Great Apostasy Questions
A while back, I produced a post in which I listed some Canon Questions, some specific questions I ask when talking to non-Catholics about the Table of Contents found in their Bible. Following my post concerning my recent encounter with a Jehovah’s Witness, I’ve decided to do another post similar to my Canon Questions, but this time concerning the “Great Apostasy”, the belief that that the Church effectively disappeared from the earth some time after Christ’s death.
Groups like the Mormons hold to the Great Apostasy and use this as an explanation for the significant differences between their doctrine and the doctrine of historic Christianity. Muslims hold to this narrative too, to justify the teachings of Muhammad which stand in stark contradiction to the New Testament. Additionally, most Protestant groups, while typically not holding such a radical version of this doctrine, usually hold to some variation of it, saying that somewhere along the line the Church went off-track in a rather major way.
So, when encountering people who hold to this belief, these are the questions I typically ask to guide the conversation:
1. When do you believe the Great Apostasy happened?
It’s important to establish the point at which the person believes the Church really went off track. I typically find many people who hold to the Great Apostasy are extremely fuzzy as to when it actually happened. I always push them for a dat, or at least a Century.
2. Have you read the writings of the Christians from the First Century? The Didache, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, … Do you think they reflect your group’s teaching?
It is good to ask whether the person asserting the Great Apostasy has read any of the Christian works of the 1st and 2nd Century. If they place the Great Apostasy after this date, then these writings should be examined to see what Christians believed. If they place the Great Apostasy before this date, then it means that the Church was already lost possibly even prior to the death of the last Apostle!
3. Can an apostate Church select the canon? Can an apostate Church be trusted to safely preserve the Scriptural manuscripts?
I would suggest that most people who assert the Great Apostasy say that it happened in the first few centuries. This puts them in a rather awkward position since the question of the canon didn’t really get addressed until the Third Century.
4. Can an apostate Church be trusted to safely preserve the Scriptural manuscripts through the centuries?
How can you friend trust the contents of his Bible if the Bible was in the custody of an apostate Church for over a millennia until his own group appeared?
5. Why do you think God allow the long-awaited Messiah to come, but for His message to be utterly lost within one/two generations? Were the apostles really such terrible teachers?
This question begs incredulity. What’s the point in Jesus establishing a Church that could so easily be completely lost? It doesn’t speak much for the providence and sovereignty of God…
6. How has your group managed to preserve the truth when the Church established by Christ failed so quickly?
All those who assert the Great Apostasy typically claim that they have the truth. If this is the case, what makes their group so special? Why has God preserved them and not the original Church? What was it about the Early Church that gave rise to the Great Apostasy? Why is your friend’s group immune to this?
If you ask these questions, hopefully it’ll really test your friend’s claims of a Great Apostasy. Do you disagree? Do you think you can answer these questions? If so, please answer them in the comments!
It is a great article. Thank you. My Protestant friends answer: “The Bible is perfect, God left the infallible Bible 2 Tim 3:16” and it seems impossible to reason any further.
Thanks 🙂
If it was me, I’d ask a few questions about that statement:
1. You’ve quoted Second Timothy to prove a statement about Scripture…but how do you know that Second Timothy is Scripture?
2. What do you mean by “the infallible Bible”? The Catholic Bible which would include the Deuterocanon? My guess is that you’re only referring to the smaller 66-book canon. What is the basis of your selection? Do you think you could answer these Canon Questions?
I am not sure how that verse proves the Protestant view. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” To me, as a Catholic, this leads me to ask, who it is then that can use Scripture to teach, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness?
Of course, St. Paul Answers that when he speaks about the Church in 1 Timothy 3:15. He calls the Church of God “the pillar and ground of Truth.” How can the pillar and ground of the Truth fall away? It can’t of course, as Jesus himself says in the Gospel.
Also, it is interesting of note that if read St. Paul text in full (and not separating verse 16) it reads:
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” 2 Tim 3:16-17
Which of course clearly demonstrates that the Scripture does not condemn good works but encourages us to preform them, which of course is the Catholic view and not the justification by faith alone view of Protestants.
Of course, I missed some grammatical errors and I can’t figure out how to edit my comment. Forgive me.
You can’t edit them once you’ve posted them. However, if you post another comment with the grammar corrected, I’ll delete the others.
My belief is that the catholic church as it is now made mistakes on places the Scripture isn’t exactly clear. I don’t hold to a great Apostasy, but rather that the scripture allows multiple views where you only allow one. For example, the Catholic teaching on Mary. It’s not clear in Scripture that she remained a virgin. Id argue there’s pretty clear evidence against it.. You state emphatically that she did. One has to be true, but this is a place for discussion. A large portion of Catholic teaching I disagree with came about the time of the Holy Roman Empire, long after Jesus was gone and when the early protestants split, from my attempt at dating. I actively study the early Christians and I don’t see specific teachings on my disagreements. I include the deuterocanonical and some fully apocryphal books in study. The general Protestant view on the deuterocanonical books that know they exist, very few Protestants do, is that because they weren’t explicitly mentioned by the apostles, we can’t say for certain they are Canon. However, we do recognize them as more important than the apocryphal because the early church saw fit to include them, if we follow Catholic tradition
If Scripture isn’t clear in these places, from where do you get the clarity/authority to know that the Catholic Church has misunderstood them?
You may allow “multiple views”, but you surely believe that one of the positions has to be wrong, yes? The only difference is that you think the Catholic position is incorrect. If so, how is your position on Scripture any different?
I’d be interested to see what you think is pretty clear evidence against the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary, since the Early Church held to that belief. The usual arguments given against it are the use of “until” in Matthew’s Gospel and the references to Jesus’ brethren. These passages were not foreign to the Early Church and do not destroy the doctrine of perpetual virginity.
The term “Holy Roman Empire” is a bit amorphous. Do you mean from the time of Charlemagne in 8th Century? If so, who were these “early protestants”, even prior to the Great Schism?
Or do you mean when Christianity took over the Roman Empire?
Regardless, if what you say is true, can you affirm all of <a href="these pre-Constantinian beliefs?
Including them “in study” and affirming them as Sacred Scripture are not the same thing. Do you follow the Maccabean (and Early Church) example of praying for the dead?
This is a very inconsistent argument. Firstly, it puts the cart before the horse, namely, you need a New Testament canon to be settled first and this requires an authoritative Church. Secondly, who made it the standard that the Old Testament books must be quoted in the New Testament in order to be considered canonical? Thirdly, although there aren’t explicit quotations of the Deuterocanon, the allusions to texts and events described therein are legion (e.g. Hebrews 11:32-35 refers to 2 Maccabees 6:18-7:42). Fourthly, the Deuterocanon contains probably the best prophecy of the crucifixion. Fifthly, the standard proves too much, since Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon are not quoted in the New Testament.