did the baptizer receive his authority to baptize since baptism is the basis for admission into the true church? The founder must also present a claim of inheriting his authority for the establishment of the true church from an individual to whom Christ gave authority to, such as Peter.
Sure, there are many churches that claim to be the true church; but how many of them possess a claim that fulfills the requirements for authority laid out in the Bible (Heb 5:4; Ex 28:1,41) aside from the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Whether the Apostasy took place or not, Protestantism doesn't stand a chance against the Catholic Church on the basis of authority (a lot of Protestant scholars are reluctantly accepting this bitter truth).4
The final choice can only be between the Catholic Church (Eastern Orthodoxy in particular) and the Mormon Church. If there wasn't an Apostasy, the Catholic Church can be the only true church. However, if there was an Apostasy, the only possibility for the true church is the Mormon Church (based upon the fact we seem to be the only church with a credible claim that satisfies biblical conditions).
It is unquestionably astonishing to scholars who are aware of the authority issue that the Mormon Church can actually present an alternative to the Catholic Church as being the true church. This warrants two things for Christian scholars: They need to examine the actuality of the Apostasy or the perpetuity of the church on the earth without interruption based upon the Bible and authentic early Christian documents and they need to examine the claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints honestly and in depth.
The Catholic choice is comprised of two sides: If there is no evidence that the original Christian Church fell into Apostasy during the latter half of the first century, and it continued to exist intact under the leadership of the bishop of Rome who inherited (and was recognized by the other bishops) all the keys and authority of Peter over the entire Christian body, and this succession was continued without interruption down to the present day in the person of the current pope, then the only true church without question is the Roman Catholic Church.
If there wasn't an Apostasy in the first century and the Christian church continued as the Major Sees holding equal authority with the See of Rome only possessing primacy and not a monarchical authority over all of Christianity, then the only possible true church will be the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
However, if the original church completely apostatized after the death of the apostles, regardless of the bishop of Rome being recognized or not being recognized as possessing the keys and authority over the entire Christian body from Peter, then the only possibility of the true church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since we are the only ones with claims from the very beginning that satisfies biblical conditions.
Concurrent with such examinations, might I suggest the final and indisputable proof for the true church? It is prayer. Ask Heavenly Father if the Book of Mormon is true. If it is, then the Mormon Church is true but if it not, then the Catholic Church is the true church.5
Catholic apologists like to quote John Henry Newman who said,
“The knowledge of history is the death of Protestantism.”6
I agree, but I can honestly say,
“The understanding of history is the vindication of Mormonism.”
[ENDNOTES]:
1.ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA Vol 26 p.250 & Vol 12 pp. 680-681.
2.ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA Vol 8, pp.657-658.
3.The exact date for the bestowal of the Melchizedek Priesthood is unknown but was definitely received before Aug of 1830 since a revelation was received during that time mentioning the endowment of the Priesthood (D&C 27:12).
4.Eastern Orthodoxy is another matter. Their claim of authority has greater validity than the Roman Catholic Church but they maintain the Bishop of Rome as having the primacy in rank over Christianity in accordance with the decrees of the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon. However, they reject the notion of divine right for Rome's primacy or the Roman claim of a monarchical superiority of the bishop of Rome. Neither do they possess nor ever claimed any documents that are comparable to the Roman Catholic claim of the bishop of Rome inheriting the authority of Peter over the entire Christian body. Their claim of authority comes from the antiquity of their Patriarchal Succession, which never claimed supremacy over all of Christendom.
When comparing Roman Catholicism with Eastern Orthodoxy, an honest examination of history shows that Eastern Orthodoxy did not deserve to be labeled as “Separated Churches” which implies that they were the ones who left the true fold. The one who strayed from the orthodox Catholic faith weren't the Greek Catholics; it was the Roman Catholics! It was due to two things; the Roman insistence of the filioque addition to the Nicene Creed in direct opposition to Pope Leo the Great's condemnation of any tampering with the canons of the Nicene Council (St. Leo's 106th Epistle. 4. To Anatolius on May 22, 452). The pertinent phrase in the Nicene Creed says,
“And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and giver of life who proceeded from the Father” (and the Son).
The Roman Catholics added “and the Son” to this creed which in Latin is filioque. The filioque concept started in Spain in the seventh century and spread all over the West despite opposition from the bishops of Rome (Labbe & Cossart. The Councils. Book 7, Col. 1194). Eventually the popes approved it in the early eleventh century. The western churches often accused the East of deleting the filioque from the Creed when in fact; the West was the innovator. Humorously, one of the stated reasons for the excommunication of the eastern churches by the pope was because “the Greeks had omitted the filioque from the Creed!” THE CHURCH (Jay). pp.143-145.
“The filioque was first inserted in Spain [the Councils of Toledo in 400,589,653,681] … But this was at first only true of Spain, and at Rome nothing of the kind was known. In the Gelasian Sacramentary the Creed is found in its original form [Muratorius. Ord. Rom. Tom I. Col.541]. The same is the case with the old Gallican Sacramentary of the seventh and eighth century [Mabillon. Mus. Ital. Tom I. p.313 & p.376].
However, there can be no doubt that its introduction spread very rapidly through the West and that before long it was received practically everywhere except Rome.
In 809 a Council was held at Aix-la-Chapelle by Charlemagne, and from it three Divines were sent to confer with the Pope, Leo III, upon the subject. The Pope opposed the insertion of the filioque on the express ground that the General Councils had forbidden any addition to be made to their formulary [Labbe & Cossart. Concilia. Tom VIJ.,Col.1194.] …
So firmly resolved was the Pope that the clause (filioque) should not be introduced into the Creed that he presented two silver shields to the Confessio in St. Peter's at Rome, on one of which was engraved the Creed in Latin and on the other in Greek, without the addition. This act the Greeks never forgot during the controversy. Photius refers to it in writing to the Patriarch of Acquileia. About two centuries later St. Peter Damian [Pet. Damian. Opusc. XXXVIIJ] mentions them as still in place; and about two centuries later on, Veccur, Patriarch of Constantinople, declares they hung there still [Leo Allat. Greek Orthod. Tom I, p.173].
It wasn't until 1014 that for the first time the interpolated Creed was used at mass with the sanction of the Pope. In that year, Benedict VIII acceded to the urgent request of Henry II of Germany and so the papal authority was forced to yield, and the silver shields have disappeared from St. Peter's.” THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series (Schaff & Wace). 14:166-167. See also THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.301.
The main reason for the split was the Roman insistence that the bishop of Rome inherited a divine right to be the supreme head of Catholicism despite the absence of any biblical, historical or councillar evidence.
As it stands right now, Roman Catholicism can't compare with Eastern Orthodoxy on the basis of authority. Its only advantage is its size and influence and the decimation the Eastern Churches suffered, first at the hands of the Moslems, and most recently, at the hands of the communists. If the Eastern Churches will merge once more with the Roman Catholics and accept papal supremacy, they will lose their strongest weapon of being the true faith.
Because of the loyalty of the Eastern Orthodox Churches to the historical traditions of Catholicism, (HOLY FIRE. [Payne] xiv) if there wasn't an Apostasy, the only possible true church will be the Eastern Orthodox Churches and not the Roman Catholic Church because the See of Rome abandoned original Catholic thought, wherein the five major Sees possessed equal authority with Rome only holding primacy - not because of divine will but due to historical influence and to honor the deaths of Peter and Paul.
5.After studying this topic, I have come to the conclusion that even if the Mormon Church is false, I could never return to the Roman Catholic Church because it doesn't stand a chance of being the true church because of its weakness due to authority. If our church is false, and the apostasy never occurred, it is only the Eastern Orthodox Churches that have the possibility of being the true church provided they do not abandon the ancient Catholic tradition of the equality of their patriarchs without being in subjection to the bishop of Rome. If Christ is not the Messiah, I will become a Jew.
Fortunately for me, I really know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true church. Consequently, I am not worried about the validity of my membership with the Lord, or of the status of Jesus because of the Holy Spirit's witness.
6.Another version has him saying, “To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant.”
