Posted on 04/13/2002 1:33:01 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
Tell that to Bill Gates:>))
Isaiah 43:7 All who claim me as their God will come, for I have made them for my glory. It was I who created them."
Isa 48:11 For mine own sake, [even] for mine own sake, will I do [it]: for how should [my name] be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.
That is blashemy.... Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
You don't have a clue, Momof7. Trust me. Not a clue.
Our Gospel Doctrine class this year, Momof7, focuses on the Old Testament. Yesterday we discussed portions of Exodus dealing with Moses' interactions with Pharoah. Not once was a single Joseph Smith Translation scripture ever brought up as part of the discussion. Not once did we point out a scripture as being so faulty that it should be excised from the Bible, let alone our discussion.
So much for your take on our "swiss cheese" Bible. I suggest, that if you're really and truly interested in understanding our point of view on the Bible, that you get yourself to an LDS chapel some Sunday morning, go to a Gospel Doctrine class, and just sit and pay attention.
Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that you're that interested in understanding our point of view. It would appear that your interest is primarily in chucking rocks at us.
Hugh Nibley gave a lecture back in 1954, titled "The Prophets and the Scripture", which pretty clearly, to me, states our position accurately. At the risk of "casting pearls before swine", here it is:
A fundamental teaching common to all Christian churches is that there is on earth no other source of revelation from God to man than what is contained in scripture and tradition. Such an arrangement leaves no room, of course, for present-day revelation direct from heaven, and bars the activity of living prophets whose presence, as we have seen, has always scandalized conventional students of scripture and tradition.
In proclaiming the restored gospel, the Latter-day Saints do not minimize the importance of the Bible. We say the scripture and revelation are both necessary; they are not mutually exclusive as some would have us think; they are complementary-- they not only can co-exist, but they must. Strange as it may seem, the idea that one might profit from both scripture and revelation at the same time has been in the past a formidable stumbling block to scholars. Not long ago a great controversy raged among the learned over whether any man could possibly possess the gifts of the Spirit and at the same time do anything as worldly as hold an office in the church or concern himself with written records. Nearly all the scholars supported Sohm's thesis that spirit and order were absolute opposites, hopelessly irreconcilable. Law and authority were for Sohm the complete antithesis of the Spirit; the two could not exist together. "Jesus of Nazareth is altogether unliterary," wrote Deissmann in a typical declaration, since "the new thing for which he looked came not in book, formulae, and subtle doctrine, but in spirit and in fire." [1] Apparently, one cannot have a religion of spirit and fire and still read the scriptures. And yet nothing is more evident from the example of Jesus himself than that the possession of scripture does not preclude revelation and the gifts of the Spirit on the one hand, nor, on the other, does the possession of those spiritual gifts in any way jeopardize the authority of the scriptures. For maintaining this rather obvious point the Latter-day Saints have been attacked from all sides.
The Lord said, "Search the scriptures; for . . . they are they which testify of me"; and when in reply to that the people said in effect, "We have the scripture, so we don't need you at all," he answered, "If you believed the scriptures, you would believe me." [2] Here we have the two witnesses, the scripture and the Lord in person, side by side, testifying of each other. The fact that the Jews had the holy writings did not, as they supposed, make the presence of a living prophet among them superfluous; and the presence of a prophet did not, as the scholars supposed, make the written word superfluous. As a remarkable illustration of this, what did Christ do when he first appeared to the assembled Apostles as the resurrected Lord? There he was, the Son of God in his own person, a glorified and resurrected being who could have told them all things by his own authority; but instead of that, we are told, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:27). Is it surprising, then, that when the Lord and other glorious beings appeared to men in these latter days they again cited the ancient prophets at length? One could not ask for a more powerful recommendation for the sacredness of the holy writings than the Lord's use of them after his resurrection; nor on the other hand, could one have a more convincing demonstration that the scriptures cannot stand alone, for it was only after Christ had expounded their meaning to them in person that the disciples' "eyes were opened, and they knew him. . . . And they said . . . Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" (Luke 24:31-32.) Even to the Apostles the scriptures did not convey their full message until they were "opened" to them by their heavenly teacher.
The early Christians did not regard the canon of the scripture as closed. In a recent and important study, Van Unnik has shown that for the earliest Christians, the apostolic office, the gift of revelation, and the bringing forth of scripture were always regarded as going hand in hand; and, with von Harnack, he points out that at least as late as A.D. 200 it was held to be perfectly legitimate "for someone to add something to the word of the Gospel." [3] The Bible itself leaves the door wide open for future revelation in many places, but even if it did not, men fool themselves when they think for a moment that they can read the scripture without ever adding something to the text, or omitting something from it. For in the wise words of St. Hilary, Scripturae enim non in legendo sunt, sed in intelligendo: "Scripture consists not in what one reads, but in what one understands." [4] We have just seen that the Apostles themselves "knew not the scripture"-- though no doubt they had often read it-- until the Lord opened it to them. To read is by very definition to unriddle, to expound to oneself, to interpret. In the reading of the scripture we must always have an interpreter, but who qualifies for the task of interpreting God's word to men? Irenaeus insisted that no special interpreter was needed, the book being self-explanatory so that "the whole of the scripture . . . can be understood clearly and without ambiguity equally and by all." [5] But then he accuses vast numbers of Christians of reading it all wrong, "becoming bad interpreters of the good and correct word." [6] What is one to do when, in the words of a later church father, "there are as many interpretations of the scriptures as there are readers"? In that case, Irenaeus recommends appealing to the opinions of the oldest churches, those who had traditions actually going back to the Apostles. But when these churches disagree among themselves, what then? Then says Irenaeus, we must examine the order of tradition committed to the churches. [7] All the while, you will note, Irenaeus is looking for an interpreter for the scriptures, which he began by saying needed no interpreter! If the Bible contained its own interpretation, the best and wisest of its readers would surely agree on its teachings, yet those who study it hardest disagree most widely about it. Tertullian pointed out that discussions based on scriptures are a waste of time since the most hopelessly mistaken person can in all good faith prove his case from the scriptures "by divers expositions and commentaries," easily corrupting the sense without having to corrupt the letter of the text, and picking and rejecting whatever suits his purpose. If we say that the heretics are playing fast and loose with the Bible, Tertullian reminds us, we must remember that they in all seriousness believe that we are corrupting the scripture by false exposition while they preserve the pure truth of it. For that reason, according to Tertullian, it is practically impossible to win an argument by appeal to the scripture alone, and even when we do win, the whole issue remains uncertain. [8]
Can one interpret the scripture without actually adding something that was not there before? If the Bible is all-sufficient, why the huge flow of books and periodicals that obligingly offer to tell us what the Bible is trying to say? Can't the Bible speak for itself? The council of Seleucia in 359 solemnly declared that the prophets and gospels are perfect and complete, the absolute guide to the church in all things, no others being necessary. This point being settled, the meeting was promptly thrown into an uproar, for the homoousian party was quick to point out that the keyword of the opponents' doctrine, the homoiousia, was not to be found in the Bible, while the homoiousian faction returned the charge against them. Each side protested that it was merely interpreting the Bible, while the opposition was adding to it. [9] It was the suspicion that the Council of Nicaea in interpreting the scriptures had been guilty of adding to them that drove the clergy and general public alike into agonies of doubt and indecision that were never allayed. Even the first and greatest of ecumenical synods was not able to interpret the Bible without adding to it.
Who has a right to interpret the scriptures? Clement of Alexandria asks that question. He says that there are things in his own writings which in the future will be interpreted in all sorts of different ways as men "seek to reveal hidden meanings in them to demonstrate the presence of things unsaid." But who has the right to take such liberties? Only the author himself, says Clement, or a direct and trusted disciple. On one thing he insists-- the interpretation must come from outside; it cannot be conjured out of the writing itself which is being interpreted. To interpret the Bible by one's own reading of the Bible is to lift oneself by one's own boot-straps. [10] Men have recognized this fact and sought earnestly to establish or discover some authorized individual or board or some infallible rules and principles by which the interpretation of the Bible could be made a sure and certain thing, and they have failed. The synods of pious and learned men assembled to give definite interpretations have been scenes of raging controversy through the centuries, each great council sowing the seeds of misunderstanding that lead to the next. The great Tertullian declared with fire and indignation that the authority of the church in such matters does not reside in a number of bishops no matter how great, but only in a man who can speak by the spirit of God. [11]
One of the normal offices of episcopal councils has been to correct the errors and indiscretions of certain individual bishops, those of the great leading communities of Christendom-- Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, Constantinople, etc.-- who have declared that in their peculiar office as bishops resides the ultimate authority to interpret the scriptures. The holders of that high interpretive office have been convicted of heresy from time to time, [12] and an examination of the Patrologia, the writings of the fathers, will show that it has never been the custom of Christians to consult any one particular individual when in doubt on matter of doctrine and authority, no matter what his office. Instead, the Christian church has been guided through the centuries in its reading of the scriptures by doctors of the church whose supreme qualification was their own native wit, regardless of the office they held. These clever men have made repeated attempts to lay down sure and reliable rules by which anyone properly trained could arrive at the true meaning of the scriptures. Of course, we cannot discuss these here, but taking only the greatest of the fathers as an example, we cite Marrou's recent work on St. Augustine's methods of interpreting the scripture wherein he points out what has long been known to scholars: that the rules which Augustine calls "nothing less than the keys to the holy writ" are simply the familiar technique which had been employed for centuries in the pagan schools in the interpretation of Homer and Virgil. [13] When this system found itself-- as it did not rarely-- in indissoluble opposition to the plain meaning of the scripture, "It was," wrote Turmel, "the interpretation of the text [the Bible] that was sacrificed." [14] "Let us remember," says Gilson, "that a doctor of the Church is not infallible." [15] How then can the ultimate appeal be to such? Time and again we meet with such phrases as "since the authority of the scripture does not specifically declare such and such to be so, it is doubtful whether we should presume to express an opinion on it." No one seems eager or even willing to assume the awful responsibility.
There are churches today which declare for the absolute sufficiency of the Bible as perfect, complete, and infallible. Yet it is precisely the ministers of these churches who concern themselves most diligently with the study of Greek. Why? Because they recognize that our translated versions are not the original, but are imperfect, tainted by the interpretations of men. So our sectarian friends choose a Greek grammar as the faithful guide to lead them on paths that do not stray. Alas! a more hesitant and speculating guide could not be imagined, and when we get the so-called original texts of the Bible before us with their stately apparatus of possible corrections, emendations, suggestions, recommendations, and whatnot, we first come to realize that the holy text is a maze of a thousand passages. [16]
In the end, authority cannot reside in man, but, as Tertullian insists, only in a man who speaks by the Spirit of God. Without a living prophet, the scripture is indeed what the medieval church called it: a mystery. The question is not whether or not one shall add to the word of the scripture-- thousands of volumes of learned commentary have already done that-- but whether such addition shall come by the wisdom of men or the revelation of God. Until recent years, the Latter-day Saints have stood alone in maintaining the latter alternative and in upholding the integrity of both the spoken and the written word of God.
Footnotes
- G. Deissman, Light from the Ancient East, 2nd ed. (New York: Doran, 1927), 245-46.
- See, e.g., John 5:39, Matthew 22:29ff, Acts 18:28.
- Willem Cornelis van Unnik, "De la Regle mete prostheinai mete aphelein dans l'histoire du canon," Vigiliae Christianae 3 (1949): 32ff.
- Hilary, Ad Constantium Augustum II, 9, in PL 10:570.
- Irenaeus, Contra Haereses II, 27, in PG 7:803.
- Ibid., I, 1, in PG 7:437.
- Ibid., III, 1-3, in PG 7:844-48.
- Tertullian, De Praescriptionibus 14-19, in PL 2:31-36.
- Socrates, Ecclesiastical History II, 39-40, in PG 67:336-37.
- Clement of Alexandria, Stromatum I, in PG 8:704-5.
- Tertullian, De Pudicitia 21, in PL 2:1080.
- Frederick Powicke, "The Christian Life," in The Legacy of the Middle Ages, Charles Crump ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1951), 43, speaking specifically of Rome.
- Henri Marrou, Saint Augustine et la fin de la culture antique (Paris: Boccard, 1958), 494-98.
- J. Turmel, "Histoire de l'interpretation de I Tim. II, 4," Revue de l'histoire et de litterature religieuses 5 (1900): 392-93.
- Etienne Gilson, La philosophie au moyen age (Paris, 1944), 14.
- There are more than 8,000 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, no two of which read exactly alike!
What difference does it make Winston..other then YOU get to save people and rob God of His Glory.
R7, You don't know! And that is a fact for you deny even the Words and Commandments in the ONT. Because you lack faith and trusting in the Lord that he will witness to you! You are not along for others on this thread have the same trouble accept maybe, winstonchurchill.
In all sincerity
The elect Rock on, warning the mormons and all lost everywhere that their necks are stuck out and the sword is coming.
Did you ever answer my reply to your comment about us worshipping Calvin? The one where I asked if Joseph Smith and his wives had their own planets yet where they are gods, making new souls and being worshiped by other people?
First off, Doc, Mom: you're still word-loading when you try to make helkuo mean "drag" in Jn. 6:44 and 12:32. As I said before, just because a word can mean something in a given context, does not mean it does automatically. Note the usage of the word charis and its derivatives, which is consistently translated as "grace," yet done so in the sense of "favour, friendship, kindness, Gen. vi, 8; xviii, 3; Rom. xi, 6; 2 Tim. i, 9," and also as "pardon, mercy, undeserved remission of offences, Eph. ii, 5; Col. i, 6," and also as "the Gospel dispensation, in contradistinction to that of the law, Rom. vi, 14; 1 Peter v, 12." It is used as well for a liberal and charitable disposition, 2 Cor. viii, 7," and for "eternal life, or final salvation, 1 Peter i, 13" (Watson's Biblical and Theological Dictionary, "Grace"). One word, many translations. If you want to actually give me lexical evidence to defend a "drag" translation, you will have to do better than Strong's: note that of the definitions listed, over half refer to non-compulsive powers. "1) Draw, drag off; 2) draw by inward power, lead, impel." As I said, Witski gives lexical defence for keeping the definition of helkuo in Jn. 6:44 and 12:32 as "draw," as opposed to "drag," which the Calvinistic scheme requires in order not to topple like an asherah pole. You just keep trying to use helkuo's contextual meaning in other places in John, Acts and James, all of which have very different contexts. Contextually speaking, Jn. 6:44's usage of helkuo is fixed by the following verse, where God's "drawing" is connected intimately to God's "teaching" (you don't teach by force, and the word is plainly 'teach,' didaktoi, adjective form of didaskalos, to teach). Jn. 12:32's usage of helkuo is fixed by the reference to Isaiah 11:10, "There shall be a root of Jesse which shall stand for an ensign of the people, to it shall the Gentiles seek, and his rest shall be glorious." As Clarke notes, "There is an allusion here to the ensigns or colours of commanders of regiments, elevated on high places, on long poles, that the people might see where the pavilion of their general was, and so flock to his standard" (Clarke's note on Jn. 12:32). When people "seek" after their ensign or standard-bearer, they are not being dragged, but it could perhaps be said that they were being "drawn"--to seek implies some sort of draw, certainly. Likewise, there is some reference to the Brazen Snake incident in the Pentateuch (I forget what book, &c.), where it was "Look to the snake lifted up on a pole, and you will be saved." So Christ says, as Spurgeon recounts the Primitive Methodist layman in his conversion story, "Look unto me, and be thou saved." There is no irrestistible compulsion here, either.
Mom: regards the Filling of the Spirit and its relationship to Entire Sanctification, I do not conflate the two as one thing, as a lot of modern-day non-charismatic Holiness people do. As far as I am concerned, Pentecost was not simply a "baptism with power" (as Pentecostals speak) nor was it entire sanctification (as some Holiness people think), after the Apostles were saved; but it was the point whereat they were saved (also called "Pentecostal regeneration"). This is the classic Wesleyan view, right up until the mid-to-late 19th-century in America, and probably the early 20th in Britain (Samuel Chadwick seems to be the first British Methodist to stray from the Wesleyan view on the matter). And yes, there are spiritually "dead" churches out there, of both Calvinistic and Arminian affiliation (not to mention the spiritually "dead" confused Baptists and closet Baptists [read, "non-denominationals"] that won't make up their mind). It has nothing to do with the systematic theology they hold, but simply their rejection of the Gospel's life saving power (which, Doc, has nothing whatsoever to do with Arminianism or Calvinism; I deny Spurgeon's assertion that "Calvinism is the gospel," and I deny that Arminianism is the gospel--they are both systems of explaining the Gospel truth, and are quite apart from the Gospel itself).
Dr. Steve, I do not take Ephesians 2:1 in a literal sense, and agree instead with Clarke:
DEATH is often used by all writers, and in all nations, to express a state of extreme misery. The Ephesians, by trespassing and sinning, had brought themselves into a state of deplorable wretchedness, as had all the heathen nations; and having thus sinned against God, they were condemned by him, and might be considered as dead in law-incapable of performing any legal act, and always liable to the punishment of death, which they had deserved, and which was ready to be inflicted upon them.
Doc, back to you, you are deliberately misrepresenting Arminians by asserting that we deny total depravity (see your 124 on the Gen. 3 Cont'd. thread). While there have been many different groups that have attached themselves to the name "Arminian," the Dutch Remonstrants (the original Arminians) did not, neither did Arminius himself. We may not agree with you on Absolute Predestination ("It is a Horrible Decree, I do confess," as Calvin puts it in his Institutes), but we do affirm with you total depravity, and thus you have won no debate--you'll actually have to win the debate about Election, or more likely (since we can aver as Lutherans do, that election is a mystery, without being logically forced to accept Calvinism), Redemption, before you can say that your system "won."
By the way, I find it interesting to note that no one until Augustine made any reference to Absolute Predestination. Here's Justin Martyr on the subject, as quoted from Watson's Biblical and Theological Dictionary:
"Justin, in his dialogue with Trypho, remarks that "they who were foreknown as to become wicked, whether angels or men, did so not from any fault of God, aitia tou theou, but from their own blame;" by which observation he shows it to have been his opinion that God foresaw in what manner his intelligent creatures would act; but that this did not affect their liberty, and did not diminish their guilt. A little after he says more fully, that "God created angels and men free to the practice of righteousness, having planted in them reason, through which they knew by whom they were created and through whom they existed, when before they were not, and who prescribed to them a law by which they were to be judged, if they acted contrary to right reason. Wherefore, we, angels and men, are through ourselves convicted as being wicked, if we do not lay hold of repentance. But if the Logos of God foretels that some angels and men would go to be punished, he does so because he foreknew that they would certainly become wicked; by no means, however, because God made them such." Justin thus admits that man is wholly dependent upon God, deriving existence and every thing which he has from the Almighty; but he is persuaded that we were perfectly able to retain our integrity, and that, although it was foreseen that we should not do so, this did not abridge our moral power, or fix any imputation on the Deity in consequence of our transgression.
Also, do we Arminians the justice of ceasing to confuse us with Pelagians or Semi-Pelagians. We do not say that we can "work out our own salvation" on our own, nor do we say that we do part and God does part. It is all grace. (But there is no dichotomy between God giving grace and our using grace, such that suddenly we are "working" for salvation in any sense other than the Bible's sense as found in Phil. 2:12,13.)
Pro 28:26 He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
Pro 3:5Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Jer 17:7 Blessed [is] the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.
Some people think Kanas is He** they have not seen anything yet
Yuk, yuk, yuk!!
No fault insurance....I love this country!!!
A rose by any other name may be a stink weed. Right Mac? Right Ward??
It seems you are off your rock, for only followers of Christ are the elect.
And you couldn't identify !
drstevej, Calvin's Concept of Church Discipline, Westminster Theological Journal [Spring, 1997].
drstevej, Calvin's Concept of Church Discipline, Westminster Theological Journal [Spring, 1997].
And baseball is even more fun than debating Calvinists!!!
I can't believe people talk about the pace of the game....baseball is the martial arts of sport. It's man against man at every level...and it's team against team at every level.
I have the ball - you try to hit it. It's Randy on the mound 2 and 2 with Bonds at bat. It's a shortstop against a batter's screaming grounder to his left and a spin and throw.
Prayer Changes THINGS!!! Don't you believe that?
Other than that, why do you care what I believe? Does my attitude change God's list? My theology?
ANSWER THE QUESTION DOC: why do you care what I (me, myself) BELIEVE? What difference does my belief make in God's list?
Don't you think I'm either on it or not?
Cubical where is the mother god mentioned in the bible?
DEATH is often used by all writers, and in all nations, to express a state of extreme misery. The Ephesians, by trespassing and sinning, had brought themselves into a state of deplorable wretchedness, as had all the heathen nations; and having thus sinned against God, they were condemned by him, and might be considered as dead in law-incapable of performing any legal act, and always liable to the punishment of death, which they had deserved, and which was ready to be inflicted upon them.
===
Gmrammatian, are you serious? Is deathrow the same as d-e-a-d dead?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.