Using The Bible To Refute Lds Doctrine

[wenglund]

Bill, I never denied that the Bible has been interpreted in many different ways. Please try reading what I said again.

Do you deny that the Bible has been LEGITIMATELY or reasonably interpreted in many different ways?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 21, 2011 by wenglund

[zerinus]

There is one tiny problem that you are missing. The opponents are unwilling to use all of the word of God, restricting themselves to the Bible only. Why would I, for example, discuss the doctrines of Christ using only the Old Testament.

If that is all that they believe or accept, that is okay with me. What they cannot do is to use the Bible to prove that Mormonism is wrong, because Mormonism is not unbiblical; therefore there must be something wrong with their reasoning which can be corrected--provided one knows the Bible well enough to be able to discover their error and correct it. And in case you didn't know, that is exactly what the early Christians did. To them "scripture" meant the Old Testament, because NT scripture had not yet been canonized and didn't exist.

Exegesis works only if we are using the complete canon of the word of God.

Two points here: (1) Their refusal to accept modern LDS scripture does not prevent us from using it effectively to counter their arguments, provided one has the wisdom to know how it should be done. (2) If their "reasoning" out of the Bible (which is what "exegesis" means) is wrong, resorting to modern scripture is rarely if ever necessary to demonstrate that error. The Bible is part of the LDS canon. If Mormonism is contradictory to the Bible, it wouldn't be. Therefore the Bible cannot be used prove Mormonism wrong, if one knows the Bible well enough to be able to detect the error in their reasoning and demonstrate it.

For the "opponents", exegesis has replaced the scriptures which they refuse to acknowledge.

That don't make sense. Exegesis simply means reasoning out of the scriptures. That reasoning may be right or wrong; but how can reasoning out of the scriptures replace the scriptures?

They have replaced the prophets, modern revelation with theologians and scholars.

Perhaps they have; but that is irrelevant to the efficacy of reasoning with them out of their own acknowledged scriptures--or demonstrating the errors of their reasonings when it is manifestly wrong.

Edited September 21, 2011 by zerinus

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

I had written:

In a real, practical, functional sense, religions that say "Come to us and we'll give you the inside, revealed truth as to what the Bible really means, a truth you can't actually get from the Bible on its own" are substituting their modern revelations for the Bible. The Bible has no authority as the word of God except indirectly as interpreted by the living prophet using the supposedly clearer revelations of the LDS scriptures. "If the Bible teaches it, that is what we must believe" does not seem to be a reality in LDS religion. Instead, the reality is "If the living prophet teaches it, that is what we must believe, whether or not we can support it from the Bible or cohere it with the Bible."

You replied:

Of course, your tacit claim here is that Evangelicals don't do this. This claim is, of course, preposterous nonsense. The Evangelicals do precisely this, while claiming that they don't.

Stop right there. We have a lot of Mormons here who get incensed whenever I express an opinion differing from their own as to the meaning of something in LDS scripture or teaching. I regularly get besieged by criticism for supposedly daring to claim that I know better than Mormons what they believe (which I don't). Are you not guilty of making precisely the same kind of claim, i.e., are you not claiming to know better than evangelicals what it is that evangelicals believe?

You wrote:

The fact that Evangelicals can't agree among themselves regarding all sorts of issues of biblical interpretation is itself very important. But, beyond that, Evangelicals clearly interpret the Bible on the basis of all sorts of extra-biblical and non-biblical claims and beliefs. The most obvious is the Nicene Creed. No one sitting down with the Bible, would come up with the Nicene Creed unless they believed in the cosmic reality of Hellenistic philosophical categories. The Nicene Creed is incomprehensible if you don't understand Greek philosophy. (This is obvious by the fact that your average Evangelical in fact does not believe the Nicene Creed, but believes in a misunderstanding of the Nicene Creed.) The biblical Canon is another obvious example. The decision of what is and is not part of the Bible is, itself, the imposition of an extra-biblical idea on the Bible, which cannot be justified from the Bible itself. I could go on. The point is that Evangelicals interpret the Bible based on a large set of extra-biblical ideas (as does everyone, by the way.) The problem is, the Evangelicals either don't realize this obvious fact, or they refuse to admit it.

Bill, honestly, your rant here has nothing to do with what I said.

Of course orthodox Christians, including evangelicals, interpret the Bible within the context of their own culture, using philosophical terms and concepts to explicate what they understand the Bible to mean in terms relevant and meaningful in their contemporary setting. The church fathers did this, the scholastics did this, the Reformers did this, and modern evangelicals do this. Yawn. Nothing startling or disturbing there.

The church fathers used Greek philosophical categories such as substance and nature to explicate the orthodox position in contrast to heretical views, which also used such categories but in different ways to express contrary doctrines. However, the church fathers regarded all such use of extrabiblical terms, categories, and concepts as subject to argument and critique based on the authoritative revelation found in Scripture. They did not claim that the Bible was so ambiguous that it could fairly or reasonably be interpreted to teach Arianism, for example. To the contrary, they viewed Arianism as a perversion of the Christian faith based on a seriously faulty reading of the Bible. They viewed the Nicene Creed as a contemporary statement of the biblical doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit designed to state in formal, systematic theological fashion what orthodox Christians should believe.

I also disagree with your comments about the canon of Scripture. It is true that the Bible does not contain a list of the 66 books that belong in the canon of Scripture. This doesn't mean that the doctrine of the canon is not solidly grounded in biblical teaching. We have the evidence from the NT that Jesus and the apostles accepted the same general canon of pre-Christian Jewish scripture as the Pharisees and later the rabbis of the post-AD 70 period accepted; there was no debate between Jews and Christians in the first or second century as to the extent of that canon. The NT writings attest to the status of Paul's epistles as Scripture (2 Peter 3:16) and teach that the foundation of the Christian church was to be found in the teachings of the Christian apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ (e.g., Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 2 Peter 3:1-2). The early church therefore rightly regarded apostolicity as the key criterion for acceptance of post-resurrection texts as Scripture. Their determination that the 27 books of the NT were all written by apostles or by associates of apostles (such as Mark and Luke) on their behalf stands up rather well. Apparently the church did a pretty good job even by Mormon standards of recognizing what books were Scripture, since the LDS Church accepts 65 of the 66 books of the Protestant canon of the Bible (all except Song of Solomon). They must have been doing something right!

In any case, evangelicals do not teach that the Bible is inadequate as a source of doctrinal truth for the church and must be supplemented by additional scriptures and interpreted by a living prophet. We do not make something outside the Bible authoritative in such a way that functionally the extrabiblical authority takes precedence over the Bible, as Mormons do. That was my criticism of the LDS position, and your claim that evangelicals do the same thing is simply false and finds no support whatsoever from your examples.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

No, I don't deny that. Please simply engage what I said--the full statement--or leave it be.

Do you deny that the Bible has been LEGITIMATELY or reasonably interpreted in many different ways?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 21, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Bill Hamblin]

In any case, evangelicals do not teach that the Bible is inadequate as a source of doctrinal truth for the church and must be supplemented by additional scriptures and interpreted by a living prophet. We do not make something outside the Bible authoritative in such a way that functionally the extrabiblical authority takes precedence over the Bible, as Mormons do. That was my criticism of the LDS position, and your claim that evangelicals do the same thing is simply false and finds no support whatsoever from your examples.

I know they don't teach that. My point is that this is, in fact, what Evangelicals do, even while denying they do it. They claim their doctrines are based solely on the Bible, while in fact, all sorts of non-biblical ideas influence their interpretation of the Bible.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

I also disagree with your comments about the canon of Scripture. It is true that the Bible does not contain a list of the 66 books that belong in the canon of Scripture. This doesn't mean that the doctrine of the canon is not solidly grounded in biblical teaching. We have the evidence from the NT that Jesus and the apostles accepted the same general canon of pre-Christian Jewish scripture as the Pharisees and later the rabbis of the post-AD 70 period accepted; there was no debate between Jews and Christians in the first or second century as to the extent of that canon. The NT writings attest to the status of Paul's epistles as Scripture (2 Peter 3:16) and teach that the foundation of the Christian church was to be found in the teachings of the Christian apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ (e.g., Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 2 Peter 3:1-2). The early church therefore rightly regarded apostolicity as the key criterion for acceptance of post-resurrection texts as Scripture. Their determination that the 27 books of the NT were all written by apostles or by associates of apostles (such as Mark and Luke) on their behalf stands up rather well. Apparently the church did a pretty good job even by Mormon standards of recognizing what books were Scripture, since the LDS Church accepts 65 of the 66 books of the Protestant canon of the Bible (all except Song of Solomon). They must have been doing something right!

None of what you have said--even if it is all accurate--changes the fact that Evangelicals use extra-biblical ideas (the canon) which influence their interpretation of the Bible. Even if Evangelical ideas of the biblical canon may be perfectly accurate and historical, they are still, however, extra-biblical. One cannot have the Bible as Evangelicals know it, without having an extra-biblical idea establishing what that Bible is.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

Earlier you denied claiming to know better. Now you apparently admit that you do claim to know better. So we are making progress.

Just to clarify, is it your position that it is always wrong to try to "debunk" other religions?

You wrote:

I didn't use that language or make that implication. I said that Mormon missionaries try to convert people in evangelical churches. If they knock on a door and find out that the people living there are Presbyterians, do they immediately excuse themselves and move on?

You wrote:

I am familiar with the manual. Your distinction between what the missionaries do and what the Holy Spirit does is not relevant, since the missionaries do seek to teach evangelicals with the hope of them converting to the LDS religion.

Sadly you still fail to see the distinction between sharing what we know and coming out in direct opposition to others beliefs - on top of that you misrepresent our beliefs (intentional or not).

If you cannot see the difference between trying to oppose something you do not have a full understanding of and promoting something you know there is not much purpose of trying to communicate past that point.

Sadly I think you do know better but you feign ignorance or ignore information that doesn't fit with your preconceived notions (i.e. Mormons are wrong).

As to not claiming I know better... you misunderstood my position. I don't claim to know someone elses beliefs better than they know them. That doesn't mean I don't claim to know anything true. If someone is convinced their belief system is better or "truer: it is not up to me to try to debunk that. In fact our missionaries are instructed not to contend with others, they should teach people and let the Spirit convert which makes what the Missionaries do very relevant to the Holy Spirit.

[Bill Hamblin]

Stop right there. We have a lot of Mormons here who get incensed whenever I express an opinion differing from their own as to the meaning of something in LDS scripture or teaching. I regularly get besieged by criticism for supposedly daring to claim that I know better than Mormons what they believe (which I don't). Are you not guilty of making precisely the same kind of claim, i.e., are you not claiming to know better than evangelicals what it is that evangelicals believe?

I am not claiming to know better than you what Evangelicals believe. Please correct me if I misrepresent Evangelical thought. What I am saying is that while Evangelicals believe they are basing their doctrines solely on the Bible, in fact there are all sorts of non-biblical ideas which influence and even control their interpretation of the Bible. I believe this is objectively demonstrable, and gave two examples.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill, I never denied that the Bible has been interpreted in many different ways. Please try reading what I said again.

The issue is: can an intelligent, informed, honest readers of the Bible arrive at legitimately different interpretations of the text. Or are such interpretations necessarily based on sinful hearts and satanic influence of one or more of the readers?

Fundamentally I am saying that these different interpretations are due both to the nature of the text (ambiguities, contradictions, etc.), as well as the natural differences due to different background, assumptions, different experience, etc.

The issue is not whether there are differing interpretations of the text. The issue is why there are differing interpretations. From what you said, it seems you attribute these differences to Evangelicals reading by the Holy Spirit, and non-Evangelicals reading with sinful hearts and satanic influence. Have I understood you correctly?

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You didn't answer my questions. May I please have an answer to this one:

Just to clarify, is it your position that it is always wrong to try to "debunk" other religions?

I would greatly appreciate an answer to this question.

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

You didn't answer my questions. May I please have an answer to this one:

I would greatly appreciate an answer to this question.

Ignoring the gotcha term "always" I content that opposing anothers belief system is usually a poor practice.

Once again you confuse receiving an answer you do not like with not getting an answer.

Specifically what you do with your research ministry is a poor practice. I would not find those activities in line with what I consider being a disciple of Christ does.

[cdowis]

That don't make sense. Exegesis simply means reasoning out of the scriptures. That reasoning may be right or wrong; but how can reasoning out of the scriptures replace the scriptures?

Hint: Exegesis is just another word for interpretation, the arm of flesh, a mental activity. Substitute theologians, experts on exegesis who depend on their own wisdom, for modern prophets who receive direct revelation.

Give it some thought and you will figure it out. Exegesis only works with the spirit of revelation using all of the word of God. Otherwise it is just the mind of man, like the scribes and Pharasees.

Edited September 21, 2011 by cdowis

[wenglund]

Wade,

No, I don't deny that. Please simply engage what I said--the full statement--or leave it be.

I was asking so as to gain further understanding about your position and to clarify a number of things you have said. There is no cause for you to react overly-defensively.

Let me go one step further towards understanding you. Do you agree that there are legitimate and reasonable differences in interpretations of the Bible?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 21, 2011 by wenglund

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

I know they don't teach that. My point is that this is, in fact, what Evangelicals do, even while denying they do it. They claim their doctrines are based solely on the Bible, while in fact, all sorts of non-biblical ideas influence their interpretation of the Bible.

Bill, in making this claim, you are trying to do precisely what I am arguing that people can do: distinguish between ideas that are taught in the Bible and ideas that aren't. Your argument assumes that it is possible for people with differing beliefs to look at the evidence together and at least try to sort out what is biblical and what isn't. For this to be possible, the Bible cannot be so ambiguous that it is impossible to reach a reasoned conclusion as to what it does and does not say. Thus, in the act of arguing against my position, you presuppose it.

For example, in trying to argue that the concept of a "canon" of Scripture is not in the Bible, you are presupposing that it is possible for intelligent people to look at the Bible, look at the concept of the canon, and come to an informed conclusion as to whether it is biblical or not. Likewise, your comments about ancient Greek philosophy and the Nicene Creed presuppose that you and I can both look at the Bible, look at Greek philosophy, and then look at the Nicene Creed and distinguish what comes from the Bible and what comes from Greek philosophy. And I'm all for doing so. Not just in theory, but in practice, evangelicals give to Scripture an authority they don't give to Greek philosophy, church tradition, creeds, or any other extrabiblical human influence. We don't deny the existence of such influences, but we seek to sift those influences through the study of Scripture to make sure that any "foreign elements" that distort or dilute the biblical teachings are identified and removed from our belief system. Do we accomplish this goal perfectly? I would not make such a claim, but that is in practice what evangelicals believe and strive to do.

Now, once again, the issue here is not whether people are "influenced" by ideas or categories or presuppositions that are not biblical. Of course they are. We all are. For the umpteenth time, my claim is not that our reading of the Bible is or can be free of all such external influence, but that all such external influence should be tested by what the Bible actually says. Arguing that some of what evangelicals believe reflects extrabiblical influences is not an argument against my position! In contrast, the LDS Church teaches--not just inadvertently practices, but openly advocates--that the Bible should be tested by what modern revelation and the living prophet say. So, for example, if modern revelation says that Hebrews 6:1 as it has come down to us in the Greek manuscripts and all translations is in error, that is what Mormons are supposed to believe. If modern revelation says that Song of Solomon is not inspired scripture, then it's out. If Acts 10:44-48 appears to teach that people can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost before baptism, but modern revelation says otherwise, modern revelation takes precedence over what the text appears to say. The Bible is to be trusted as the word of God only as far as it has been correctly translated as judged by modern revelations and the living prophet. Is this not the LDS position? Has not the authority of the Bible been subordinated clearly to modern revelation in general and to the living prophet in particular?

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

Ignoring the gotcha term "always" I content that opposing anothers belief system is usually a poor practice.

Okay, so opposing another's belief system is sometimes a good thing but usually not a good thing. Under what circumstances, or according to what standards or criteria, would it be a good thing?

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

I was asking so as to gain further understanding about your position and to clarify a number of things you have said. There is no cause for you to react overly-defensively.

Perhaps you're right. But the fact is that no one has yet engaged even the full sentence.

You wrote:

Let me go one step further towards understanding you. Do you agree that there are legitimate and reasonable differences in interpretations of the Bible?

Yes, of course. But not all interpretations are legitimate or reasonable.

[Jesterss]

In fact our missionaries are instructed not to contend with others, they should teach people and let the Spirit convert which makes what the Missionaries do very relevant to the Holy Spirit.

CFR

[Bill Hamblin]

Now, once again, the issue here is not whether people are "influenced" by ideas or categories or presuppositions that are not biblical. Of course they are. We all are. For the umpteenth time, my claim is not that our reading of the Bible is or can be free of all such external influence, but that all such external influence should be tested by what the Bible actually says.

Don't you see the irreconcilable circular logic of this claim? How can you "test" an idea by "what the Bible actually says" when you've just admitted that interpretations of the Bible are influenced by extra-biblical ideas? This makes no sense at all. The question is: how do we determine "what the Bible actually says" if you admit that attempts to establish "what the Bible actually says" are necessarily influenced by extra-biblical ideas? If we knew with certainty "what the Bible actually says" it might be possible. But the debate is precisely about "what the Bible actually says."

LDS openly recognize extra-biblical scripture and continuing revelation. Evangelicals generally won't openly admit that their interpretations of the Bible are influenced by all sorts of extra-biblical beliefs. Both have extra-biblical sources that influence their interpretations. LDS admit this. Evangelicals don't.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

CFR

I guess you have never read the missionary guide?

Also from the BoM we learn that the spirit of contention is of the devil and is not of God. We are counseled as missionaries

not to be contentions and we are to teach by the spirit.

More jesting I see.

[wenglund]

Yes, of course. But not all interpretations are legitimate or reasonable.

Excellent. I appreciate the clarification. Now, if I may go one more step further: Do you agree that the LDS interpretations of the Bible that differ from your own, are legitimate and reasonable, or do you consider them the product of sin and/or satanic deception?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill Hamblin]

I am disappointed that Rob will not engage my numerous questions regarding the "spiritual warfare" model of Evangelical relations with LDS.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

I am disappointed that Rob will not engage my numerous questions regarding the "spiritual warfare" model of Evangelical relations with LDS.

I'm spending about as much time here as I can justify as it is. I simply don't have time to get to every post.

I'll see what I can do.

[Vance]

Nice red herring and strawman!!!!

A two-fer!!

The topic is "interpretation of scripture" NOT "belief in scripture" or "belief in Christ.

"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor. 4:3-4 ESV).

Evangelicals are believers in the Bible (they just misinterpret it) and in Christ.

Mormons are believers in the Bible (correctly interpreted) and in Christ.

So this verse doesn't apply to the topic at hand, making it a redherring.

It also doesn't represent what Bill was talking about, making it a strawman.

A two-fer!!!

Way to go, BOWMAN!!!!

Do you agree or disagree with Paul?

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!

Too bad what he said has NOTHING to do with "interpretation".

Edited September 21, 2011 by Vance

[zerinus]

Hint:

You can keep your "hints" for yourself. I don't need any "hints" from anybody, thank you.

Exegesis is just another word for interpretation, the arm of flesh, a mental activity. Substitute theologians, experts on exegesis who depend on their own wisdom, for modern prophets who receive direct revelation.

Exegesis is another word for "reasoning out of the scriptures". Paul believed in "reasoning out of the scriptures" (Acts 17:2); the Lord believes in reasoning out of the Scriptures (D&C 71:6-8 ); and so do I.

Give it some thought and you will figure it out.

I am beginning to lose hope that you will ever figure it out.

Exegesis only works with the spirit of revelation using all of the word of God. Otherwise it is just the mind of man, like the scribes and Pharasees.

I agree. I never said that you should use exegesis without the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

[zerinus]

I am disappointed that Rob will not engage my numerous questions regarding the "spiritual warfare" model of Evangelical relations with LDS.

Rob very conveniently runs out of time when it comes to answering tough questions which he can't answer.