Jump to content

Galatians 1:6-9


KennyBallgame9

Recommended Posts

I know this is nothing new, but I am honestly perplexed as to why this is not a bigger deal to those who accept the concept of a restoration of the gospel. From what I can see, the entirety of the LDS defense is that the BOM, D&C, POGP, and so on, are in no way beyond what was taught by the Apostles. But that is what blows me away. If, as claimed, precious and plain truths that were lost have been restored in these latter-days publications, then there would have to be teachings included that go beyond what we have in our incomplete Bibles. This is the very thing Paul seems to have been warning us against. Sure, there was more to be written after what Paul stated, but it all harmonized with everything that had been written up to the time of his letter to the Galatians. There was nothing vital to our salvation that was introduced for the first time like what we see in the restored/new gospels.

Link to comment

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Care to try again?

Oh I see you think this verse represents some sort of strong critism, well in the interest of this thread,

Sorry but no satisfing criticism for the restoration using this verse.

Link to comment

I know this is nothing new, but I am honestly perplexed as to why this is not a bigger deal to those who accept the concept of a restoration of the gospel. From what I can see, the entirety of the LDS defense is that the BOM, D&C, POGP, and so on, are in no way beyond what was taught by the Apostles. But that is what blows me away. If, as claimed, precious and plain truths that were lost have been restored in these latter-days publications, then there would have to be teachings included that go beyond what we have in our incomplete Bibles. This is the very thing Paul seems to have been warning us against. Sure, there was more to be written after what Paul stated, but it all harmonized with everything that had been written up to the time of his letter to the Galatians. There was nothing vital to our salvation that was introduced for the first time like what we see in the restored/new gospels.

I imagine many restorationists look at Galatians 1:6-9 and are perplexed as to why Christianity accepted various extra-Biblical concepts over the centuries (**)

That being said, I would say that belief that the Messiah ben David was the literal Son of G-d, and that this Messiah would have a "second coming" were huge things for "the first time" with very little comparison to what was restored, and initiated by the final dispensation in regards to restorationism.

Then again, maybe what's being lost sight of here is what "the gospel" is, and what would be entailed by a man teaching a different one.

**[Edited to remove tangent issues]

Link to comment

I know this is nothing new, but I am honestly perplexed as to why this is not a bigger deal to those who accept the concept of a restoration of the gospel. From what I can see, the entirety of the LDS defense is that the BOM, D&C, POGP, and so on, are in no way beyond what was taught by the Apostles. But that is what blows me away. If, as claimed, precious and plain truths that were lost have been restored in these latter-days publications, then there would have to be teachings included that go beyond what we have in our incomplete Bibles. This is the very thing Paul seems to have been warning us against. Sure, there was more to be written after what Paul stated, but it all harmonized with everything that had been written up to the time of his letter to the Galatians. There was nothing vital to our salvation that was introduced for the first time like what we see in the restored/new gospels.

I think that a few false assumptions are made by those who use this passage against the LDS Church.

1. What does Paul mean by "gospel"? If he means that no truth about God and his plan for the world could be added to what was already given, then John's revelation (by an angel no less) ought to be thrown out. Since that isn't a viable option, then perhaps Paul meant something much more limited in scope. Perhaps Paul was referring only to the the essential points of the gospel, that Jesus Christ atoned for our sins, died, and was resurrected. This seems more likely. Otherwise, what do we do with John's revelation, and all the other books of the NT which added to what Paul wrote?

2. Assuming that "gospel" in this passage refers to everything ever taught about God and his plan for mankind, how do we know it was all recorded in the Bible? Can't there be room for teachings, even very important ones, that aren't recorded in the NT? The NT implies that such is the case on various occasions. Mormonism very well might have restored ancient beliefs held by the first Christians which were never recorded, or that never survivied.

3. Any perceived contradictions between the teachings of the Bible and the teachings of the LDS Church are just that, perceived. We obviously don't believe there are any contradictions. Likewise, Christians don't believe the NT contradicts the OT, but Jews beg to differ.

Sargon

Link to comment

I know this is nothing new, but I am honestly perplexed as to why this is not a bigger deal to those who accept the concept of a restoration of the gospel. From what I can see, the entirety of the LDS defense is that the BOM, D&C, POGP, and so on, are in no way beyond what was taught by the Apostles. But that is what blows me away. If, as claimed, precious and plain truths that were lost have been restored in these latter-days publications, then there would have to be teachings included that go beyond what we have in our incomplete Bibles. This is the very thing Paul seems to have been warning us against. Sure, there was more to be written after what Paul stated, but it all harmonized with everything that had been written up to the time of his letter to the Galatians. There was nothing vital to our salvation that was introduced for the first time like what we see in the restored/new gospels.

So, Kenny, you've been a member of the Board now for 12 hours, you've started 3 threads, received lots of answers and responses, and have posted 0 -- that's ZERO -- replies. Slow day in the troll mines?

Link to comment

I know this is nothing new, but I am honestly perplexed as to why this is not a bigger deal to those who accept the concept of a restoration of the gospel. From what I can see, the entirety of the LDS defense is that the BOM, D&C, POGP, and so on, are in no way beyond what was taught by the Apostles. But that is what blows me away. If, as claimed, precious and plain truths that were lost have been restored in these latter-days publications, then there would have to be teachings included that go beyond what we have in our incomplete Bibles. This is the very thing Paul seems to have been warning us against. Sure, there was more to be written after what Paul stated, but it all harmonized with everything that had been written up to the time of his letter to the Galatians. There was nothing vital to our salvation that was introduced for the first time like what we see in the restored/new gospels.

I believe the vast majority of non-LDS New Testament scholars would view this passage in context with the entirety of Galatians, and understand the "other gospel" to be those Christians who believed that adherence to the law of Moses was still required of true Christians.

The three parts of the law of Moses that Paul rejected as necessary to Christian living were Sabbath day worship, dietary restrictions and circumcision.

On the other hand, Paul is clear elsewhere that the moral tenets of the law of Moses were still in full force and effect.

Unfortunately, we have no place in the preserved Pauline writings where Paul explains why he believes the one part of the law of Moses anulled, but the other still binding.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment

I know this is nothing new, but I am honestly perplexed as to why this is not a bigger deal to those who accept the concept of a restoration of the gospel. From what I can see, the entirety of the LDS defense is that the BOM, D&C, POGP, and so on, are in no way beyond what was taught by the Apostles. But that is what blows me away. If, as claimed, precious and plain truths that were lost have been restored in these latter-days publications, then there would have to be teachings included that go beyond what we have in our incomplete Bibles. This is the very thing Paul seems to have been warning us against. Sure, there was more to be written after what Paul stated, but it all harmonized with everything that had been written up to the time of his letter to the Galatians. There was nothing vital to our salvation that was introduced for the first time like what we see in the restored/new gospels.

You are correct it is nothing new, I first came into contact with this Anti-Mormon objection about 30 years ago, but I will give the same answer I did then. It is often instructive that those who use these verses to try to show that the cannon is closed always fall short of reading a few verses more:
(Galatians 1:6-12) "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 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. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Now if you take these verses together as they are intended Paul is condemning those who would pervert the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the specific group he was referring to was the Jews who had no claims of living prophets, or visits from angels (as both Paul and Peter and the rest of the Church of that day had) they had proof texts from Moses and the Prophets. Much like those who would criticize living prophets and apostles today, the Jews had apostatized from Moses original teachings and had rejected the prophets sent to them even crucifying the Lord Himself. So if anyone is preaching "another gospel" it is not the Latter-day Saints, because we received the restored Gospel just as Paul did, by the revelation of Jesus Christ. You see this final dispensation is not just a restoration of the Gospel that Paul preached but as Peter said:
(Acts 3:19-21) "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began."
So you do err in thinking that God cannot reveal "nothing new" He said He would reveal "all things" in the last days and this is the dispensation of the fullness of times.
Link to comment

So, Kenny, you've been a member of the Board now for 12 hours, you've started 3 threads, received lots of answers and responses, and have posted 0 -- that's ZERO -- replies. Slow day in the troll mines?

He's probably so satisfied with the answers and explanations that he's been given here that he just doesn't feel the need to say more. Of course he could at least acknowledge the fact that all his doubts about the truthfullness of the Church have been resolved and say "Thank you!"

Mike

Link to comment

So, Kenny, you've been a member of the Board now for 12 hours, you've started 3 threads, received lots of answers and responses, and have posted 0 -- that's ZERO -- replies. Slow day in the troll mines?

He could be at work, to be fair.

Most trolls don't bother to post a picture of themselves, so maybe that's a good sign.

:P

Link to comment

Impossible to say, but whether it's him or not, it took some effort to post it and most trolls that i've been aware of didn't go through the trouble when they knew they would be banned pretty quickly.

I think he's sincere in his questions, though coming from the perspective that if all LDS understood mormonism the way he does, we'd all know it's not true (but that's human nature for most of us when it comes to thinks we don't agree with). Hopefully he'll come back.

:P

Link to comment

From what I can see, the entirety of the LDS defense is that the BOM, D&C, POGP, and so on, are in no way beyond what was taught by the Apostles. ...There was nothing vital to our salvation that was introduced for the first time like what we see in the restored/new gospels.

What was restored were the keys of the one and only legitimate authority, the Holy Priesthood, and the doctrines, covenants, ordinances and structure (Church) that flow from Christ to mankind for the latter days. This was accomplished with a new dispensation, the dispensation of the fullness of times. This dispensation is not only a restoration of the tenets of all previous dispensations, but is given its own additional, unique requirements so that all the prophecies of Christ will be fulfilled according to His will.

Link to comment

Everyone settle down please. I do work and have a wife that's recovering from tonsil surgery. I'm sincere in asking and sure didn't mean to offend anyone. I thought this was a place where I could get some deeper insight into a faith I would like to know more about. Some of the responses were interesting and beneficial. I don't understand the ones that resort to sarcasm and insults. I guess in an open forum that's going to happen.

I am not challenging anyone. I'll read the responses over and if I have more questions or want to comment more I will be sure to write again. Is everything cool now? Thanks.

Link to comment

hey! I had heard that before a lot of times, specially from .. well I wont say what religion dont want to lead to contention .. ha.

I'm just gonna say:

we believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ, if we were preaching some "Other" gospel like anti-christ then it would apply.

I Honestly don't see how this would apply for the restored gospel of JesusChrist

=)

Link to comment

Everyone settle down please. I do work and have a wife that's recovering from tonsil surgery. I'm sincere in asking and sure didn't mean to offend anyone. I thought this was a place where I could get some deeper insight into a faith I would like to know more about. Some of the responses were interesting and beneficial. I don't understand the ones that resort to sarcasm and insults. I guess in an open forum that's going to happen.

I am not challenging anyone. I'll read the responses over and if I have more questions or want to comment more I will be sure to write again. Is everything cool now? Thanks.

There have been many instances of people coming on this board and either dropping a bomb of controversial things and then either not sticking around to discuss things or they just sit back and continue to lob bombs with no interest in real discussion. This type of person is very irritating.

There are also those who come on and lob a million questions in a single post. This is known as carpet bombing or the shotgun approach. They then expect somebody to answer all their questions in a single post and they expect the post to be very concise and very, very convincing. They then complain that we Mormons don't know anything when we don't answer all their questions immediately or very concisely. These people are also very irritating, especially to those of us who have been around for a long time on this board.

So when you came aboard and asked three questions and then "disappeared," some of us, in our impatience, labeled you a troll. I apologize for having done so.

I hope you wife gets better quickly.

I had my tonsils removed when I was very young and recovered very quickly. I resumed my role as terror of the house the very next day, but I had a sister who had her tonsils removed when she was an adult and she was miserable for a couple of weeks.

Link to comment

Thank you. I guess I'm kind of faced with the same situation. I had three questions. I wrote them down in a word doc and then posted them at the same time. I then went to work, came home & took care of my wife, etc. and found that apparently I had been expected to be waiting by my keyboard ready to answer any comment immediately or be labeled a troll. There are so many comments on the three posts that I can't possibly just rifle off answers to; nor do I want to. I want to be thoughtful in my approach, trying my best to avoid further offending anyone. But also, I really don't want to get into debates with anyone. I had some questions. I am reading answers and will try to clarify my confusion if it seems like it would be helpful. I certainly don't want to fire up another round of insults (I'm not saying it came from everyone of course). If I were here just to lob insults back and forth then I'd really be missing the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15. I respect the LDS faith and just have sincere questions that are otherwise roadblocks to my moving any further in that direction.

If someone wants something off the top of my head, here goes: Everything in the OT pointed forward to the NT. The expectation and need for a Messiah was clearly spoken of in Daniel 9, Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12, and so many places. All of the events recorded in the NT were in complete harmony with what the Israelites should have been expecting. Their not accepting that is not a simple matter of "begging to differ". Everything recorded in the NT ties back to the OT. I also said in my original post that I know more was left to be written following Paul's statement, so I don't understand questions such as, 'you do realize the Bible didn't exist when Paul wrote that?' Still, there was most certainly a canon of scripture by that time. (Acts 17:11; Hebrews 4:12; John 5:39; Luke 24:27, etc) What I said regarding that which was still to be written was that there were no entirely new concepts central to salvation that were introduced following Paulâ??s statement. That cannot be said, as I see it, of the BOM. By its own admission, there are precious and plain truths (I would imagine these are vital to my salvation â?? certainly sounds like something that could be called gospel) that it contains that are not found anywhere in the Bible. Anyone who asks for examples is missing the point; the BOM says that of itself. Isnâ??t that by definition something â??other thanâ?? or â??beyondâ?? what we can read that Paul and the other apostles taught to be vital for salvation? That is a sincere question.

Now, I have a full day ahead of me, so please donâ??t panic if it takes a day or two to look at any responses and possibly comment further. :P Thank you!

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...