Modern Revelation vs Biblical Infallibility

[Faded]

This thread is primarily being opened to discuss a tangent topic from, How Does the LDS Church Resolve Conflicts With the Bible

Ultimately, there is very little difference between the basics of what Latter Day Saints belive and what non-LDS Christians believe. We all believe that salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone. We all believe we all must repent and be baptized. We all believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. For the most part, we all believe in the resurrection. We all agree that we should live in harmony with the Will of God. We do not have significant disagreement over basics of "living a good life and following Christ." We all believe in doing good to others and helping those in need. There's a very long list of things we can readily agree on. We can credit the Bible we have in common for that.

The tangent topic amounts to this: Is the Bible infallible and does it contain everything necessary for a Christian to live their life in accordance with the Will of God?

The real question at the heart of it all is, "What is the highest authority within the Church." There are three viewpoints that have developed over the centuries.

A.) The highest authority in the Church is the Pope and the priesthood leadership of the Catholic Church. (The Roman Catholic Church.)

B.) The highest authority in the Church is the Bible. (Protestant Christianity.)

C.) The highest authority in the Church is the living Prophet and senior-most Apostle, along with living Apostles and Prophets. (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.)

I know there are other points of view, but they all fall into one of these categories. The Greek Orthodox Church, The Eastern Assyrian Church and The Armenian Church and other extremely ancient divisions of the Church essentially mirror the Roman Catholic Church's point of view, but replace "the Pope, etc" with their own priesthood leadership.

When we Latter Day Saints read the Bible, we view it through a lens of the reality of the Restoration of the Fullness of the Gospel. When a Catholic reads the Bible, they read it through a lens of "Catholicism is right." Protestant Christians read the Bible through a lens of the Protestant Reformation and their own denominational understanding of the Bible.

On the one hand we have Protestantism (and Catholicism to some degree) saying, "The Bible already contains everything necessary to fulfill the will of God in this life and there is no need for anything else." A number of scriptures are used to try to establish this idea.

When Protestant Christian or a Catholic reads these passages, they seem to see something there that Latter Day Saints simply do not see. Our interpretations do not match because we start out with different notions of truth. That's really what the majority of conflicts in Christian history all boil down to: Different contradicting interpretations of the Bible.

Doctrines and teachings of the Restored Gospel do not contradict the Bible. They provide a more complete picture that allows for greater clarity in understanding the Bible. Ultimately, the key difference between us is that we believe that God sends his apostles and prophets to the world right now and that he will continue to do so. We rely on living prophets and apostles sent to us from God. The ultimate authority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not the Bible. The highest authority is God speaking through the living oracles he has appointed to lead and guide His Church and Kingdom. We follow the prophet first, and leave sorting out what is or isn't Biblical for later. That is the pattern we see God following throughout the Biblical record. We believe God does not change and has not changed from that pattern.

This differs greatly from Protestant and Catholic belief, which can be summarized as, "Living prophets and apostles have become obsolete." Latter Day Saints would say that is directly contradictory to the teachings of the Bible (Amos 3:7, Ephesians 4:11-16). We believe that the Bible teaches us that living messengers from God are an indispensable element of God's Church and Kingdom on Earth. In essence, the Kingdom is not truly the Kingdom without them.

In my reading of the Bible, I am unable to find the any teaching and allusion to the general cessation to the need for living apostles and prophets.

Where did this idea originally come from and what is the underlying basis for it?

Edited September 7, 2010 by Faded

[prisonchaplain]

For a primary source explaning the Cessationist viewpoint--that spiritual gifts (including prophecy) have ceased, see: Cessationism

[prisonchaplain]

As one who believes in modern revelation, I would suggest the real separation is not concerning the Bible's adequacy, but rather concerning authority. The OP correctly spells the different views out: The Pope (or leader of God's one true church), the Bible, and the President (or leader of God's one true RESTORED church).

Also, it is true that Christians of all stripes share much in common. On the other hand, our differences are severe. A few years back a ran a well-received string here comparing the Statement of Fundamental Truths from my own church with the Articles of Faith. Despite our common themes of grace and holiness, and our commond belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, there was almost no common ground in these statements. They both contained portions of similarity, but there was not one of the 13 Articles of Faith that my theology could whole heartedly endorse. Likewise, there was not one of the 16 Fundamental Truths of my church that LDS theology could accept without some comment or hesitation.

So, yes, let us celebrate our agreements...but we need not soft-pedal our differences. Rather we discuss them with christlike humility and charity.

[Faded]

For a primary source explaning the Cessationist viewpoint--that spiritual gifts (including prophecy) have ceased, see: Cessationism

"Many authors discuss the question of prophecy and the closure of the canon from the standpoint of cessationism. When one studies these discussions it soon becomes clear that different people are using the term cessationism in very different ways."

The rest of the article goes on to discuss the degree to which cessationism is to be regarded. Some say that all miracles and gifts of the Spirit have ceased. Some say that they still exist, but under set limits.

Clearly, we see the familiar lack of consensus among Christian religions on this matter. I'm not sure that I'd categorize the Pentacostal Church and other charismatic faiths as cessationalists based upon my reading of the article.

In the interests of getting to the heart of the matter, I suppose we would need to limit the scope of things just a bit.

For the purposes of this thread, we would be talking about Cessationism primarily in terms of the closing of the canon of Scripture. On this matter, the theological stance of virtually all of Protestantism and Catholicism is united in saying, "The canon is closed."

That's a critically important point that the entire discussion hinges upon, since The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints more or less stands alone in declaring that, "The canon isn't closed."

Edited September 7, 2010 by Faded

[Faded]

So, yes, let us celebrate our agreements...but we need not soft-pedal our differences. Rather we discuss them with christlike humility and charity.

Amen to that!

We can be civil and polite in discussing our differences and I hope everyone takes that to heart before commenting in this thread.

[Guest Ivo_G]

The real question at the heart of it all is, "What is the highest authority within the Church." There are three viewpoints that have developed over the centuries.

A.) The highest authority in the Church is the Pope and the priesthood leadership of the Catholic Church. (The Roman Catholic Church.)

B.) The highest authority in the Church is the Bible. (Protestant Christianity.)

.....................

I know there are other points of view, but they all fall into one of these categories. The Greek Orthodox Church, The Eastern Assyrian Church and The Armenian Church and other extremely ancient divisions of the Church essentially mirror the Roman Catholic Church's point of view, but replace "the Pope, etc" with their own priesthood leadership.

....................

On the one hand we have Protestantism (and Catholicism to some degree) saying, "The Bible already contains everything necessary to fulfill the will of God in this life and there is no need for anything else."

...................

This differs greatly from Protestant and Catholic belief, which can be summarized as, "Living prophets and apostles have become obsolete."

...................

That's what I was thinking but I was talking yesterday with some guys and at one point they basically said that "the Bible is not the ultimate authority" (talking from a Greek Orthodox and Catholic point of view) and the reason they gave for that was the Sacred Tradition/Holy Tradition. Although I, myself, am of Greek Orthodox background my knowledge on the topic wasn't very good. So I googled the term, read some explanations plus the explanations I got from those guys - and basically it all came down to the arguement that some "authors" (like St. Augustine) are God-inspired and therefore their works are "scripture" (or canon). And in the context of the Holy Tradition (if I understand it correctly) nobody says it's not possible contemporary members of the Church to be God-inspired.

I don't see how that really differs from what LDS believes? Granted, it may not be exactly the same but it's pretty close...or did I get it all wrong?

[Faded]

That's what I was thinking but I was talking yesterday with some guys and at one point they basically said that "the Bible is not the ultimate authority" (talking from a Greek Orthodox and Catholic point of view) and the reason they gave for that was the Sacred Tradition/Holy Tradition. Although I, myself, am of Greek Orthodox background my knowledge on the topic wasn't very good. So I googled the term, read some explanations plus the explanations I got from those guys - and basically it all came down to the arguement that some "authors" (like St. Augustine) are God-inspired and therefore their works are "scripture" (or canon). And in the context of the Holy Tradition (if I understand it correctly) nobody says it's not possible contemporary members of the Church to be God-inspired.

I don't see how that really differs from what LDS believes? Granted, it may not be exactly the same but it's pretty close...or did I get it all wrong?

The distinguishing factor is that even as far back as St Augustine, the traditional Christian view is that the canon is closed. St Augustine taught this as have many Catholic and Eastern scholars.

The feature that all traditional forms of Christianity have in common is the notion that the canon is closed. So the writings of St Augustine, Dante or Jerome are not given equal standing with Scripture. The Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed is not given the same standing with Scripture. Stories of faith and miracles are not given the same standing either. The Bible is held up as a closed record wherein revelation from God came with greater authority than what exists today. The Catholic Scriptures do not include the Bible + all of the decisions (cannons) of every Ecumenical Council's decisions + All Relevant Creeds of Faith + revelations to Popes through the centuries. Their scriptures specifically include the Bible and that's it. Everything else is, while considered to be valid, is considered to be something lesser than the Biblical texts. Likewise, the Pope is not held to be an apostle. He is held to be the successor of the apostles, but the Pope is lesser than an apostle in the Catholic view (as I understand it anyways.)

Pentecostals and other charismatic religions believe in modern day revelation, but won't go so far as to add to the canon of scripture with anything of those revelations.

Sacred Tradition is generally founded in Ecumenical councils or similar things. Anyways, it falls into following the Pope and/or the priesthood leadership of their church.

Edited October 1, 2010 by Faded