� David Miller wrote:
> DDAVEH: > > You seem intent on limiting "Scriptures" as being only > > what is found in the Bible. Yet above you suggested > > "This is not to say that another book might not also be > > considered Scripture." If you really believe such, then > > why would you not think it possible that there is more > > of the Lord's will that may be revealed elsewhere than > > the Bible? Doesn't that imply that the Bible may lack > > some important information? > > I think it is possible that more of the Lord's will is revealed elsewhere > than the Bible.� It is possible that Scriptures of the past that are now > lost might yet be discovered.� However, I doubt that even they would be > added to the present canon of Scripture. DAVEH:� Then that brings up an interesting situation, DavidM.� If the Lord revealed 'Scriptures' in the past that have yet to be discovered, then why would they not be added to what is perceived as the "Word of God"?� A decision to 'reject' Scripture would surely be an arbitrary decision, wouldn't it?� And would it not be detrimental to those who desire to know as much about the nature of God and his will for us?� Why would there be reluctance to canonize Scripture that is known to be from the Lord??? > Note that I think more of the Lord's will is revealed in other writings, but > I don't consider them Scripture. DAVEH:� I would have to ask how you define 'Scripture' then.� It seems as though we may have discussed this previously, but I don't recall you commenting. > Scripture holds a special place of authority, as that collection of writings > as a whole DAVEH:� Does that mean you would not consider any given book (such as one of Paul's epistles) to be 'Scripture' alone, but combined with others it would be 'Scripture'?� Then I would want to know why (supposing another Pauline epistle were found to be the revealed Word of God) more of God's word added to the existing compilation would not be also considered 'Scripture' under your definition? > which might be relied upon with confidence and serve as a base of > authority by which to judge and consider all present day revelations. DAVEH:� Hmmmmm.......this seems to be a conundrum.�� What you seem to believe is that it is current day thought that judges past revelatory material as to its worthiness to be considered 'Scripture'.� Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?� Let me put it another way......God may have revealed something thousands of years ago which is just now discovered, yet scholars of today arbitrarily reject it simply because it wasn't accepted as Canon before it was discovered?!?!?!?!� Is this spiritually sound, or should we consider it to simply be theological politics!?!?!?!? > David Miller wrote: > >> Jesus and the apostles, on the other hand, never > >> claimed any sort of problem with the Scriptures > >> that came before them. > > DAVEH: > > Yet it was THEY who contributed significantly to > > EXPANDING Scripture! And why should they > > complain? They had more OT Scripture than > > we do now! We should be the ones who are > > wondering what happened to the material they > > referenced. > > But don't miss the point that these holy men never made allegations that the > Scriptures were corrupted. DAVEH:� LOL........But according to your definition of 'Scripture', Scripture didn't exist until it was compiled!� So how could they claim the 'compiled base of Scripture' was ever corrupted?� Quite the opposite, IMO.......They quoted 'Scripture' (which I would define as that which was revealed from the Lord) which is no longer with us.� It either failed to make the 'cut', or it was lost before the cards were played.� If any of those OT prophets return to pay us a visit and happen to pick up a modern Bible, do you think it would look similar (excluding the NT of course) to the Scriptures with which they were familiar?� Or.....would there be books missing??? > �They accepted all of what was preserved as > Scripture and did not attribute Satan's power to corrupted and altered texts > which the Pharisees and other Jews went after.� The Samaritans of the day, > on the other hand, harshly criticized the unreliability of the writings of > the prophets, and so they accepted only the Torah as Scripture.� We see the > disrespectful attitude of Jesus toward their religion when he talked to the > woman at the well. DAVEH:� You believe he spoke such simply because of his disdain for their religion?� Interesting..... > I too wonder what happened to Scripture that they referenced, but this is > only curiosity on my part.� I know that God has preserved that which he > desired to preserve. DAVEH:� I understand your belief in the last comment.� But then you do apparently agree that 'Scripture' has been lost.� When I implied such, it seemed to generate a lot of heat!� You suggested that "God has preserved that which he desired to preserve" and that is how we perceive God's work differently.� I actually agree with you on that, DavidM.� But I do not agree that God has preserved his 'Word' strictly in the Bible.� If you truly do believe "I think it is possible that more of the Lord's will is revealed elsewhere than the Bible", then why would you limit your definition of 'Scripture' to just the Bible.....and why would you think that your comment "I know that God has preserved that which he desired to preserve" applies only to the Bible??? > David Miller wrote: > >> On the contrary, they affirmed the authority of > >> Scripture and testified to God's hand of > >> Providence in preserving them for mankind. > >> Do you see the difference here? > > DAVEH: > > Yep......they were working with a full deck. Our > > deck, even though expanded since then, is > > obviously lacking material they considered from > > God. > > I think their deck was a "full deck" for them at that time. DAVEH:� Yeah......it was obviously fuller than ours today, excepting the NT. > In other words, > the purpose of Scripture was being fulfilled in what they needed at that > time. DAVEH:� And.....with time, the Lord revealed more.� And the 'more' was canonized.� And the way God worked in ancient times, he continues to work today.� I don't quite understand why Protestants are so opposed to the Lord continuing to reveal his Word as he did in times past.� IMO the Lord continues to reveal his will, and it too should be (and is) canonized.� But only LDS folks see it that way! > �For our time, I believe that our Bible represents a "full deck" of > Scripture. DAVEH:� Despite knowing that Scripture was lost previously.� I'm not sure of how you logically can believe such, DavidM. > �There is enough in the Bible to lead men to Jesus and to the > receiving of the Holy Spirit, that they might receive the full knowledge of > God.� It may very well be that if we had all the Scriptures that they had, > then it would be more of a stumbling block for the present generation. DAVEH:� Hmmmmmm........and you castigate me for believing the BofM because it says that loss of Scripture leads to stumbling and confusion!��� Forgive me for joking with you at this point of seriousness, DavidM, but are YOU PLAYING WITH A FULL DECK??? > DAVEH: > >>> Because the Bible is an "arbitrary" collection of books. > > David Miller wrote: > >> I respectfully disagree. :-) Arbitrary? ??? > >> Why do you assume that? > > �DAVEH: > > Because of the way the Apocrypha was treated. > > At one time is was included in the Bible, and > > now it has fallen in disfavor, and has be discarded > > as questionable material. The King James scholars > > felt it was pertinent. Since then, somebody made a > > decision to remove it? Why? Did the teachings there > > seem problematic now, but didn't 4 centuries ago? > > I think your view of history is skewed here.� Yes, there were apocryphal > books included in Bibles compiled 200 years before Jesus, as well as Bibles > of the 17th century.� However, these additional books were not jumbled in > with the other books, but they were demarcated as a separate collection.� In > my perspective, they were never considered "Scripture." DAVEH:� Perhaps you perspective is biased!� Did not the King James scholars include them with the canon of the Bible?� Do not the RCC accept them today?� Just because you arbitrarily don't accept them as Scripture doesn't mean that others haven't thought them worthy of such.� That is what I mean by arbitrary.....You have your biases, and some of the other folks have their biases.� It just depends on whose Bible one reads as to whether or not it includes the Apocrypha. > �They were simply > historical books that filled in knowledge concerning the inter-testament > times.� People who wondered what was going on from the time of the last Old > Testament Prophet Malachi to John the Baptist could read these books to > learn about that period. > > Have you read the Apocrypha?� If so, don't you find them on a different > level from the other Scriptures?� What about these books lead you to think > they should be considered Scripture?� Make your case. DAVEH:� I'm not trying to make a case for or against the Apocrypha.� I'm merely defending myself from other TTers who have thought I'm crazy for not thinking the Bible is a fixed canon.� I've had the Dt & Rv quotes aimed directly at me as proof that the BofM can't be considered as 'Scripture'.� They have made claims that 'Scripture' is fixed and unchangeable, despite the fact that the Bible has changed over the centuries, and even today is different between some denominations.�� The point I am making by discussing the Apocrypha is that their logic is flawed when they use such arguments to denigrate my belief.....That's all. > Regardless, I still don't understand why the dispute about the Apocryphal > books lead you to say that the Bible is arbitrary. DAVEH:� You yourself has defined 'Scripture' as being the Bible.� Anything less is not Scripture in the opinion of many TTers.� Yet the 'Bible' has changed and is different between some denominations.��� Again.....the argument I am hearing is flawed.� That is why I repeatedly mention the Apocrypha......simply to point out the error of logic used by those who disagree with my belief. > That implies that there > was no debate, DAVEH:� Is that how 'Scripture' is decided....by debate?� That seems interesting to me.� The Lord revealed his will and then men debate whether it was really revealed by God.� Is that spiritually sound thinking? > nor reasons, about why it should not be included with the > Bible.� In contrast, history shows that there was debate about it. > > Part of the problem in this reformation era was the allegation that priests > were quoting church fathers at the same level of authority as they did the > Scriptures.� The place of church tradition held such prominence that it was > very difficult to expose falsehood within Roman Catholicism.� This led to > the need for more clearly demarcating what was inspired Scripture and what > was not, and this led to treating the Apocrypha as separate from Scripture > (by the Protestants), and to the Roman Catholics canonizing some of the > Apocryphal books. > > David Miller wrote: > >> You underestimate the power and > >> sovereignty of God. > > DAVEH: > > And I think you underestimate his promise of free > > will to men. > > Where did God ever promise free will to men? DAVEH:� To Adam & Eve. > DaveH wrote: > > If men truly have agency to do wrong, then there is > > a possible conflict if you seem to believe God would > > deny them that right to add/subtract something from > > the Bible. > > I feel that I keep repeating myself.� Men can add and subtract things from > the Bible all they like, but that doesn't mean that God can't also preserve > his Word in the midst of it. DAVEH:� From my LDS perspective, I believe God preserves his revealed Word, but not at the expense of free agency.� There is a classic BofM example that demonstrates this principle, but I hesitate to explain it under this thread. > Many modern translations, such as the NIV, are > based upon texts of the Bible with many parts removed from it, but that > doesn't mean that God did not also preserve manuscripts that contained these > missing parts.� The pressure to keep these removed parts has been so great > that even these modern translations have put them back into the text, > sometimes as text with footnotes suggesting that they should not be there, > and sometimes missing but with a footnote to the text itself as an alternate > addition. > > >From my perspective, despite the efforts of many men to corrupt and change > the Bible, whether we are talking about unknown manuscripts from the ancient > past, or modern texts like those produced by Joseph Smith, God has acted in > his Providential way to preserve the Bible. DAVEH:� I would expand that line of thinking to say "God has acted in his Providential way to preserve Scripture." > �His acts might have included > destroying would be corrupters, such as what happened when Joseph Smith was > killed, DAVEH:� Does that mean you believe JS's death was Providential? > or it might just be by directing the true followers to disregard the > corrupted texts being produced.� In either case, his power in Providential > Acts worked through history to preserve the Scriptures that He desired to > preserve for future generations. > > DAVEH: > > The revealed Word of God (Gospel) is the > > Owner's Manual for the Book of Life. > > I cannot say that I agree. DAVEH:� Hmmmmm.......where else do you think the Gospel is revealed?� (My Book of Life comment may have been misunderstood by you to refer to the BofL of Revelation......I did not intend it to be such.) > DaveH wrote: > > The fewer pages we have, the more chance of > > misunderstanding and misdirection. Who is > > content with a portion of the Lord's revealed > > Gospel? Logically, can we really be comfortable > > knowing there is more of God's revealed will than > > we have, but it is was lost? ******************* > � > I'm content because the Bible promises that the author of the Bible, the > Holy Spirit, will indwell me and teach me all things.� Why would I desire > more written revelation when I have living revelation indwelling me?� Only > those who lack the indwelling revelation would seek for more written > revelation in order to get better clarification on the things not covered > thoroughly. > > David Miller wrote: > >> Note that Blaine led us all into this discussion by claiming > >> that the Book of Mormon was clear and simple, compared > >> to the Bible. He was explaining how the Bible was missing > >> "plain and precious parts" but the Book of Mormon was not. > > �DAVEH: > > I do not recall Blaine saying ".....the Book of Mormon was not". > > Are you sure he said such? > > I don't want to go back and look it up, but what I remember him saying is > that the Book of Mormon was much more clear and easier to understand than > the Bible. DAVEH:� Yes, he did say such......I remember that also.� (And BTW....looking up stuff like that is pretty easy by using a search feature.)� What I don't remember is him saying the BofM was not missing anything.� (Search features do not find stuff that people didn't say....that is why I asked you to look it up.)� I bet if you ask him, he would say that there is much missing from the BofM.� I think you wrongly claimed Blaine said something he didn't say.� Normally, I wouldn't worry about such a niggling thing, but the last time you did it, Glenn put his high-horse into high-gear and kept on ranting about what he perceived Blaine had said when Blaine in fact hadn't said such. > �This is what led him to quote 1 Nephi 13 and what led to us > seeing the words there that the Bible, which the abominable church followed > after, led an exceedingly great many people to stumble and come under > Satan's power, because of all the "plain and precious parts" which were > taken out of it. > > DaveH wrote: > > The Lord has revealed much of the Gospel in what > > we call the Scriptures. Protestants normally limit that > > to just the Bible. LDS theology does not limit the > > revealed will of God in such a way. Anything/anybody > > who detracts (or changes) from what God has revealed, > > only detracts from the Gospel and impedes mans' > > eternal progression. The less mankind knows of the > > Gospel, the more power Satan has, IMHO. Does that > > give you a better understanding of my perspective, > > DavidM? > > It reinforces my perspective that "eternal progression" in your viewpoint is > based upon knowledge. DAVEH:� You can think what you want, but that is not exactly what I believe.� Yes, knowledge is an important part of eternal progression, but knowledge is not what eternal progression is based on. > You seem to perceive that men fail to progress > eternally when they lack God's revealed will. DAVEH:� I believe it has a significant effect.� But even if men wholly know God's will, knowledge of such is insufficient to promote (that's the wrong word....but I can't think of the right one at the moment) eternal progression. > �In contrast, I see sin as the > major stumbling block for men. DAVEH:� I don't disagree. > �When men sin, their eternal progression is > impeded. DAVEH:� I concur. > Satan has power over them when they sin.� If they walk in > righteousness and holiness, then their understanding becomes enlightened. DAVEH:� Agreed. > They have no need for further written revelation DAVEH:� I disagree, and find that argument to be illogical. > because they receive a > living revelation within them, which is the Holy Spirit.� The Holy Spirit > teaches them and guides them into all truth, revealing everything to them > that is from the Father above. DAVEH:� On the surface, that seems reasonable.� However, if the Lord really is omniscient, he could simply discard revealing his Gospel to the prophets (to be recorded as Scripture) and chose those who he knows are worthy of the HS, then send the HS to them to guide them back to heaven, so to speak.� Why do we need Scripture if we have the HS??? > The difference here is very important because it is the reason that I > consider you involved with a false religion.� Your religion has perverted > the truth of the gospel in that it has caused you to think that salvation is > tied into the acceptance of "additional revelation," i.e., the Standard > Works. DAVEH:� I find your logic there to be illogical.� But.....we've covered that ground before, haven't we! > �This is seen through your comments above, and by Blaine's comments > to Glenn concerning his efforts to save his soul from the place where Dives > went. DAVEH:� LOL.......Give me a break, DavidM.� Blaine was merely tossing back a Protestant argument to needle Glenn.� That was not the LDS perspective. > Men should not seek after additional written revelation, but they should > seek Jesus and walk in holiness, without sin, and then their understanding > will be opened. DAVEH:� I would suggest that Jesus can be found in Scripture not found within the Biblical framework. > �They should follow the indwelling Holy Spirit and not look > to other writings so-called Scriptures to guide them.� It seems to me that > these other writings have replaced the role of the Holy Spirit in the lives > of Mormons. DAVEH:� I respectfully disagree. > Peace be with you. > David Miller. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ � ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
