Sign in to follow this  
CommanderSouth

Best way to answer this?

Recommended Posts

Guest

True enough. Luther lost his testimony of the authority and anointing of church hierarchy. My forefathers couldn't understand why some of the experiences of the early church weren't still happening...so they sought them.

I understand that many converts to LDS say they felt something was missing in their old church or religious practice. It makes sense that the counter to that is that if I have a strong testimony of my current faith, I'll look to those second accounts and ask, "Was something added?"

For myself, I didn't feel there was something missing in my previous religious beliefs. I believed they were the most complete of anything on the planet. Then I studied LDS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is exactly my point - Where there is no fault or in other words, responsibility, there is no authority nor can there be.

Therefore the only authority, that can in reality exist, is the individual that interprets scripture - especially those that interpret scriptures for others - which if you think about it is the very core definition of authority concerning others.

The Traveler

Here is where we differ...though perhaps only somewhat. My church has a document called our Statement of Fundamental Truths. It contains 16 Statements that we might consider "non-negotiables." They are our core doctrines--they are what binds us in "like precious faith." However, ask most of our members, including our clergy, that if they could be shown a convincing argument from scripture that counters one of those doctrines, they would tell you that they would have to go with the scripture. It might mean leaving the denomination, but the truth of the Bible trumps even our agreed-to basics. Scripture is the final rule.

There is no doubt but that we interpret them. We sometimes get it wrong, too. However, we expect from our teachers a sincere pursuing after God--his will and his way--not perfection. They should be anointed by the Holy Spirit, yes. However, even Moses had his ungodly moments and failed understandings.

So there is no man or office, in our reckoning, that trumps the ultimate truth of the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having been in the Baptist church in my old life :), I can attest that many of these types of Christians are not familar with the history of the Bible. If you brought up the notion of cannonization of the scriptures, they would not understand. Somehow they have the impression that God dictated the KJV and that was that! It is hard to reason with these individuals since they do not even understand the history of the book they are trying to defend!

Yeah, this to me is like the end of all discussion. How in the world can an explanation of any sort be brought up for the idea that we cannot add or take away from the Bible when we analyze the history of its canonization?

What about the Apochrypha? The Latin Vulgate had different books, so the KJV has taken away or added to that Bible. Wikipedia would give people the basics and enough for people to realize the Bible's are different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Yes, the Jewish people use this scripture to tell Christians that their NT is false... How would a "closed cannon" Christian argue with a Jewish person, I wonder, to convince them that the NT is legitimate?

(Old Testament | Deuteronomy 4:2)

2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Because Jesus Christ's ministry is in the NT. And the OT refers to His coming.

The argument between Jewish and Christian is not the added part because both believe that a savior is coming. The difference is whether Jesus was it.

This is far different from NT and BoM. Because Christians believe Jesus fulfilled the gospel and that Peter is the rock of the last dispensation. So a great apostasy and a restoration to be another dispensation is an addition.

Edited by anatess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the Jewish people use this scripture to tell Christians that their NT is false... How would a "closed cannon" Christian argue with a Jewish person, I wonder, to convince them that the NT is legitimate?

(Old Testament | Deuteronomy 4:2)

2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

They would likely say that Moses was referring to his books--the Torah. As evidence, they'd point to the later books of the Tanakh (what we call the Old Testament).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, this to me is like the end of all discussion. How in the world can an explanation of any sort be brought up for the idea that we cannot add or take away from the Bible when we analyze the history of its canonization?

What about the Apochrypha? The Latin Vulgate had different books, so the KJV has taken away or added to that Bible. Wikipedia would give people the basics and enough for people to realize the Bible's are different.

I do not pretend to be an expert in the history of canonization. Suffice to say that most Christians believe that God directed the process--making sure his book came together the way he wanted it to. I sense that some LDS hold a very dark view of how "the politics of man" may have corrupted the selection of writings.

I do know that the Apocrypha was rejected by the Jewish authorities--and they are Jewish writings. So, as a Christian, I feel little need to defend their exclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not pretend to be an expert in the history of canonization. Suffice to say that most Christians believe that God directed the process--making sure his book came together the way he wanted it to. I sense that some LDS hold a very dark view of how "the politics of man" may have corrupted the selection of writings.

I do know that the Apocrypha was rejected by the Jewish authorities--and they are Jewish writings. So, as a Christian, I feel little need to defend their exclusion.

I think you have hit the proverbial nail on the head. LDS do believe that the canonization of scriptures was completely out of character in history as the means by which G-d establishes his holy and sacred word among his covenant peoples.

I can hold up a copy of the constitution of the United States of America and say I think and believe that it is inspired of G-d. I can quote Shakespeare and say that I believe such to be inspired of G-d. But something being inspired of G-d is very different than being the "AUTHORITY" of G-d and His sacred and Holy word for man and man's salvation.

I personally believe that anyone that studies the historical events and the means by which the scripture of the Bible were canonized will realize that the popular notions of man were deeply involved and that though G-d may have inspired men to preserve the sacred and holy scriptures as sacred and holy - that the decision to canonize and end forever sacred scripture coming from G-d was a mistake of man assuming authority for himself that (as you have said of G-d in other places - boxed in and bound G-d in a manner that should not define G-d or his work or his sacred word to man) was never granted, intended or inspired by G-d.

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not pretend to be an expert in the history of canonization. Suffice to say that most Christians believe that God directed the process--making sure his book came together the way he wanted it to. I sense that some LDS hold a very dark view of how "the politics of man" may have corrupted the selection of writings.

I do know that the Apocrypha was rejected by the Jewish authorities--and they are Jewish writings. So, as a Christian, I feel little need to defend their exclusion.

haha ok that makes sense. I just recently learned about the canonizing myself so I've wondered how it's approached by others. For me I couldn't think of anything so when I saw this discussion, I just kinda said how I have been feeling lately. But that makes sense. Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this