Say ‘If God had willed I would not have recited it to you nor would He have made it known to you nor would He have made you aware of it the lā of wa-lā adrākum is for negation and is a supplement to what preceded; a variant reading has the lām sc. la-adrākum ‘He would have made it known to you’ as the response to the conditional law ‘if’ in other words He would have made it known to you by the tongue of someone other than myself. For I have already dwelt among you a whole lifetime of forty years before this Qur’ān not relating to you anything of the sort so will you not understand?’ that this Qur’ān is not from myself?
Mormons, Muslims, and most Protestant groups all have the same fundamental contention. While the details change depending upon the group, they all believe that the Early Church got things wrong, and pretty dramatically wrong at that…
I would suggest that’s a very problematic position to hold. One has to contend that the Apostles were terrible teachers and failed in their mission. Jesus effectively abandoned His Church until either Muhammad, Luther, Calvin, Joseph Smith, or some other figure came along to set things right centuries later.
As an aside, Atheism is a bold position for someone to hold as it necessarily asserts that everyone throughout history who claimed any kind of religious experience was fundamentally mistaken. I would suggest that many groups make a similarly bold claim, that most Christians throughout history have been fundamentally mistaken on core doctrines.
If one claims the Early Church was in deep error, cherry-picking inevitably results. For example, Baptismal Regeneration is universally believed in the Early Church. Yet, many Protestants reject this entirely, but basing this on the New Testament canon discerned by those who held to Baptismal Regeneration! They reject Apostolic Succession, but accept the Trinitarian doctrine which was developed by those who led the Church through Apostolic succession! Many other examples could be given.
Responses
I said this in a recent discussion online and my friend said:
“Yeah, it seems to me that heresies developed fairly quickly…”
Unfortunately, this is just another way to say that Jesus and the Apostles failed, that the long-awaited Messiah’s message was radically corrupted even within the lifetime of the Apostles, and long before the canon of the Bible was settled. Contrary to Biblical prophecy and the words of Jesus, the Kingdom doesn’t even get out of the gate. My friend went on to say:
“That’s an argument from silence, at best.”
Actually, *his* position is the argument from silence, positing that the Church was completely usurped without any “true believer” offering the slightest resistance.
Mormons claim the Early Church were Mormon, yet we find no proto-Mormons in the Early Church and nobody in the “official” Church wrote against a heresy which looked anything like Mormonism. The same is true for Islam. In contrast, we know about Docetism, Gnosticism, Modalism etc. because they offered a significant enough challenge to the Church that Her apologists wrote works against them. Do we find anyone in the Early Church writing against how you understand the Faith? If not, why not?
> “But I don’t say they weren’t “real Christians.” They may have simply been “confused real Christians.” After all, they had a lot of theology to sort out. There was a lot of confusion.””
This seems rather like having your cake and eating it. According to you, the earliest Christians seem to have completely misunderstood even the basic mechanics of salvation. So, either these are grave heresies, or not a big deal. Which is it?
