From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Charles P. Locke" wrote:Again, I am not sure if there is an "official" protestant view. If there is an "official" position on it, I am not aware of it.
> >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'?
I don't think that I (or the "protestants" for that matter) have ever offered a statement saying that additional revelation is NOT possible.
> >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.
I (and I believe the protestant church, too) believe that 1) None has been given, 2) None will be given, and 3) Jude seems to support this (as does Hebrews, as we'll see later).
This is about the 5th time I've typed this in...I am surprised you haven't seen it yet.
To use the Jews, as you have done, as an argument...I am sure that they expected to hear from God during the 400 years of silence prior to Christ...why was he silent? He had already told them that the Messiah was coming and had, in fact, been quite detailed. There was nothing more to tell them, until He arrived, and He told the rest.
Because nothing new has been revealed. Every so often (since the f1rst century, in fact) some heretical group comes up with "revealed" information that just doesn't hold up to the fire of the scripture.
> 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.
Think about the Heaven's Gate Cult. They relied on the "revealed prophecy" of a man, and they believed with their very hearts that he was right...and I'll tell you something, I cannot say whether they are in heaven or hell (not my call), but I don't believe they are on some flying saucer! And, if we were to compress the LDS history into a few years, it looks very similar. David Koresh, Jim Jones, L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith...there is a very long list of false prophets.
> >DAVEH: Btw.......Do you remember the "Is God Dead" days some 3 decades agoIsn't that the way of the world, though? They expect God to act in their way, on their schedule. Again, this does not affect our discussion.
> >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.
David, really. I have typed my views in on this topic at least 5 times...and I wonder why you have not seen it. I have been as concise and clear as I know how...and if you have not gotten it by now, then maybe you do not want to. And, I also find that you always want ME to retype it, or explain it again, or cut and paste this or that, and basically be your TT secretary and look stuff up for you. I do not have time to be your girl friday and respond to these lengthy posts, too! >G<
> >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.
Not a side step...but it was probably a poor answer since you cannot read the Bible without the LDS bias.
> >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.)
I am simply saying that I rely on the Bible to be my guide, not the "revealed" work of a 19th century occultic false prophet.
I just pulled out three LDS prooftexts...not specifically related to anything anyone posted.
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 understandCome on, David. If people have been describing the Trinity to you for three years, and you have not gotten it yet, then you do not want to get it. Understanding it (geting it) and believing it are two separate things. You seem to get them confused. Hey, I didn't like Mathematical Probability, but it only took me 1 semester to get it (at least to a 'B' level), and it is much harder to understand than the Trinity. >G<
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.
Did you see my post on Jude 3 support? Maybe your feelings result from your LDS bias which indicate that Jude 3 MUST not mean "once for all", otherwise you may have to abandon your "new revelation" beliefs. That is bias in action, doing what bias is meant to do...obscure the facts.
> >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.)
DavidM also seems to have a vested interest in your feelings about it.
That is a non-problem. If I wrote 4.9 books, and my assistant wrote the last chapter of the last book, I am sure I would get credit for the whole work. Why should Moses be any different?
> >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?
Not as a dig, but as a statement to evoke the thought that there is a possibility that the JS and HS deaths may have been God's judgement on false prophets. We cannot rule that out. In that sense, it would have been the modern equivalent of stoning false prophets.> (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.)
Your comment seemed to use it as an authority.
If there ever was any new revelation that held to the test of scripture, and brought glory to God, and brought more light into the world, I would definitely have to rethink my position, as would the whole world. But, none have ever passed that test.
> >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.
However, to date there has been none, so my belief about the delivery of the faith ONCE FOR ALL to the saints, and the Hebrews author's comments about Jesus speaking to us in these last days holds up entirely.
What the LDS refuse to do is to see the very blatant and plain contradictions of the Bible that the LDS works contain. I try to explain it, and I have NEVER heard an LDS say, "WOW! I never saw that before. I better pray about this and find out why that contradiction is there." They are not turth-seekers, they are lie-justifiers. My mother-in-law's favortie response is, "Well, some people will say anything." That's it! (Of course, she is not a deep doctrinal kind. The warm fuzzies are enough for her).
The official LDS positions are things like "theBook of Mormon is the most correct [except for the 4000+ changes] book in the world", and whenever JS encountered a contradictory passage in the Bible he would comment, "that was written by some old Jew with no authority". Now that sure sounds like an honest way for a prophet of god to treat Holy Scripture.
So, the bottom line is, if any of the Mormon works contradict the Bible, they are considered correct, and the Bible wrong. I know, "The Bible is the word of God, so long as it is translated correctly". Joseph Smith could not even translate the Book of the Dead...how are we to assume he could even understand if the Bible is translated correctly?
If LDS, such as yourself, are truly seeking the truth, how can they continue, day after day, to ignore the contradeictions, lies, deceit, plaigerisms, false prophecy, secret enclaves, hate mongering, occult practices, stolen ceremonies, adulteries of their prophet, ludicrous self-serving "revelations" of the Mormon Church? The answers are one or all of the following:
1. They have been truly blinded and it is, therefore, impossible for them to see the truth.
2. They are brainwashed into believing that all of this is true.
3. They know at some dseep level it is false, but do not have the courage to face their family, friends, brothers, and sisters, and church authorities with the truth.
4. They suffer from the "what if LDS is really true" syndrome, in that if it is true, then they may miss out on an opportunity to become a god.
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?
Closed. For at least the 5th time.
> Take a look at Hebrews 1:1,2.Actually, the author makes the point for me. Let me explain it without the LDS bias...
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?
1. God spoke to us in times past via his prophets...
2. He has spoken to us in THESE LAST DAYS by his son...
3. The author does not say that he will speak to us again by prophets, but indicates the finality of the message delivered by Jesus. Otherwise, he would not have claimed these were the last days! Otherwise, he might have said, "today by his Son, and in the last days by the prophets again".
With this statement, plus the statement of Jude, I think a VERY strong case can be made for no more revelation.
Perry
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_virusprotection_3mf
----------
"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.
