DaveH wrote: > 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"?
Because there would probably still be some doubt among some concerning its authenticity. New discoveries like this would probably be published separately, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the Book of Enoch, so that those interested could read them. DaveH wrote: > A decision to 'reject' Scripture would surely be an > arbitrary decision, wouldn't it? No, the word "arbitrary" means a decision made without reason, perhaps based upon a personal whim. In other words, to say that the Bible is an arbitrary collection of books is to say that there were no reasons why some books were included and why some books were excluded. This viewpoint is so far from the truth, I don't know how someone like you with your level of knowledge could possibly hold to such a view. Apparently, you do not know as much about Biblical origins as I thought you did, even though we have discussed it quite a bit in this forum in the past. DaveH wrote: > 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??? We have very different viewpoints about what Scripture is. It seems like your viewpoint is that if a message is inspired by God, then we should consider it Scripture. I perceive "Scripture" as a subset of God's revelation to men. I believe in modern day revelation, so if all that was inspired by God were written and published and declared Scripture, the entire earth would probably not be able to contain it all. God is speaking too much through people who are following him. So in my perspective, Scripture is a subset of inspired revelation. Scripture is that written revelation that God ordained, through His hand of Providence, to preserve and compile together, to act as an authority and foundation for men to judge revelation and claims of revelation. David Miller wrote: >> 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'? No, any part of the collection would be considered Scripture, but inspired writings outside that collection would not be considered Scripture. As an example, I consider Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, which was written at around the same time as the book of Revelation, and perhaps before it, to be divinely inspired. I agree with the message of it, the admonition given in it, etc. This letter was also included in some of the oldest Bibles we have from around the fourth century. Even Eusebius (263 - 339 A.D.) included it in his list of "recognized Books" while at the same time listing books like Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation as "disputed Books." Nevertheless, it is not my decision as to whether or not this book should be considered Scripture. God Himself, through history, through his hand of Providence, excluded Clement's Epistle and included these other "disputed" or "doubted" books. DaveH wrote: > 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? Because I believe that Scripture is defined by God acting through history. Scripture has the stamp of approval in its historical origin. Of course, if you don't believe in God's Providence and Sovereignty in the affairs of men, then none of this will make much sense to you. David Miller wrote: >> 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? I think you have it backwards with regard to what I am saying. I am saying that past revelation, known as Scripture, is a foundation by which all present revelation is judged. History itself has established what Scripture is. We believe that this was important and that God had his hand in it. DaveH wrote: > 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!?!?!?!? I'm not saying that the revealed word needs to be rejected. Again, you don't seem to comprehend that I believe in ongoing revelation. Sometimes I wonder if you and Blaine really believe in ongoing revelation. If a person believes in ongoing revelation, then we must understand that not all that God reveals will be considered Scripture. Put another way, while we might not accept a discovery of Scripture of the past as Scripture today, we might still publish it and appreciate it as divinely inspired. I just think that if there is any doubt at all concerning its place as Scripture, then there is nothing wrong with not including it with Scripture. Scripture is that which we all might agree with and have confidence as God's Word and Standard. David Miller wrote: >> 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? I hope you don't erroneously think that Scripture was not compiled or canonized before Jesus came. I don't understand your comment, unless perhaps you have this perspective. I consider the Septuagint as evidence of a compiled canon (Bible) prior to the time of Jesus Christ. DaveH wrote: > 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. But they never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture, which was also written before their time. DaveH wrote: > 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??? I don't think there would be too much missing, but perhaps a few books, yes. DAVEH: > But then you do apparently agree that 'Scripture' has > been lost. When I implied such, it seemed to generate > a lot of heat! I think the heat generated is because of your interpretation of what that means that Scripture has been lost. From your perspective, it was lost through human error and mistake. From my perspective, it did not continue on in our compilation of Scripture because God designed for it to be dropped. The Book of Mormon teaches you that it was the devil who removed writings from Scripture, so that the devil's church could gain power over people through this corrupted book. DaveH wrote: > ... 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??? God has preserved writings other than what is found in the Bible, but only the Bible is what I consider Scripture. There are different categories of God's Word. For example, there is God's verbal word and God's written word. If God speaks to me verbally in my bedroom, that might be considered "God's Word" but it is not Scripture. When the three apostles were on the mount of transfiguration and heard God speak, that was God's word, but it was not Scripture because what was said was not preserved as such. Scripture is defined not by man, but by God working through history. If God were to add more to the Bible, no single man, neither any committee would be allowed to do it. Only God, working through history, would be allowed to do that. Let every other man who attempts to add his own writings to the Bible be found to be a liar. DAVEH: > ... 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! There are many Protestants in history who have felt they moved beyond the Bible in their revelations. There have been other Protestants besides Joseph Smith who have had their writings elevated to the status of Scripture. So, no, it is not ONLY the LDS folks. Nevertheless, the pattern of history is that most everyone who attempts to do these things are found to be liars. So the scholars who study the Scriptures, and who study history, deem it safe and best to consider that further Scripture is not forthcoming. David Miller wrote: >> 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. Because what constitutes a full deck is determined by God. If I had a deck of cards comprised of 52 cards, and I learn that in the past many used a deck of 56 cards, yet everyone in my generation uses 52 cards as a full deck, I just don't feel compelled to argue that our deck is incomplete unless we add those 4 missing cards to our deck. The deck is full for my generation just as it was full for their generation. David Miller wrote: > 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??? Jesus told his apostles that there were many things that he wanted to share with them, but they were not able to bear it. Certain knowledge must come when a person is ready for it. God has determined in his wisdom to bring this knowledge to men through the Holy Spirit, and not through Scripture. The Scriptures point men to God, to Jesus Christ, and to receiving the Holy Spirit. From there, the Holy Spirit reveals all that men desire to know from God. "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." (1Co 2:9-10) "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." (James 1:5) DAVEH: > Perhaps you perspective is biased! Did not the King James scholars > include them with the canon of the Bible? No, the King James scholars published them with the Bible, but they were clearly identified as a separate collection known as the Apochrypha. As early as the second century, Irenaeus used the term "Apocrypha" to denote non-Canonical books. Tertullian took the same approach in the third century, and Jerome took this approach in the fourth and fifth century. Although Protestant Christians continued printing the Apocrypha with the canonical books of the Bible until 1827, they were never viewed as Canonical. The Jews, of course, rejected the Apocrypha way back in 90 A.D. at the council of Jamnia. DaveH wrote: > Do not the RCC accept them today? No, not all of them. You have to understand that the term "Apocrypha" is a term delineating a collection, just as the term "Bible" denotes a collection, or the term "Holy Scriptures" denotes a collection. The Anglican church included books in the Apocrypha that the Roman Catholics did not consider worthy of inclusion in the Apocrypha. In the 16th century, at the council of Trent, the Roman Catholics declared SOME of the Apocryphal books as canonical, meaning that they held the same authority as Scripture. DaveH wrote: > 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. You are grossly misusing the term "arbitrary." If I do a scientific study and I report that I arbitrarily selected 6 samples, that means something completely different from saying that I picked 6 of the largest items as samples. The term "arbitrary" means that there is no rational reason for the choice. Do all Mormons make decisions based upon their personal bias? Where is the place of rational thought and thinking? 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 don't think you are crazy if you consider the Bible not to be a fixed canon. DaveH wrote: > I've had the Dt & Rv quotes aimed directly at me as proof that the > BofM can't be considered as 'Scripture'. ... 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. I agree with you that the argument is flawed to use those verses to argue that the canon is closed. Nevertheless, they can use those verses to warn men like Joseph Smith and his followers not to add their own writings to the Bible. Do you understand the difference? For a person to have his teachings added to the canon of Scripture, it must be done by God through history. Even Jesus Christ did not take it upon himself to add his writings to the Holy Scriptures. 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. Even though different groups of people have different Bibles, this does not mean that their decisions are arbitrary. That is why I asked you to make your case for including some of the Apocrypha as part of Scripture. I have accepted the arguments of others that they were never quoted by Jesus or the apostles as canonical, that the Jews rejected them as part of their canon, and that they literary style and knowledge conveyed in them is just not at the same level as other writings in the Bible. DAVEH: > Is that how 'Scripture' is decided....by debate? Yes, partly so. DaveH wrote: > 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? Men have always debated what the Lord has said. It is certainly better to settle the matter through logical and rational thought than by arbitrary whims based upon personal bias. You seem to prefer decisions made by personal bias over those based upon careful study. David Miller wrote: >> Where did God ever promise free will to men? DAVEH: > To Adam & Eve. Do you have a particular reference in mind? I'm not following you. DAVEH: > From my LDS perspective, I believe God preserves his > revealed Word, but not at the expense of free agency. I'm not sure that I value the idea of "free agency" as highly as you do, but God can preserve both his revealed word and free agency very easily. DAVEH: > Does that mean you believe JS's death was Providential? Yes, of course. If not a sparrow falls to the ground without the Father knowing it, and if all the hairs on our head are numbered, do you think that God did not know about what was taking place? Do you realize how easy it would be for God to warn Joseph Smith about it and give him direction on what to do? In fact, Smith had already fled the state and was safe until receiving urging from his wife to come back or they would lose everything. It was then that Smith came back, apparently to preserve his material possessions and status in life, and then that he took a gun smuggled into the jail and killed two men before being killed himself. David Miller wrote: >> 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. If a man lives in wickedness and selfishness, and he never hears the gospel of Jesus Christ, and he dies and is before the Judgment seat of Christ, will that man be judged for his sins and condemned to hell, or will Jesus say to him, "young man, you never had a chance to accept me in life. Let me tell you about myself and give you the opportunity to accept me." My perspective is that Jesus will condemn the man to hell fire for his deeds of iniquity. It seems to me that you think the man will get a chance first to accept Jesus. This is what I mean by your perspective of eternal progression being based upon knowledge. 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. Oh, I understand that. I'm not saying that salvation in your viewpoint is SOLELY based upon knowledge. However, if the man lacks knowledge of Jesus, you think it would be unfair of Jesus to condemn the man for his sins. If you properly understood that judgment was based upon works, based upon whether or not the man sinned, then you would see that the man deserves eternal damnation, whether or not he had heard the gospel. You seem to think that unless the man rejects the knowledge of God, then he is innocent and will at some point in the future get the chance to accept or reject the gospel. David Miller wrote: >> Satan has power over them when they sin. >> If they walk in righteousness and holiness, >> then their understanding becomes enlightened. DAVEH: > Agreed. David Miller wrote: >> They have no need for further written revelation DAVEH: > I disagree, and find that argument to be illogical. If a person has the living Spirit of God within them, showing them all things pertaining to God and holiness, why would he need additional things written on paper with ink? Isn't this what the following Scripture means? For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. (Heb 8:10-11) 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??? We need Scripture because of the many false voices and false prophets. God has ordained to establish his Word and knowledge of his Will in more ways than one. David Miller wrote: >> 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! If you read Blaine's comments to Glenn, it seems very apparent to me that acceptance of the Standard Works is very important in his view of salvation. David Miller wrote: >> 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. That's not how I understood Blaine. Here is what he wrote: Blainer wrote: > Mormons do not believe the story of Lazarus and Dives is > either figurative or a parable. That statement seems to be contrary to past statements you have made. Blainer wrote: > It is really what happens, although the great gulf between > them might be somewhat figurative. The burning inside > the person is what Christ suffered when he sweat blood. > If we repent, we need not suffer as he did, but if we do > not repent, we must pay the same price he paid--burning > that caused him to suffer both body and spirit. And what sin is it that Blainer thinks Glenn needs to repent of? It seems to me that it is Glenn's rejection of Blaine's words and perhaps Glenn's rejection of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Consider Blaine's comments again: Blainer wrote: >> Spin machine? I just told you the unfettered truth, Glenn, >> and you were not listening. I am getting frustrated trying >> to save your soul, and you won't allow it. I am really, >> really afraid you are going to end up in that "place," >> where Dives went because he would not give food or >> drink to poor Lazarus, the begger at his gate--where >> they suffer in the spirit, and wist they could have a few >> drops of water to quench the burning, but are prevented >> from getting help as there is this great gulf between ... We will have to let Blaine clarify for us whether he was being sarcastic and didn't mean what he said, or if his view is different from your view. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "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.
