The operative point in our discussion is not that Christians would
or would not welcome new revelation...
DAVEH: To me, it is a very pertinent point. You made the claim, and
from my experience it is not a claim I've heard any Christians
previously make. If what you say is true, then it should be easy to
hear the same words come from other Christian. So far....you are the
only one I can remember saying such. My experience suggests that most
Christians simply want to believe the heavens are closed.
No more needs to be done, or said to complete or augment the gospel
of Jesus Christ. It is finished.
DAVEH: That is the attitude I've found so prevalent, that we LDS find
so incongruous.
If indeed Jude 3 and Hebrews 1-2 are true, there would be no gain
(biblically...although perhaps personally) from adding to it.
DAVEH: It seems to me that continued revelation/Scripture could have
significant gain, if for no other reason than answering
Christian questions of doctrine.
There are a series of objective tests that books of the Bible had
to meet before they were considered scripture ("canonical"), and
against which new "scripture" is judged.
DAVEH: I've not heard of them......Where can those objective tests
be found?
That is why we must take heed to take 2 Cor 11:3,4; Gal 1:6-9 to
heart.
DAVEH: It does cause one to wonder that if........
[Gal 1:6] I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called
you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
.........they were having such problems so soon, then does one suppose
they may have had such problems in the 2 millennia since then.
We assume that Hebrews 1:1-2 is correct, in that in these last days
God spoke to us through his Son.
DAVEH: Logically, that would present a dilemma if one assumes your
understanding of it is correct, since all of the NT was written after
Jesus died, and much of it characterizes the events that happened post
crucification.
How honest a scholar are you Dave? Are you the man to do it?
DAVEH: As you well know, I'm not much of a scholar, Perry. I prefer
to trust in the Lord over scholarship. What he has revealed to me via
the Holy Ghost is more pertinent to my needs than a scholarly
discussion. That's why I previously said that I did not join TT to
change my religious perspective, but rather I'm here to find out why
and how Protestants justify theirs.
I would not rely on Google for uncovering the truth about anything.
DAVEH: I was not asking you to use Google to discover truth, but
rather use it to find evidence to support your theory that seemed
rather flawed to me. I spent a few minutes trying to find others who
expressed the same thing you did, but was unable to find it. As I've
pointed out before, it is pretty hopeless to try to prove a negative.
When you think of the vastness of the net, it will only be a few weeks
before these TT posts will be googleable, and your specific quote will
then be online for anybody to access. Yet when I queried google for
some other Christian expressing exactly the same sentiment, I turned up
a big fat zero. To me....that is amazing. That's not to say there
aren't other Christians who think as you do, Perry....but it does
suggest few of them are willing to express it publicly.
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Dave,
Adding to the word is very dangerous business. If one is to believe
Jude 3, and Hebrews 1-2, then one would logically assume that scripture
is complete. The operative point in our discussion is not that
Christians would or would not welcome new revelation...I beleive
that most would if it could be demonstrated to be scripture... it is
that we believe no new scripture HAS been revealed. But, as Jesus said
on the cross..."it is finished". His atoning work was complete. No
more needs to be done, or said to complete or augment the gospel of
Jesus Christ. It is finished.
As for Revelation 22, I believe that is an admonition from the writer
of Revelation not to change Revelation. However, I also beleive that
the principle applies to all of scripture. If indeed Jude 3 and
Hebrews 1-2 are true, there would be no gain (biblically...although
perhaps personally) from adding to it.
There are a series of objective tests that books of the Bible
had to meet before they were considered scripture ("canonical"), and
against which new "scripture" is judged. There were many other
books that, although considered by some early christian groups to be
scripture, did not meet these criteria. When the mormon extra-biblical
works are put to these tests, they fail miserably. That is why we
must take heed to take 2 Cor 11:3,4; Gal 1:6-9 to heart. The mormon
works are heretical.
As for your perception of Christians as "myopic", I differ. First of
all, we are totally in accord with scripture. We start with the
biblical fact that "itis finished". We assume that Hebrews 1:1-2 is
correct, in that in these last days God spoke to us through his Son.
We believe Jude 3 when it says that the faith was delivered once for
all to the saints. We are applying objective tests to purported "new"
scripture. We are being good Bereans and searching the scriptures daily
to see if what latter day "prophets" are saying is true. We are
"testing the spirits" of newly revealed "scripture", including
mormonism, and finding that it fails the tests of "canonicity". My
guess is that no one in the mormon theocracy has ever honestly applied
these tests to scripture and truthfully reported their findings. How
honest a scholar are you Dave? Are you the man to do it?
Finally, I would not rely on Google for uncovering the truth
about anything. Especially if my expectations of it's ability were
too high, and my search techniques were lacking.
Perry
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 10:53:47 -0800
* It is not additional revelation that we object to, per se, and many
(if not most) Christians feel that if it is in God's will, additional
revelation would be welcome.*
DAVEH: That isn't the way I've understood most Protestants to
believe. If so, then why is there such a reluctance to /add to the
Word/, so to speak? When I've addressed the need for current
revelation on TT in the past, some TTers have used Rev 22.......
/[18] For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the
prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God
shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:/
.........as their (faulty) logic in dismissing the option of God
revealing more Scripture. And, I've heard that from more than just one
single TTer. It is a common argument that is used by many
Protestants......and as such, it would suggest that your above comment
about........
*additional revelation would be welcome
...........* is not correct. Can you give me some examples of
Protestants making such a claim anywhere on the net? That is such a
simple and concise statement, one would think it would be easy to
google it and turn up a lot of examples of Protestants saying exactly
the same thing with exactly the same words. Yet this is what I got
when I tried it.......
_/Your search - "additional revelation would be welcome" - did not
match any documents./_
........Which to me would seem very strange if it was a commonly
believed desire of Protestants.
* Many of us believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ is complete.*
DAVEH: Which is why I think you are myopic on this, Perry. Are there
ANY Protestants who think otherwise? Doesn't believing in that manner
suggest that you would not welcome any *additional revelation*_//_, as
it would imply that your basic premise is flawed? How can you consider
the *gospel of Jesus Christ* to be complete, and then welcome
*additional revelation*? I can only assume that the *_many_* you
mentioned below does not include you?
*Should God choose to reveal more scripture it would be welcome*
DAVEH: As I see it, Protestantism would not be receptive to it at
all........especially, if such revelations were to point out the errors
promulgated by Protestant theology. I would be most interested in
seeing you find stuff on the net to support your above claim. I
suspect you are merely saying such to pacify my belief that
Protestantism does not readily welcome more revelation from God. If
there are *_many_ * Protestants who believe as you suggested....it
should be easy for you to provide evidence, Perry. Otherwise, I can
only assume you are grinding your ax against Mormonism.
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Dave,
* It is not additional revelation that we object to, per se, and
_many_ (if not most) Christians feel that if it is in God's will,
additional revelation would be welcome.* And to many, additional
personal revelation is accepted.
* Many of us believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ is complete.*
That the faith was delivered once for all to the saints (Jude 3). No
more is necessary, and what we have is sufficient for understanding
God's will for mankind, and attaining salvation. *Should God choose to
reveal more scripture it would be welcome*...but, to date, no works
fulfill that goal.
We have been warned in scripture that if anyone preaches a different
gospel than the Apostles taught, they are accursed. (2 Cor 11:3,4; Gal
1:6-9)
It is the heretical, contradictory, and unbiblical nature of the
mormon extra-biblical works, the nefarious background of JS, the lies
and deceit of the mormon church that we object to. These prevent real
Christians from accepting the mormon works as revelation, or as
"another testament of Jesus Christ". This all points to one thing...the
mormon system is not of God. THAT is what we object to. It is a FALSE
religion.
Perry
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 09:04:34 -0800
*It is perhaps perplexing to them why you would so adamantly argue that
the Scriptures have been closed.*
DAVEH: Yes DavidM, that is correct.....Such does perplex us. I'm
suspect there may be other reasons as well, but it almost seems that
the argument for closure is just a knee jerk reaction because of JS's
contribution of post Biblical revelations. From our perspective, it
appears that Protestants have truly put the blinders on in an effort to
avoid hearing anything God might want them to know that is not included
in the Bible.
Apparently, the only thing that is going to be accepted in a post
Biblical sense, will be Jesus.....and that only after he shows the nail
prints in his hands.
If God felt the need to reveal his will through the apostles and
prophets of Bible times, it truly does seem strange to us (LDS) that
many Christians in this era would reject the idea that God could/would
do the same today. To think that God revealed everything we need to
know several thousand years ago, and that it has been 100% recorded in
what we know as the Bible.....seems a bit more than myopic.....it might
even be insulting to a Lord whose methods are claimed not to change.
/*It appears that such dogma comes out of convenience rather than
conviction.*/
DAVEH: To me, it seems more a matter of stubbornness, rather than
convenience. To allow God to reveal more than he has currently
revealed would simply upset the applecart, so to speak. Protestantism
has invested heavily in both time and effort building a framework of
theology that stands apart from Catholicism, and has adopted a no
change policy that would prevent anybody from making waves.
IOW.....Why would they (Protestants) want to take a chance on finding
out that some of their basic premises are wrong! It is much easier to
assume correctness of theology, and refuse to hear anything that might
be contrary. Hence, they stubbornly reject anything God might reveal
outside the Bible.
David Miller wrote:
As for the Scritpures being closed.... I have expressed in this forum
many times in the past that my perspective is that I do not expect more
Scriptures to be forthcoming. Nevertheless, there is no mandate or
decree that closes the Canon. It is only an assumption we have that
there will not be any more Scriptures written until Christ himself
returns. I suspect those just before Christ came the first time
thought the same thing. Nevertheless, Christ did come, and soon more
Scriptures were written. The only reason such a point is necessary is
honesty in approaching the subject. I'm sure to the Mormons, who
believe that other Scriptures have been written, you appear unable to
think outside your little theological box. *It is perhaps perplexing
to them why you would so adamantly argue that the Scriptures have been
closed.* /*It appears that such dogma comes out of convenience rather
than conviction.*/
|
