On Friday, December 5th some of us will be meeting in the side-room at High Pointe Coffee in West Jordan, UT, from 7pm – 9pm. The meet-up is casual, but we’re having one evangelical and one Mormon each present on a topic for 10 minutes.
Evangelism and testimony-bearing is in our respective evangelical and Mormon DNA, so you’ll need to come with a friendly spirit of patience. Even if you don’t want to participate, feel free to come and just listen.
One assumption of the meeting is the value of informal religious “dialectic”. In curiosity we would also just like to meet you guys, both evangelicals and Mormons, who have participated or lurked here. If you come, I hope you make a friend!
PS: High Pointe serves plenty of non-Coffee drinks and smoothies!
SteveH,
I would not call it "bibiolatry" because it is not worshiping the bible but looking at the bible and seeing that it's claims are true. The authority of the bible to make these claims does not come from a church or a council but from the very God revealed in it's pages. These claims cause us to worship the Truth revealed outside of the bible, namely God.
As for your examples of Paul and Moses you miss the point that we are no longer in an age of inscripturation. Moses lived in the time of the Prophets and Paul in the Apostolic period. Communication with God certainly is not over, that would miss the gift of the Holy Spirit. What we do not believe is that anything can be added to Scripture (Gal 1:8, 9) because it contains the "… whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life.." (WCF I, IV)(2 Timothy 3:15-17).
In accord with Paul's teaching in Romans 10:17 we do believe that "…faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Because of this Reformed Churches confess in the SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION…
"Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe that the very Word of God is preached, and received of the faithful; and that neither any other Word of God is to be feigned, nor to be expected from heaven: and that now the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the minister that preaches; who, although he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God abides true and good."
Let's examine the scriptures you have quoted to support your position.
2Tim 3:15-17: Letter from Paul to Timothy. Reminding him that the scriptures have made him wise unto salvation. What scriptures? Certainly not Paul's letter because that was not scripture, at the time. He is referring to the OT. So that scripture would justify the OT prophets only.
Gal 1:8,9 Another letter of Paul's. Not scripture at the time he wrote it. It talks of another "gospel" and says nothing about what is scripture and what is not.
2 Thes 2:2 Interesting you are quoting a prophecy that is predicting the pending apostasy. Nevertheless, it says nothing of what is scripture and what is not.
What is my point? The Bible does not suggest that the compilation of books that we know as the Bible today was intended to be the complete canon of God's words. It was not compiled in the day that Paul wrote those letters that you referred to. Who decided, at some later date, that indeed Paul's letters is the Word of God? The Bible says that the benchmark IS THE WORD OF GOD, not a set of books known to us as the OT/NT.
Luke 24:27 relates how Jesus used the scriptures to show that they testify of Him. If the scriptures were complete at that time why the need for the rest of the NT?
Finally,
Preaching of Christ does not answer the primary question first posed. Why should someone accept the NT as scripture? You are "preaching Christ" and so are you suggesting that your words in this blog become additional scripture? If not, then why should one accept a letter from Paul to Timothy as the literal Word of God?
And if I accept Paul's simple letter to his friend as scripture (which I do) how can you and I dismiss D&C 1:38 "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."
Germit,
I was a little wordy above with Gundek. But certainly more complete. The Bible does not testify to it's OWN ability to be the benchmark by the simple fact that it wasn't compiled at the time the words were penned (at least NT). The prophets (Bible) testify that the Word of God is the benchmark.
I respect your belief that the Bible is the only book that God has given as scripture. But if that is true I would expect Him to emphatically state so! i.e. "That is the end of my words, do not expect anything more from my mouth, you have enough, yada yada yada" But it is simply not there!
DOF: those are good points but for me, it comes down to this: do I want to trust the Mormon 'take' on what constitutes the word of God, or the early church fathers. I know VOOK, among others is very convinced that early church history leans your way, but I think/believe that the same God who had the words penned was able to preserve them for future use thru the councils and have the basic truths re-stated for church-wide unity as (hold your nose……..) the creeds. It doesn't matter to me that the authors themselves did not know what they penned was "scripture" or "Gods word" AT THE TIME. Shoot, not all of the D & C was written like that, am I wrong about that ?? It's been re-stated MANY times, but let me throw in: the councils did NOT decide what WAS Scripture, they RATIFIED what was ALREADY SEEN and USED as authoratative throughout the church universal, More later. GERMIT
Interesting thing about personal testimonies… When I was reading the Book of Mormon, I got a burning sensation in the area around my heart. I would say that my heart seemed to burn within me as I read. However, as I prayed to God with a sincere heart and resisted Satan (Eph. 4:7), I discerned the burning sensation to be demonic. I believe this was born out of my relationship with God as well as experiences God has given me with spiritual warfare. As Hebrews 5:14 states, discerning between good and evil requires experience: “strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”
When I read the introduction to the BofM, I discerned the angel of light that appeared to JS to be an evil spirit "transformed into an angel of light" (II Cor. 11:14). My personal revelation was further confirmed as I continued to “test the spirit” (I John 4:1) of the LDS movement, its teachings, and founder with the Bible, objective evidences, and historical facts. Jesus commends the church in Ephesus (described in Revelation) because they “tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars” (Rev. 2:2). He rebuked those churches that tolerated false doctrines (Rev. 2:14-15, 2:20).
So, once again, we see the glaring difference in personal testimonies. I have a testimony that the BofM is not true, JS was not a prophet of God, and the LDS church is not the true church but, rather, I believe LDS people are being deceived by demonic spirits disguised as angels of light. How can we even discuss our differences if we appeal to personal revelations since our personal revelations are diametrically opposed to one another?
PS Perhaps if it had been Aaron in that grove of trees we might have 1 consistent record of what actually happened there!
Jessica,
Thank you for sharing that personal experience. I don't want to take that for granted. Since you are so sure that burning feeling you felt was demonic- then I am sure you are prepared to answer for your decision at the last day. Personal experiences are mostly meant for us as we try to walk by faith. Also, they are valuable when shared with others, to compel them to take that same journey. So in that way, in discussions, our alleged differences don't actually make a difference when making personal decisions. You had this experience, and are responsible for your actions. So, it matters very little that on this website we are outlining our differences. Even if we acknowledge them all day, it will not diminish our personal responsibilities to seek God sincerely, and the reality of the consequences if we don't.
I do question your assumption that I have little experience with spiritual things…those scriptures you cited could be used in the converse as well.
Aaron, you should allow the minority (LDS) two more comments than other readers simply because it is impossible to address every question from non-LDS. Sorry I went over by a LOT yesterday.
DOF, I believe in the dual-authorship of the Bible. As 2 Timothy 3:16 says, scripture is God-breathed. And as Paul said in 1 Thessalonians 2:13, "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers."
So scripture is not one-author removed from God's word. It is God's word and testimony. I reject Smith's alleged scripture because of a package of reasons which show him to be a fraud, but that's for another thread.
Well, I like your post but here is the deal: history is replete with people who claim that their experiences/epiphanies are a whole lot like Moses, Abraham, Paul, etc. This list of "God came to me and told me…." is long. So how would we know that YOUR claim is legit, and Mary Baker Eddy's , or Warren Jeff's is not so legit?? Do I depend on God visiting me bodily, as He supposedly did JS numerous times ?? Or do I just take someone's word for it (and they ALL claim to be special servants/prophets/apostles.
You reference the "power of God through revelation"….but you aren't telling me what that is, tho I get the idea of God somehow meeting (spiritually ??) with you as HE did the ancients. Can you add to that ?
Aaron,
On the contrary, I accept the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine of Covenants because the Holy Ghost has borne witness directly to me of their sacred veracity. It is you who is rejecting Christ.
So the relevant question to you is: is the witness you speak of scripture itself, or is it a private emotional epiphany about the testimony of scripture? It seems everyone here is appealing to some kind of self-authenticating, authoritative testimony. For Christians it is God's public personal testimony as scripture, for Mormons they bear personal testimony of a private emotional experience.
I would rather trust God's public, personal word and testimony than trust someone's interpretation of a private emotional experience. I mean that with all seriousness. It is not a snide comment.
Grace and peace,
Aaron
Gundek,
It always amazes me how evangelicals are so ready to reject Christ and his messengers.
In the Revelations 11 John reveals in considerable detail the mission of two witnesses (prophets) who will be sent to Jerusalem to preach the Gospel just prior to the Second Coming of Christ. If you sincerely believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible then would not the words and message of these two divinely appointed individuals be of great worth? Or will you reject them because what they say does not identically comport with your Protestant interpretation of the scriptures?
Aaron,
Not to be contentious, but it appears that you truly do not understand what Mormons refer to as a "Testimony". It is much more than a private emotional experience. To the Latter-day Saint a testimony entails personal revelation directly revealed to the individual through the power of the Holy Ghost who bears witness of the truth or through other means of divine revelation.
A testimony as personal revelation can take many forms whether it be something as dramatic as a visitation from Christ, the ministering of angels, hearing the audible voice of God, being transfigured, being caught up in the spirit (as the apostle Paul would describe it) and transported to heaven, having a miraculous healing of a terminal disease and so forth. More commonly a Latter-day Saint can receive a testimony of a specific principle of the gospel such as the blessings which come from obeying the law of tithing or the greater spirituality that comes from praying and reading the scriptures on a daily basis.
Latter-day Saints affirm that God speaks not just to prophets but all who are willing to listen to Him. This is the great blessing of having modern revelation.
Aaron,
Not to be contentious, but it appears that you truly do not understand what Mormons refer to as a "Testimony". It is much more than a private emotional experience. To the Latter-day Saint a testimony entails personal revelation directly revealed to the individual through the power of the Holy Ghost who bears witness of the truth or through other means of divine revelation.
A testimony as personal revelation can take many forms whether it be something as dramatic as a visitation from Christ, the ministering of angels, hearing the audible voice of God, being transfigured, being caught up in the spirit (as the apostle Paul would describe it) and transported to heaven, having a miraculous healing of a terminal disease and so forth. More commonly a Latter-day Saint can receive a testimony of a specific principle of the gospel such as the blessings which come from obeying the law of tithing or the greater spirituality that comes from praying and reading the scriptures on a daily basis.
Latter-day Saints affirm that God speaks not just to prophets but all who are willing to listen to Him. This is the great blessing of having modern revelation.
Unlike evangelicals, we do not try to muzzle Christ in saying that God cannot speak to mankind in this day and age.
DOF,
I believe that God has fulfilled His promise in Proverbs 22:19-21, revealed Himself and through His providence brought together His Word, compiling it and preserving it so that the faithful may know His Truth.
I am sure that you have heard all of this before but hear goes. First Peter testifies to the canonical nature of Paul's letters (2 Peter 3:15-16). Second Peter also teaches that the words of the prophets in the Bible are the Word of God and not of men (2 Peter 1:19-21). These words are "carried along by the Holy Spirit" who testifies of their truthfulness to the faithful. The writer of Hebrews tells also tells us that the age of the Prophets is over (Heb 1:1, 2).
As to how I can reject the D&C or any other modern revelation, once again I refer you to 2 Peter 1:20. Scripture is not something for personal interpretation. This verse and others are the basis for the Reformed teaching that "the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself…" (WCF I, IX) Add to that Paul's teaching in Galatians chapter 1 verse 9, "As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
It is my contention that when you take the Old and New Testament and compare them with the teachings of the D&C you will not find the same Gospel that Paul preached.
SteveH,
Another example of a mispresentation of our beliefs. No one would say God is done talking to us, you do know that, right? So do YOU understand OUR beliefs?
The idea of a testimony is entirely subjective, because there is no way that I can, or anyone here, can deny how you view your experience. I do not know what you have felt, but nor do you know what I have felt, right? You'll probably say that I have not truly experienced God because I am not a Mormon, or something along those lines. Even though you say all can experience God in their own way, unless they accept the Mormon view, they haven't gone all the way (accurate enough?). But the experience is something you cannot know from my view point, because it is not you experience it. Right? So, when I have an experience contrary to yours, how do we resolve the discrepency of what the experience speaks to?
It is more important to appeal to scripture, God's testimony, than it is to tell our testimony of how God has worked in our lives. Both are important, but God's testimony as scripture is primarily what the Holy Spirit uses to affect the heart. After all, the Holy Spirit is the divine author of scripture.
This is a big reason why Christians often open their Bibles in evangelism, whereas Mormons see it often quickly as mere bashing instead of the beautiful and compelling and important opening of God's testimony. If Mormons thought of scripture as God's very testimony, then they would appeal to it instead of bearing personal testimony of their own feelings. And they wouldn't see the Bible as a club to be bashed with, but a healing, disciplining, life-giving medicine that comes from the Almighty God.
DOF,
Interesting positions, I am wondering what the definition of sola scriptura you are working with to make these assertions.
Lautensack
DOF wrote: Not scripture at the time he wrote it. It talks of another "gospel" and says nothing about what is scripture and what is not.
This phrase seems a bit odd to me, while I agree no letter of Paul's was scripture prior to its inscription, when do you think it became scripture?
Lautensack
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1193
God breathed?
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Actually the Greek word is "theopneustos".
"Theo" meaning God and "pneustos" a variant of the word "pneuma" or spirit (as in 1 Cor 2:11) and it literally means spirited.
The word breathed in John 20:22 is translated from the Greek word "emphusaO" literally meaning 'He-IN-INFLATES'.
If you look at 2 Tim 3:16 in different English versions of the Bible you find;
American Standard Version = "inspired of God"
Darby Translation = "divinely inspired"
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition = "inspired of God"
Holman Christian Standard Bible = "inspired by God"
King James Version = "inspiration of God"
New American Standard Bible = "inspired by God"
New Century Version = "inspired by God"
New King James Version = "inspiration of God"
New Living Translation = "inspired by God"
Wycliffe New Testament = "inspired of God"
Contemporary English Version = "God's Word"
21st Century King James Version = "inspiration of God"
New World Translation = "inspired of God"
Are all of those translations “infallible” or “inerrant”?