Which Is More Authoritative? Sola Scriptura Or Modern Revelation

[Zakuska]

Lets refer to two early church fathers...

Ignatius:

For I have heard some saying, 'If I do not find the Gospel in the archives [i.e. the Old Testament], I will not believe it.' To such persons I say that my archives are Jesus Christ, to disobey whom is manifest destruction. My authentic archives are His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which bears on these things, by which I desire, through your prayers, to be justified. He who disbelieves the Gospel disbelieves everything along with it. For the archives ought not to be preferred to the Spirit.

Ignatius, Philadelphians 8, in ANF 1:84.

Papius:

If, then, anyone who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.

Papias, Fragment 1, in ANF 1:153. ". . . . which things were indeed plainly spoken by Him, but are not plainly written; so much so, that when they are read, they cannot be understood without an expounder, on account of the sin which has grown up with men, as I said before." Peter, in Clementine Recognitions 1:21, in ANF 8:83.

Edited October 31, 2011 by Zakuska

[Cobalt-70]

Ignatius and Papias are perhaps not good sources to argue against sola scriptura, because they lived before the New Testament was even formed. Obviously, a not-yet-existing book will not be the sole source of religious authority, and I think Protestants will agree with this. Also, Ignatius was talking about the Hebrew Bible (the only one that existed at the time he wrote this).

Besides, anyone who believes in sola scriptura is by definition not going to accept the words as Ignatius and Papias as more authoritative than what they think the Bible says.

[KevinG]

God told me He can add whatever He wants to His cannon whenever He wants. So there!

[Zakuska]

Ignatius and Papias are perhaps not good sources to argue against sola scriptura, because they lived before the New Testament was even formed. Obviously, a not-yet-existing book will not be the sole source of religious authority, and I think Protestants will agree with this. Also, Ignatius was talking about the Hebrew Bible (the only one that existed at the time he wrote this).

Besides, anyone who believes in sola scriptura is by definition not going to accept the words as Ignatius and Papias as more authoritative than what they think the Bible says.

The problem here is. They are saying as would Paul himself that revelation from God and his spirit trumps written words every time. How else was the New testament added to the Bible.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Zakuska

[shalamabobbi]

I'd like to believe the answer is obvious. Which is the source of the other?

Apply the concept of time invariance if necessary.

Also the two are not pitted against one another, unless one has a "metaphorical" understanding not in line with the intended meaning of past scripture..

[orion88]

Would someone give me some major examples of what the LDS Church considers

"modern revelation" after 1978 (who said it?, when?, where?) but which has not

been canonized?

Thanks,

Tony

[Flyonthewall]

There are plenty of things in the canonized scriptures that are not revelation, and I do not believe that every single revelation to a prophet is included in the scriptures.

I believe the prophets now days teach us of revealed things in their own way every 6 months at conference.

They may not be framed with: "Thus sayeth the Lord God...", and they may not be some never before heard concept, but they are the words God would have us hear.

[LeSellers]

God told me He can add whatever He wants to His cannon whenever He wants. So there!

God is the Chief Artilleryman now?

One-enned canons are sacred tomes.

Two-enned cannons hurl great bombs.

But I will bet my stunted banyan,

There's no such thing as a three-enned cannnon.

With apologies.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Would someone give me some major examples of what the LDS Church considers "modern revelation" after 1978 (who said it?, when?, where?) but which has not been canonized?

The revelation President Hinckley received in his car as he returned from Colonia Juarez, Mexico, regarding the newer small Temples so the Saints would have more access to the House of the Lord.(The building of more than a hundred new Temples, each with its own revelations also qualifies).

The termination of the Stake Quorums of the Seventy and the inauguration of the General and regional Quorums of the Seventy.

Two (or a hundred and two) pretty important ones. There are others.

Lehi

[KevinG]

God is the Chief Artilleryman now?

One-enned canons are sacred tomes.

Two-enned cannons hurl great bombs.

But I will bet my stunted banyan,

There's no such thing as a three-enned cannnon.

With apologies.

Lehi

Heh. A spellling connnundrummm

[KevinG]

Would someone give me some major examples of what the LDS Church considers

"modern revelation" after 1978 (who said it?, when?, where?) but which has not

been canonized?

Thanks,

Tony

http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html

http://lds.org/church/leaders/quorums-of-the-seventy?lang=eng

http://newsroom.lds.org/article/new-temples-announced-for-france-africa-colombia-utah-and-wyoming

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/42650/President-Hinckley-gives-specific-counsel.html

Mark 4:9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

[Cobalt-70]

The problem here is. They are saying as would Paul himself that revelation from God and his spirit trumps written words every time. How else was the New testament added to the Bible.

I'm just saying that this argument would appeal to Mormons and Catholics, but not Protestants, who are the only ones that need convincing.

[cinepro]

Would someone give me some major examples of what the LDS Church considers

"modern revelation" after 1978 (who said it?, when?, where?) but which has not

been canonized?

Thanks,

Tony

It really depends on how you want to define "modern revelation". Since the Church is a multi-billion dollar corporation, many of the decisions made by the apostles and Prophet are related to practical matters in running the Church.

And since the Church operates not only as a Church but as a business (I don't say that as a criticism, but only to point out that the Church faces many of the same problems and obstacles that non-Church businesses do when it comes to organization and money matters), there is a gray area between theological revelation and practical business decisions.

Some LDS define "revelation" rather widely (i.e. "any good idea any Church leader has"). Others might be a little more discriminating, with the belief that Church leaders can have good ideas that aren't necessarily "revelation" and that in order for something to be identified as "revelation" it should have some unique, identifying characteristics that distinguish it from "good ideas".

FWIW, the Church itself has a lesson in the Doctrine and Covenants Sunday School class where they identify examples of "ongoing revelation" to "Latter-day Prophets". Here's what they came up with:

1. Church correlation (1950's)

2. Revelation extending the blessings of the priesthood to every worthy male member of the Church (1978)

3. Publication of new Latter-day Saint editions of the scriptures (1979)

4. Additional Quorums of the Seventy (1997)

So there 'ya go. Only two of those post-date 1978, but that's the answer straight from the horses' mouth, as it were.

Edited November 1, 2011 by cinepro