http://christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-r002a.html
Darin
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Darin,
Happy Easter.
The only fair way to evaluate Mormon beliefs is to read them in their own context and emphasis, not by reading them as they are pointed out by others as they try to poke holes. Please read the Book of Mormon or read the Ensign. Sometimes I send you emails with things to read or talks to listen to, but I don't know if you ever do.
This website brings up a few interesting points, but I can't help but be distracted by the flaws. First of all, a single quote from a member of the church (no matter his position in the church) does not make something a teaching of Mormonism. The first quote is by Milton Hunter. I don't even know who Milton Hunter is! Secondly, and more importantly, no reference are given to justify their interpretation of the Bible. The website presumptuously says, "The Bible says:..." Where does the Bible say that? It's funny that the word "Trinity" appears in the "Bible says" section (page about Jesus Christ). I know it doesn't say that. What they mean is, "I think the Bible teaches:..." Also, on the page about Man they say the Bible doesn't say anything in any form about existence (as a spirit) before our birth on Earth. Jeremiah 1:5 says: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. I think this indicates that Jeremiah was ordained as a spirit before his birth on this earth to become a prophet. You might decide that this really means that God simply knew before Jeremiah was born that he would ordain Jeremiah as prophet after he was born. But it's certainly unfair to interpret the Bible how they want and then use that to make claims about my beliefs being in opposition to that interpretation.
I am sad to see them try to misuse the quote by Parley P. Pratt on the second page (about Jesus Christ). Anyone who has read his writings knows that he had a deep understanding of Jesus Christ as the Savior. He certainly didn't believe that there is nothing in Jesus' life more than what is attainable by anyone else, as they falsely read into it. His quote simply states the opinion that all of us can show a bit of divinity in the way we live our lives when we choose to follow Christ. The way they use this statement is very deceptive. When he talks about the humanity of Jesus being ordinary, and that whatever happened to Him can happen to any of us, he is trying to make the point that Jesus came to this Earth and experienced a life like we all experience (in addition to much more).
I have a question that I really want an answer to. I've been asking several people, including those of other faiths, and I haven't found anything interesting yet. Here it is: Most Christians seem to be willing to make the following two claims:
1. All of their beliefs come strictly from the Bible.
2. There is no other word of God (scripture) other than the Bible.
Now, the way I see it, it is perfectly reasonable to make the first statement. After all, it is simply a statement about ones beliefs. It could be true. However, notice that the second statement is itself a very fundamental and important belief. If the first statement is true, then the belief that is explained in the second statement should also come from the Bible. Let me emphasize, not from a pastor, not from tradition, not even from personal revelation through the Holy Ghost. Because that's exactly what is said in the first statement, that all the person's beliefs come strictly from the Bible.
So if you agree with my reasoning above then the only way these two claims could both be true is if the Bible teaches that it is the only words of God. So where does it teach that? That's my question.
I'm serious about this. I'm looking for scriptures that are very specific about teaching that Bible is finished. Sure, I've read it several time, but I can't remember every verse, so I'm asking you to show me some verses that teach this. Since the word "Bible" isn't used in the Bible, it should be a verse that explains that revelation, or the word of God, or something, will cease to exist or cease to be necessary after the time the original apostles + 2 die. It's not good enough for example simply to find that the Bible teaches that the word of God is all we need because that doesn't tell us what we should consider to be the word of God.
Maybe we can go back and forth on this a little. I really do want to know any scriptures you might know of that help support your belief. If you bring up the well-known scripture in Revelation 22:18 then I'll have more to say about it. In fact, I'll tell you right now. Read Revelation chapter one carefully (particularly verse 11) and then see what you think about that.
Thanks Darin. I always enjoy discussing this with you.
Paul
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul,
Thanks, hope you guys had a happy Easter as well. Our church service was held at the Rose Garden (first time ever), and many people were baptized so I am really happy about that.
This is easy to answer for me, and sorry if it isn’t interesting, but I believe your reasoning is actually hyper-analyzing it. No one can say that all their beliefs come from the Bible. I can say that all our doctrine beliefs come from the Bible, but if I use my cell phone or fly on a plane, etc…that is not mentioned in the Bible.
That’s all I have time for…full time school, two kids, wife, etc…!
Darin
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace what I said with "doctrine beliefs." Statement 2 should qualify as such. I still would like an answer when you have time.
Paul
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh so it has been changed…there’s an element of faith needed, because the Bible doesn’t talk about certain things, BUT, Jesus did say “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”
There is no way that God left mankind with no way of salvation for 2000 years after Jesus was on the earth (before that there were sacrifices), if you believe God is a just God.
Something I would add about the 2nd statement is that first, there is no other Word of God like the 66 books of our Canon, and 2nd, especially not if it disagrees with it. The Bible is the basis of truth, I think you would agree with that. If something contradicts the Bible, it is not truth.
Darin
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I'm not understanding everything you wrote there. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of something with you. I'm not trying to interrogate you, so I hope it doesn't feel that way to you.
Let's start from scratch. Do you claim the following two things?
1. All of your religious beliefs come strictly from the Bible.
2. There is no other word of God (scripture) other than the Bible.
Paul
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[One year later]
Paul,
I don’t remember what this was from exactly, but I had put together a reply in a word document to send you about the Bible. It is broken into two parts. Here it is below.
Darin
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for taking the time to write this. I will forward the conversation that I think this stemmed from. Also, I'll insert some comments between your paragraphs.
Paul
-------------------------------------------------------------------
As for Revelation 1:11 – that really has nothing to do with the conversation – except perhaps in the sense of Revelation 22:18 – For I personally believe that this is the book, the book of Revelation, that John was specifically writing of here in this statement – but we do not know for sure, and that is key. Although, many good Biblical scholars say that since this is the last accepted cannon of Scripture that it does have application to the rest of the Bible... So we can do with that as a bit of wisdom...
In the KJV, Revelations 1:11 uses the word "book" in the translation. John is commanded to write a book and send . My point was that that was the same book he said not to add to at the end. It sounds like we already agree on this though. I'm not sure what you mean by Revelations being the last accepted cannon. Maybe you can explain. In what sense is it last?
As for the premise of what you're saying, it is good and yet can become felonious as well... The word Bible does appear in the Bible – when you read "book" in our English, it is actually "biblia" or "biblios" in the Greek – which is Bible... This simply means book or books...
Good point.
We do not find many, many other terms throughout the Bible that we use today either... Trinity is one for example... Or Theology.... Yet, both of these terms are exemplified through the entire Scriptures... So we have used terms that help us as humans better understand the Word of God.
Now, I will also say that not every Christian is or believes what you say here – "Solo Scriptora" or Scripture Alone... As a matter of fact, Paul spoke a couple of times about following certain "traditions" that he had given... The point is that traditions in and of them selves may or may not be biblical – but they can still be okay according to Paul – but they can not be placed on the same plane as the Bible...
Paul made this very clear in 2 Tim 3:16-17, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." NKJV Not traditions or other writings – Scripture alone.
So here, we first come to that point where, Scripture is to be above all else... period. Paul says it, and that is good enough for me.
Then this brings us to the next point – what constitutes Scripture...? This is a more in-depth question... But simply put, it is God's breathed Word to mankind.
We believe, as Christians, that this canon of Scripture stopped with the Book of Revelation. We accept the Old Testament as the Jewish people do. The New Testament we believe was written by those who were there with Jesus, including interviews with these people, as in the case of Luke and Acts... When these people died, there have been no additions made - for almost two thousand years...
This is the question I'm asking. Why do you believe this (that scripture stopped with Revelation)? The Bible doesn't teach this, therefore it's not taught by anyone with authority, by your own claim that everything else is the teachings of man. And the Bible canon constitutes a fuzzy line anyway. Not all of the NT authors knew Jesus during His life (Paul in particular). And the OT is full of prophecies from people who didn't know Jesus in mortality, so why should we assume that after those who were from Christ's era died scripture must have stopped. I think your last statement says what's really going on here. For two thousand years the canon of scripture was largely unchallenged, so it's become traditionally accepted that it is finished.
Now, all of the books currently in the New Testament – they all line up with each other and with the Old Testament – this is one of the main reasons they are believed to be Scripture – and not the writings of man...
There has been nothing – and I say this again, nothing – that has been written since that claims to be "the word of God" that lines up with the Scripture – sixty six books, written by some 40 authors all lining up with each other – awesome!
Now, others have written things they say are from God – yet, when we hold them up to the other sixty six books, they don't line up – thus, we do not accept them...
The Bible is consistent and marvelous. But your statement is unfair because you have years and years of reasoning and tradition at your disposal to try to explain how they are consistent. I'm sure it wasn't so simple during the canonization process to decide which writing were consistent and which weren't. Each portion of the Bible is important because it brings new perspective, examples, and occasionally doctrine to the whole. My experience with the Book of Mormon is the same way. It's all in harmony with the message of the Bible, even when it introduces things that are not specified in the Bible.
It also doesn't make sense to say that nothing else has ever matched up with the Bible. How about this: "Jesus is the only way to salvation." Can't I say that that lines up with the Bible. I'm not just trying to be difficult. I'm being honest here. Why do you feel like you can make such a broad claim, especially since it's not a simple thing to decide what's consistent with the Bible and what's not? Most converts to our church are students of the Bible and cherish it during and after their conversion. They don't feel like they are rejecting it when they learn the things we teach.
And example of this is the Book of Mormon – it claims that we can all become gods of our own worlds (and many other teaching that go directly against the Scripture that we do have) – yet the Bible clearly states that there is only One God – period – and we are not Him... Over and over again....
The Book of Mormon doesn't teach this. I encourage you to read it again. Most of the Book of Mormon is examples of people living by faith and receiving blessings from God, and sermons of familiar Bible principles like faith and charity. Of the few things that the Book of Mormon teaches that you might consider new from the Bible, the significant ones that come to mind are:
- many people before Christ, even old testament prophets, knew more about Christ than the OT implies
- Jesus manifested himself to other people throughout the world
- baptism is an important commandment
- children are not accountable and should not be baptized until they are at least eight years old
- the new world (Americas) will be instrumental in the spread of the gospel before the last days.
Not to avoid the issue, it is true that I believe that God's plan for us it to become like God and have spirit children as He does. How does this reconcile with the Bible? First of all, Jesus is God and the Father is God. The Bible teaches that there is one God yet directly identifies two. My impression: We have one God to worship and pray to, our Father. I think that is what the God is trying to teach us when the Bible states that there are no other Gods.
No matter who or what it is that teaches anything – everything must be held up to the Scriptures we have – 2 Tim 3:16-17...
Peter in 2 Peter 3:15-16 makes it clear that what Paul wrote is Scripture – so we know that this Scripture here in 2 Timothy is true as well:
2 Peter 3:15-16
"15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." ESV
So, traditions, what a pastor teaches, what you and I say or write – are all to be held up to for testing to what we do know for sure is the truth – and if it lines up, great – if it does not, then we reject it...
A good in-depth book on this entire matter is "A General Introduction to the Bible" by Normal Geisler.... He goes way in-depth on this.
Our principle beliefs on right and wrong or just general morality come form the Bible.(and of course "bible" isn't used in the Bible. its just what we call all the things contained therein as a whole). we make our beliefs on things not mentioned in the Bible based on the wisdom of moral judgement we gain from the Bible. that's how the gift of discernment is used. Hebrews 5:14 says, "But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil." this gift plays a heavy role in the question about the second statement. Galations 1:8-10 says, " 8But even though we or as angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so I say again now, If any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you recieved, let him be accurrsed. 10For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ." I wouldn't give this passage to stand on its own in this argument but would connect it to the scripture already mentioned in Hebrews. We as Christians judge and discern all things by the Bible and the "Bible" as we know it is shown to be complete by the fact that nothing else ever written is A) written by those who are qualified by God to write scripture(apostles). and B) matches up with the already exsiting scrtpture which all Christians(even Mormons) acknowlege to be God inspired. Why would add things to Bible that contradict the Bible? In Matthew 23:35, "That upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Able to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar". Jesus qualifies the begining and end of the Old Testament.(this is of course in chronological order, not the order they are placed in the Bible) which doesn't leave room for anything else as far as the Old Testament is concerned.
In his last statement he tries to seal the Old Testament. How presumptuous. You can't just give one interesting piece of insight and then claim that that seals the deal. I think that's outrageous that he would say that that "doesn't leave room for anything else as far as the Old Testament is concerned." The fact that Jesus referenced the OT in the Biblical order rather than chronological order makes me think he was making use of a something familiar to the people, the scriptures, in order to teach. He often did this. I can give you another great example involving the famous teachings of a Rabbi named Hillel if you remind me. So it's way out of place to make such claims that this means the OT contains everything important and righteous from the prophets, even though it is an interesting observation.
No comments:
Post a Comment