"Charles P. Locke" wrote:
> >From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >DAVEH: Hi Perry.....I hope you don't mind me intruding on your discussion
> >with DavidM. Since he is responding to your Jude 3 argument that Canon is
> >closed, I think it is appropriate for me to make a few comments relative to
> >this topic.
>
> Not at all...it is an open forum.
DAVEH: Thanx. I previously intruded on a discussion and drew a rebuke as a result.
I try to be a bit more careful now.
> >DAVEH: I would ask if there were any writings written after Jude that are
> >accepted as Canon. My reference material is home and my Googling time is
> >via long distance, so hopefully DavidM will have a quick answer that
> >doesn't require too much of his time.
>
> John's epistles and the Revelation are the only ones that are dated after
> Jude, but those dates seem to be in debate. One group places them from 80-95
> AD, while yet others place them around 65 AD. Jude comes in at 66-80 AD.
DAVEH: Thanx Perry. If Revelation were revealed after Jude, then would that
seemingly contradict your theory of closed Canon at the time Jude was written?
> >DAVEH: Do Protestants recognize any mysteries of the NT? If the Lord
> >reveals his will to explain the mysteries, then should there not be any
> >mysteries left IF the gospel has been totally and wholly revealed? Why
> >would there be any mystery about the
> >nature of God as is left one to ponder in the T-Doctrine realm? Does
> >Protestantism claim to understand the nature of God??? If not, then is
> >there not room for continued revelation?
>
> I do not believe that all mysteries must be revealed. When we arrive in
> heaven I think all mystery will be revealed.
>
> God has revealed aspects of his nature throughout the scripture, but there
> is still much about God we do not know or cannot understand.
DAVEH: To me it seems that suggesting Canon is closed cuts off the possibility that
the Lord may want to reveal more secrets before we get to heaven. One distinction
between Christianty/Hebrewism and the pagan religions is that the Lord revealed his
secrets through true prophets. IF Canon is closed now, then is there no further need
for prophets? There is at least one (non LDS) TTer who believes in modern day
prophets, but I'm not sure that is typical of most Protestants. Does Protestant
theology
suggest prophets are no longer needed since Canon is closed?
> >DAVEH: Even IF your assumption that the entire gospel had been revealed at
> >some point in the past, it does not necessarily mean that the entire gospel
> >is recorded in the Canon. There are many other writings of the period from
> >even some of the Bible
> >authors that have been discovered that may contain scriptural material.
>
> There are specific tests that we mortal men use to determine if a body of
> work is part of the canon.
DAVEH: One of the points the WHO WROTE THE BIBLE program made is that not only do we
not know in many cases who wrote the books of the Bible, but we don't even know who
Canonized the Bible.
> They include things like internal consistency,
> external consistency, historical accuracy, OT references, references to
> known NT people and places, references to Christ, etc.
DAVEH: I think it is nice to think those are the reasons, but as I pointed out
previously, there is a book of the OT that fails to even mention God. Furthermore,
one might wonder if those (whom we don't know the identities) who Canonized the Bible
even
had access to all the Biblical material. Considering the means of communicating in
those times, it is likely that much material may have simply not been available to be
examined.
> As you know, there are many books that are considered by some to be
> scripture. The Catholic Bible, for example, contains books that the
> protestants do not recognize as canon. And, no need to mention LDS
> extra-biblical works.
DAVEH: I have purposely avoided bringing LDS Scripture into most TT discussions.
When I ask these questions, it is because of my LDS biases that makes me wonder why
Protestants believe the way they do. To me it seems logical that Canon would not be
closed and wonder why Protestants wouldn't feel the same, since they believe God is
the same yesterday, today and forever. What has changed that would make Protestants
think that the Lord no longer wants to reveal secrets (of the mysteries, perhaps) to
his prophets?
Even the advent of Jesus did not bring an end to revelation or a closure to Canon.
Paul received revelation from heaven after Jesus was resurrected. And as I pointed
out in a previous post yesterday, there are some indications that more will be
revealed from heaven. Again, my LDS biases cause me to think it is natural to have
that revelatory relationship with the Lord through prophets as was common in Bible
times. Yet that same relationship seems not to exist in Protestantism today. Does
that
strike you or other Protestants as unusual?
Btw.......Do you remember the "Is God Dead" days some 3 decades ago or so? Did
that question not arise because the Lord seemingly isn't speaking to man nowadays?
> > Furthermore, there are Scriptural passages that suggest there will at
> >some time in the future be a restitution of all things. (Mt 17:11 & Acts
> >3:21) Would this not involve some form of revelation from on High?
> >Additionally, Rev 14:6 mentions an
> >angel revealing the gospel from heaven at some future time. Does that not
> >suggest future revelation regarding the gospel that may not be contained in
> >the Canon as it was known 2 millennia ago?
>
> Well, the gospel has already been revealed in the NT, so maybe that angel
> has already spoken. Or, since it is in Revelation, maybe it is just a review
> before the final exam :-) Just because something is mentioned in revelation
> does not necessarily mean that it is still future. The timing in the
> Revelation is tricky, especially if it we can assign an authorship date of
> c. 65 AD (The implications of this are astounding WRT (with respect to)
> understanding Revelation. Change the accepted date, and the line between
> "is" and "is to come" shifts to the right!)
DAVEH: Do you really believe vs 6 is not about a future event, or are you just
suggesting possibilities?
>
> >DAVEH: I am not here to preach LDS theology, nor am I here to be too
> >"clever" as you described me in another post, Perry. But what you wrote
> >above is similar to the way some LDS folks may feel about Protestants and
> >their view the "Restoration of the
> >Gospel" message we preach. Just as the Jews fail to acknowledge the
> >continued revelations and fullness of the gospel Protestants claim led to
> >the NT, I feel Protestants fail to acknowledge the continued revelations
> >and fullness of the gospel that has
> >been restored in latter-days.
>
> [I am adding this comment after having written the following
> paragraphs...prepare yourself...I am climbing up onto my evangelical soapbox
> at the corner of Christian Street and LDS Ave - cpl]
DAVEH: OK.......Thanx for the warning, Perry.
> David, I spent a lot of time testing LDS doctrines (trying to be good
> Berean, while giving LDS a chance), reading the works, reading commentaries
> (not only anti-LDS lit., but Roberts, Nibley, and Reynolds; I even OWN the
> book "Book of Mormon Authorship revisited". I have the standard works on my
> own computer for quick and easy reference, and an LDS friend near SLC even
> sent me one of Nibleys books to read and return), talking to and debating
> with LDS members, and LDS doctrine and standard works fail every test I
> could come up with or read about. One has to be totally blind in order to
> believe the outlandish stuff that it teaches, especially in view of the
> evidence for plaigerized authorship that exists. If the LDS works held any
> resemblance at all to what God has already said, I would have had a hard
> time rejecting it. My research began with the open consideration that it
> might be true, and ended with certainty that it is bogus. LDS accept the
> things JS said/wrote without a critical eye because of the investment they
> have in it and indoctrination from their youth into the system (and the
> biggie: their pride makes them want to be God, as Satan's and Eve's did!).
> The whole system is set up from the beginning to bias children and other
> adherants against traditional Christianity! That is called brainwashing (Ya
> hear that, Glenn?) My mother-in-law is LDS (she has a history of following
> fringe religions...she attended the Church of Scientology prior to becoming
> a Mormon) and I took her with me on two business trips to SLC (I always
> carried a pack of Rolaids so I could determine if I was becoming a Mormon
> :-) so she could use the geneology library and do the temple stuff. I have
> walked Temple square, talked with LDS there, visited the Tabernacle, visited
> the library, watched the VIM (Visitor Indoctrination Movie) in the visitor's
> center. Everyone was sweet, pretty, wonderful, and deceived. (I was so
> disappointed. I met a young LDS greeter on Temple Square from Wittenberg,
> Germany. She had never heard of Martin Luther! Boy, had she been sheltered
> from Christian History! Best not to let her know the truth...she might make
> an informed decision!)
>
> Do you think I gave it a fair evaluation,
DAVEH: I don't know. Did you pray about it?
> or do you have some witticism to
> discount my effort and time?
DAVEH: Since I'm not sure what you perceive to be my witticisms, I don't know how to
answer.
> [Hopping down from the soapbox, I continue...]
>
> Let me state my position one more time, as clearly as I can...
>
> I never said that God COULD NOT or WOULD NOT reveal new things at a later
> date.
DAVEH: Maybe that's were I am misunderstanding you then. I thought you said Canon
was closed. Now you are saying that it is not closed, is that correct? How should I
understand your belief Perry......is Canon open or closed???
> All I said was
>
> 1) He revealed all that is "necessary and sufficient'" in the canon of
> scripture for receiving and understanding the gospel message,
DAVEH: I guess that is where I have trouble understanding your (Protestant)
perspective. Maybe I don't understand how you perceive (define) the gospel. To me,
the gospel encompasses everything the Lord has revealed, and everything he will yet
reveal.
Obviously, you must have a much narrower vision of the gospel. Can you give me a
thumbnail view of how you define it, please?
> 2) Jude seems to support this,
DAVEH: I sure didn't get that feeling when I read it.
> and
>
> 3) there have been no new books added to the Bible since the canon was
> formed, indicating that no new works hold muster with the requirements for
> canonicity,
DAVEH: Or perhaps the perceived backlash from traditional Protestant resistance to
adding to Canon prevents that possibility. If we were to one day find words Jesus had
penned himself, they would necessarily have to be excluded from Canon IF there is an
official "Canon is Closed" stance.
> including the LDS works.
>
> I agree that it would be cool if there were a lot of unanswered questions
> that were answered by further revelation,
DAVEH: That alone would be reason to have prophets reveal the Lord's will.........to
explain the mysteries. Isn't that the gospel message......to explain the mysteries of
God that have been hidden from the non believers?
> but I can accept the fact that God
> has revealed what he wants me to know.
DAVEH: I would think the Jews would think the same way. Again, to me that seems like
shortsighted thinking.
> I do not have to make up stories to
> make it fit, or to answer the unanswered questions. But one thing I know for
> sure...if God HAS revealed additional scripture, and we some how missed it,
> THE LDS BOM , D&C, THE PEARL (not Steinbeck's), AND THE BoA (not Bank of
> America) ARE NOT THOSE REVEALED WORKS!
DAVEH: Though I respectfully disagree, I am not in TT to promote the LDS Standard
Works.
> > Perry...... I'm not asking you to believe LDS theology, but I'm
> >offering my thoughts so you will have a better understanding of my
> >perspective.
>
> >DAVEH: Why would you then discount the possibility and claim Canon is
> >closed just because you failed to find new revelations that are acceptable
> >to you, Perry? Again, that seems a bit shortsighted. Consider that the
> >Lord may not reveal anything to
> >those who are not listening. The Jews at the time of Christ may have
> >considered Canon closed and then tuned out the message of the NT apostles
> >and prophets due to their short sighted attitude.
>
> >From my statements above, you can see that I have not discounted the
> possibility, I am just convinced that it has not happened up to this point,
> and I do not see any need for it to happen, and Jude seems to support this.
> Had I felt it was impossible I would not have goven LDS doctrine a fair
> shake...I would have discounted it on that principle alone.
>
> It is not a matter of any purported revelation just being acceptable to me,
> David. In fact, I find that statement to be a bit disingenuous considering
> all that I have posted on this topic already. It is a matter of purported
> revelation being tested
DAVEH: Was Moses' (and some of the other prophets) revelations tested when they were
given? I'm not even sure they were tested when they were Canonized, from what the WHO
WROTE THE BIBLE program said. There appears to be some question about whether
Moses even wrote what is purported to be from his hand. If the authorship is
questionable, then how scrutiny was given to the books examined for Canonization?
And note.........I'm not saying this to discredit the Bible, but rather to ponder how
much
testing was done by people unknown to determine Scripture.
> and found to be supportive of and in agreement with
> sound biblical principles, which the LDS works are not, and, in fact, no
> works since the closure of canon have been.
DAVEH: Perry, it is comments like this have led me to think that you believe Canon is
closed.
> Shortsited, or cautious not be duped by the first religion that comes along
> and promises me I will become God?
DAVEH: I assume that is a rhetorical question? Nonetheless, I will respond to it.
I'm not trying to convert you to become LDS. I am just trying to find out why you
feel comfortable being shortsighted. God did not want the knowledge of the Jews to end
with the OT. He gave more revelation to prophets the Jews didn't want to consider
because it conflicted with their perception of what the Lord had revealed in the past.
So.....they closed their ears to what the Lord wanted them to hear. I assume they
too believe their Canon is closed, but don't know for sure. Perry, do you know if
Jewish Canon is open or closed?
> Yes, the Jews were blinded, like some other modern day religionists.
DAVEH: Ahhhhhhh Perry, this is a perfect place for me to say something witty or
humorous (which I would denote with a smilie) to match your clever comment, but
knowing your sensitivity to such, I will only say (in seriousness) that the sword
sometimes
cuts both ways.
> Perry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
