In 2015 I had the privilege of flying to Israel and touring the holy land with a group of about 40 pastors. The whole trip was overwhelming to me. To be able to see ancient sites and cities with my own eyes that I had read about in the Bible was an experience that I will never forget. One thing that really stuck out to me as the tour went on was just how much Jesus used the imagery of the landscape to drive home the point of the particular sermon that He was preaching. It’s amazing that even 2,000 years after Christ walked the earth we can still see and understand exactly why Christ preached a particular sermon in a particular place. This is especially true of the ancient ruins in Cesarea Phillipi (Banias).
Cesarea Phillipi is located in Northern Israel at the foot of Mt. Hermon. In Jesus’ day, this area was devoted to the worship of several Greek gods. On this one hillside was the Temple of Zeus, the court of Pan and the Nymphs, the Nemesis Courtyard, and the Temple Tomb of the Goats. All of these pagan worship sites were bastions of unspeakable debauchery, such as child sacrifice. However, one of the most notable features in Cesarea Phillippi was a cave-like opening appearing in the shape of a giant gate that had been carved into the side of the mountain. This “gate” was located right next to where these temples stood. It was said that the god, Pan, had access to go back and forth from the netherworld to these temples and the nearby town through this gate. By now the reader might have already guessed that this portal is known as the gates of hell (hades). It was in this location that Christ made His famous statement, “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.” (Matthew 16:18)
This is one of the more debated verses of Scripture. There have been quite a few heresies and false teachings that have been spawned by ripping this verse from its context. I think one of the main reasons for the confusion is that we read this text through Western eyes, whereas Jesus was referencing a real place in real-time. When Christ made this statement, He was most likely standing on a hillside overlooking the site of the gates of hell and these pagan temples. He could not have pointed to one without pointing to the others. Christ used this opportunity to point to these pagan temples and say, “Upon this rock will I build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” We know that the gates of hell refer to a real place carved into the side of Mt. Hermon. We have no reason to believe that the “rock” that Jesus is referring to in the same sentence is anything other than the mountain where these pagan temples were located. The rhetorical language was both powerful and clear; Christ and His church would triumph over all of these false gods and their temples.
What a powerful statement concerning the church of Christ! The language that Christ uses presents the idea of the church triumphantly charging the gates of hell (for gates are built for defense, not offense). But this statement from Christ goes far beyond just those false gods of the Greeks. Satan is ultimately the one behind all false religion and debauchery. According to Christ, neither Satan, sin, false religion, persecution, death, or even the forces of hell shall be able to stand against the church! I can’t even begin to describe what a powerful moment it was for me to stand on that hillside with those pastors. The gates of hell are still just as visible today as they were in Jesus’ day, but the temples and shrines are all in ruins. The church is still marching triumphantly through this world, even though those pagan temples have been destroyed! The Gates of Hell, Cesarea Phillipi (Banias)
How can we square what Jesus said about the church triumphantly charging the gates of hell with what Joseph Smith said in his first vision about the abomination and loss of the church on the earth? Christ says in no uncertain terms that the gates of hell won’t stand against my church. Joseph Smith essentially said that in fact, the gates of hell did prevail over Christ’s church. My argument is that what Christ said and what Joseph said can’t be reconciled. Either Jesus or Joseph was lying (spoiler alert; it wasn’t Jesus). I can’t overemphasize the importance of this issue, considering that the foundation of Mormonism is in the two central elements of Smith’s first vision, which are the great apostasy of the church and the need for restoration. This raises some key questions that must be answered. What exactly is the great apostasy? What did the church lose that needed to be restored? What is the church for that matter? The answers to these questions are the hinges upon which the door of truth swings concerning the claims of the first vision. This issue is so vital that in the preface to the 1993 printing of The Great Apostasy by Elder James Talmage, the publishers stated;
“If there had not been a general falling away or apostasy from the faith of the original primitive Christian church, then theoretically, there would be no need for Mormonism as a distinct religious faith today. Mormonism’s very existence, therefore, is dependent on the belief that there was an apostasy from primitive Christianity.”
Talmage also stated in his original 1909 preface;
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims the restoration of the Gospel, and the re-establishment of the Church as of old, in this, the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. Such restoration and re-establishment, with the modern bestowal of the Holy Priesthood, would be unnecessary and indeed impossible had the Church of Christ continued among men with unbroken succession of Priesthood and power, since the meridian of time.”
I will be citing Talmage a lot in this chapter because he has written so extensively on the subject of the great apostasy. In his preface, Talmage has already given me a wonderful deductive argument to work with. It goes like this; Joseph Smith claimed the church was lost due to the great apostasy and needed to be restored. The church was never lost. Therefore, Mormonism is a sham. This is the central thesis of this chapter as I attempt to answer Smith’s claims.
The Church Defined
Before I charge the gate of whether or not the church was lost, it just makes sense to define what the church is. The word “church” comes from the Greek word ekklēsia, which means the called out ones, or the called out assembly. Mounce writes;
“The church is the called out ones of God…Paul never thinks of the church as a physical structure but as a dedicated group of disciples of Jesus Christ (Phlm 2, Col. 4:15), whom he has purchased with his own blood (Rev. 5:9). The Apostle sees the church as a new race, which he lists it alongside Jew and Greeks in I Cor. 10:32; it is sufficiently equipped with leadership and gifts to fulfill God’s purposes on earth (12:28); and it is the avenue through which the wisdom of God is made known.”
There are two main aspects of the New Testament church, the personal aspect and the local aspect. On a personal level, those who have been saved by grace through faith in Christ are the church. On the day of Pentecost following the ascension of Christ, when the New Testament church was officially born, the Scripture says, “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:47). I Corinthians 12:12-13 says, “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.” The Baptism of the Spirit is a one-time event in the life of a Christian that takes place the moment that a person puts their faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:13). So on a personal level, the church of Christ is the saved in Christ. As Christians, we are the body of Christ. In this sense, the church isn’t so much an organization as it is an organism. We are to be the hands, feet, mouth, and heart of Christ upon the earth (I Corinthians 12). Nobody outside of Christ belongs to His church, and nobody in Christ is outside of His church.
This concept is sometimes called the invisible church. This term makes me nervous because of the way that some people abuse it. I have asked certain people in the past where their home church is, to which they replied, “I don’t go to church, I am the church. I belong to the invisible church.” The problem with this kind of mentality is that it often leads to invisible church attendance, invisible giving, invisible worship, invisible effort, invisible evangelism, etc. The Lord never meant for it to be this way. This brings us to our next point, the importance of the local aspect of the church.
The local church can be defined as a local body of believers, whose members have been saved, baptized, have qualified leaders (bishops and deacons, I Timothy 3), under the authority of God’s Word (II Timothy 3:14-4:4), with the power to enact church discipline (Matthew 5:18-20) and charity (I Timothy 5:3-9), for the purpose of glorifying Christ, making disciples and fulfilling the great commission (Matthew 28:19). Nowhere in the New Testament do we find a prescriptive form of church government in which there is a hierarchy of leadership outside of the local church. The early churches were autonomous. This local, autonomous aspect of the church is seen throughout the New Testament. Many times the local aspect is seen in lock-step with the personal aspect. For example, when Paul was writing to the church at Corinth, he opened his epistle by writing, “Unto the church of God (personal) which is at Corinth (local), to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours” (I Corinthians 1:2, emphasis mine). “And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church (personal) in thy house (local).” (Philemon 1:2, emphasis mine). “Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians (local) which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ (personal): Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (I Thessalonians 1:1, emphasis mine).
This certainly hasn’t been an exhaustive study of the church. However, understanding and recognizing these categories of personal and local aspects of the church really changes the game. Let’s discuss the possibilities these two categories bring to the table. First, it means that it is possible for someone to be a member of a local church and not even be saved. They could just be playing the game and looking the part. Church membership alone doesn’t make someone a Christian. Many people have died and gone to hell with their names on a church roll, and in good standing.
Another possibility is that an organization that claims to be a church, isn't a church at all in the eyes of God, or according to biblical principles. They might not have qualified church leadership. They might not be operating under the authority of the Word of God. Just because a group or organization claims to be a church doesn’t mean they belong to Christ. Jesus commanded John to write to the church at Ephesus with a warning that He would remove their candlestick if they didn’t repent. Christ also commanded John to write to the church of the Laodiceans. In that letter, Christ used rhetorical language to show that this lukewarm church had essentially locked Christ outside the doors of His own church. What this means is that a so-called church can be operating without Christ being within a hundred miles of what they are doing. Like a chicken with its head cut off, there may be some movement, but it’s separated from the head. Sadly, there are also “churches” out there that are operating under the power of Satan in order to deceive (II Corinthians 11:13-15). This means that certain local churches can become apostate, but the church can still march on triumphantly.
Before moving on, let’s talk about one of the chief problems that the personal and local aspects of the church present to the idea of a great apostasy as taught by the LDS church. For the great apostasy to have occurred as Joseph Smith taught, the earth would have to be completely void of any Christians or good local churches. Would any of my LDS friends be willing to say that out loud? Does anybody actually believe that when Joseph Smith showed up on the scene in the 1800s that all Christians and good local churches were extinct? Make no mistake about it, this is what the LDS church has historically taught. Elder Talmage wrote;
“It is evident that the Church was literally driven from the earth; in the first ten centuries immediately following the ministry of Christ the authority of the Holy Priesthood was lost from among men, and no human power could restore it.”
I can hear my LDS friends screaming, “But the Bible talks about a great apostasy!” Yes, it does. But what does that mean? Let’s take a look at what the Bible teaches about apostasy, what it is, and what it isn’t. In an incredible twist of irony, the Bible actually exposes groups like the LDS church as being a part of this apostasy, and not the solution to it.
More to come...
Notes
1. I understand that the phrase “this rock” is somewhat ambiguous. Christ was clearly pointing at something and we weren’t there to see what it was. I recognize that the “rock” could be Christ as He is the cornerstone of the church. It could also be Peter and the Apostles as they were foundational to the church (as the living stones in I Peter 2:4, not as Peter being the pope). These interpretations are faithful to the whole of Scripture. Regardless of the exact interpretation, the outcome is the same, a glorious and triumphant church.
2. 1993 preface of The Great Apostasy by James E. Talmage (Seagull Books, Salt Lake City, Utah)
3. James Talmage, The Great Apostasy (original preface, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1909)
4. William D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan Academic, 2009)
5. Bishop, pastor, and elder speak of different aspects of the same office. Bishop means overseer. Pastor means shepherd. Elder carries the idea of a seasoned teacher. Therefore, these are not different offices.
6. James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith (Deseret Book, Salt Lake City, UT, 1984 reprint) 185.
No comments:
Post a Comment