"Charles P. Locke" wrote:
> >From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >DAVEH: Does Protestant theology suggest prophets are no longer needed
> >since Canon is closed?
>
> I am not sure if there is an "official" protestant view, but I think it is
> safe to say yes since they don't recognize any authority but the Bible. Sola
> Scriptura.
DAVEH: I understand that, but I'm asking if they allow room for expansion of the
Bible in the future. Or, would that be considered a 'no-no'?
> >What has changed that would make Protestants think that the Lord no longer
> >wants to reveal secrets (of the mysteries, perhaps) to
> >his prophets?
>
> Nothing has changed as far as I know.
DAVEH: If nothing has changed, then it seems to me that expansion of Canon would be
possible, if not expected, based on previous expansion of Canon.
> Just because the LDS think that he
> SHOULD and DID reveal secrets certainly is no indication that he HAS
> revealed more, especially when those who do not have an LDS bias recognize
> the lies and deceit in his writings.
DAVEH: I'm not trying to push LDS latter-day Scripture or even defend it. I'm just
trying to figure out why Protestantism has not added to the Bible in the past 1900
years.
> >DAVEH: Btw.......Do you remember the "Is God Dead" days some 3 decades ago
> >or so?
>
> Yes.
>
> >DAVEH: Did that question not arise because the Lord seemingly isn't
> >speaking to man nowadays?
>
> Maybe that is the reason, but I do not see the connection to our present
> discussion.
DAVEH: I remember the argument at the time being that the reason God has not revealed
himself since Biblical times is that he might be dead. The reason I mentioned it is
because it reflects a common perception at that time (within our lifetime) that the
Lord has not, and does not speak (through revelation) to man anymore.
> >DAVEH: Now you are saying that it is not closed, is that correct? How
> >should I understand your belief Perry......is Canon open or closed???
>
> Sorry that you were confused, David. You might want to read through my
> explanation again. I though I made it very clear, and I don't think I am
> capable of making it any clearer.
DAVEH: It is an answer like this that makes me wonder why you accused me of
side-steping your questions, Perry. Since your answers have obviously been confusing
me on this issue, why did you not simply answer one way or the other (open or closed)
so
that I don't have to continue wondering what you believe? Is there a reason you don't
want to answer directly and simply? If you think I'm trying to bloody your nose over
this, or pit you against DavidM (who has made his belief about it understandable
to me) in a major doctrinal battle.....I say, relax. I'm not here to cause contention
or bloody your nose. Answer straight away and IF I sucker punch you, remind me of
this discussion.
> >DAVEH: Can you give me a thumbnail view of how you define it, please?
>
> If you have read the NT, you have my view of it.
DAVEH: I'm sorry Perry, but if you really don't want to have a meaningful discussion
with me, just say so and I'll quit asking you questions. If you want me to understand
your belief, I am asking you about it rather than make assumptions as a lot of
non-LDS folks do when they tell me what I believe rather than ask me.
(Whew.........that was a run-on sentence for sure, but I hope you understand why I
find having discussions with Protestants can sometimes be an exercise in futility for
me.)
BTW........I have read the NT and (from my perspective) it nicely agrees with my
LDS biases. Now Perry, I'm sure you don't want me to assume you agree with my
understanding of the NT, so why do you answer in that evasive (sidestepping) way???
Why
not simply respond to my question with a direct answer?
> Of course, I do not add the
> LDS bias, or capriciously pull random verses out as proof texts to support
> LDS heresy, such as the two sticks, the "ye are gods", or the "sheep of
> another fold".
DAVEH: Yes Perry.....I know you don't subscribe to LDS theology. That's a given.
However, it is stipulated that I do have those biases. I read the same Bible as you,
and find they support my LDS biases. When I want to know why Protestants understand
them differently, I usually get evasive (or sometimes no) answer. I have not
mentioned anything about 2 sticks, so I don't know why you find that a problem. I did
mention "ye are gods" and received only one answer (from DavidM) which I have yet to
respond to due to time....it's on my home computer. Ditto with "sheep of another
fold". I don't recall there being any more than a single cursory response (from
DavidM again, I think). So yes, I am here (in TT) to find out how non-LDS folks
understand
those passages. I appreciate any responses that directly answer my questions about
them. But when I get evasive sidestepping answers, then I'm left puzzled.
> >DAVEH: I sure didn't get that feeling when I read it.
>
> Sometimes we have to go by the words and their meanings, not our feelings.
DAVEH: I'm not all that sharp when it comes to the deep meaning of the words, but
DavidM suggested that Jude 3 didn't quite say what you were suggesting. (BTW.......I
am not trying to pit DavidM against you on this, Perry. But his comments about it
would suggest that my feelings about Jude 3 might not be quite so far out in left
field.)
> >DAVEH: Isn't that the gospel message......to explain the mysteries of God
> >that have been hidden from the non believers?
>
> Basically. But only the mysteries He chooses to reveal, which are necessary
> and sufficient for our understanding the gospel in his view, not our view.
>
> >DAVEH: Was Moses' (and some of the other prophets) revelations tested when
> >they were given?
>
> I am sure they were put to the tests to which all prophets were put. One
> false prophecy and it was the stone pit.
DAVEH: I hesitate to mention this for fear that you will think I'm denigrating the
Bible, but have you pondered how those testers must have rationalized about Moses
writing about his own death?
> (Or, in modern terms, the Carthage
> Jail.)
DAVEH: Did you mention that as a 'dig' about Mormonism?
> >If the authorship is questionable, then how scrutiny was given to the books
> >examined for Canonization?
>
> One must be careful where one looks for their theology. Secular TV is
> probably not the best place.
DAVEH: I wasn't looking for theology there. I was interested in finding out about
the development of the Bible. Sometimes secular TV will explain things in a way that
is not as biased as those closer to the cloth. (And, that is not to say secular TV
isn't biased.)
> >DAVEH: I assume that is a rhetorical question?
>
> Not really, but I did add some cynicism which may have made it sound
> rhetorical. My point being that what you see as shortsightedness I see as
> being cautious not to accept lies and heresy as new revealed doctrine.
DAVEH: I'm not asking you to throw caution to the wind. I'm just trying to figure
out why you don't expect and look forward to further revleation/Canon from the Lord.
As I see it, the possible reasons are........
1) God is dead
2) Canon is closed
3) All that is necessary for salvation has been revealed and is included in the Bible
4) Other
From our previous discussions, I assume #3 is the reason to which you subscribe,
Perry. What I am not sure is if you subscribe to #2. I don't want to put words in
your mouth, so may I ask you again for a simple answer....do you believe Canon is open
or closed?
> >Perry, do you know if Jewish Canon is open or closed?
>
> I have no idea what the Jews believe about what they consider canon.
DAVEH: Hopefully somebody smarter than me (DavidM?) will weigh in on this.
> Take a look at Hebrews 1:1,2.
DAVEH: I'll quote it for those who may not take the time to read it.....
"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by
the prophets. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath
appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"
.......OK Perry, I'm not sure where you are going with this.......did you have a point
to make?
> Perry
----------
"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.
