Why Are We Such Brittle Christians?

[Spammer]

I think some view the Bible as a happy accident, and some view it as falling directly from heaven. Both of those approaches have to ignore history.

 

It seems others accept that the Church was at least inspired, if not authorized, to make the selections it made for the NT canon, but they won't go so far as to accept that the same Church was inspired in its formulation of dogmatic teaching and production of the Nicene Creed.  This still begs the question.  When they say inspired, I assume they men inspired by the Holy Spirit. On what grounds do they accept that the Spirit guided the Church in the establishment of the canon but reject the authority of the Church in other matters?   I agree that history doesn't provide the answer.  Their case must rest on other grounds.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Spammer

[bluebell]

Ok, just trying to understand. So you accept the New Testament based on a belief that the ancient Catholic Church was inspired and had good intentions when it established the NT canon, but not that it had the authority to do so?

Basically.

Think of it this way, LDS believe that many of the reformers were inspired in some of their actions yet we don't believe they had authority from God to start new churches in His name.

It's similar with our belief in the bible.

[3DOP]

Yes, that's the same thing I'm trying to understand.  LDS church members reject the authority of the hellenized, post-Nicene church but accept that the NT canon that church established is nevertheless authoritative and binding.  On what grounds do they base that acceptance?

 

The post Nicene Hellenizers were 27 for 27. Pretty good as a free throw percentage! It seems pretty good in respect to discernment of truth too. They didn't make one mistake as far as what they included. As to what they excluded?  Latter-day revelation adds not one word with regards to all of the literature that the post-Nicene Hellenizers considered for the New Testament.

Edited January 8, 2015 by 3DOP

[Spammer]

The post Nicene Hellenizers were 27 for 27. Pretty good as a free throw percentage! It seems pretty good in respect to discernment of truth too. They didn't make one mistake as far as what they included. As to what they excluded?  Latter-day revelation adds not one word with regards to all of the literature that the post-Nicene Hellenizers considered for the New Testament.

 

27 for 27 on the free throw line, plus bonus points for the quality and depth of our bench, which is stocked with all of the Apostolic and other pre-Nicene church fathers that the LDS apologists love to quote in their hunt for the ancient Church of the Former-Day Saints.   

Edited January 8, 2015 by Spammer

[thesometimesaint]

The post Nicene Hellenizers were 27 for 27. Pretty good as a free throw percentage! It seems pretty good in respect to discernment of truth too. They didn't make one mistake as far as what they included. As to what they excluded?  Latter-day revelation adds not one word with regards to all of the literature that the post-Nicene Hellenizers considered for the New Testament.

 

Incorrect. SEE Inspired Version

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible

[3DOP]

Incorrect. SEE Inspired Version

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible

 

Hi thesometimesaint.

 

"Incorrect," you said." My post was entirely incorrect? Nothing was correct? Help me out. I don't really follow how this 19th Century revelation has anything to do with post-Nicene Hellenizers choosing 27 for 27 with regards to the New Testament books which Joseph Smith and Salt Lake Mormons also accepted. Neither the inspired translation nor any other post 18th Century literature are among "the literature that the post-Nicene Hellenizers considered for the New Testament". With regards to what they did consider, Mormons are in complete agreement.

 

1) Mormons do not accept any books among those the Hellenizers rejected.

2) Mormons do not reject any books among those the Hellenizers accepted.

 

Whatever was incorrect in my post, the above two points are the pertinent facts. The inspired translation which came hundreds of years after, does not speak to the question of canon. I did not know until now that Mormons have apparently elevated the inspired translation to canonical status. Even so, it doesn't seem to have any relevance to the observation I made in the context of the 4th Century when rampant hellenization within the church, resulted in choosing books that are entirely satisfactory to Latter-day Saints. 

 

Rory

[thesometimesaint]

Hi thesometimesaint.

 

"Incorrect," you said." My post was entirely incorrect? Nothing was correct? Help me out. I don't really follow how this 19th Century revelation has anything to do with post-Nicene Hellenizers choosing 27 for 27 with regards to the New Testament books which Joseph Smith and Salt Lake Mormons also accepted. Neither the inspired translation nor any other post 18th Century literature are among "the literature that the post-Nicene Hellenizers considered for the New Testament". With regards to what they did consider, Mormons are in complete agreement.

 

1) Mormons do not accept any books among those the Hellenizers rejected.

2) Mormons do not reject any books among those the Hellenizers accepted.

 

Whatever was incorrect in my post, the above two points are the pertinent facts. The inspired translation which came hundreds of years after, does not speak to the question of canon. I did not know until now that Mormons have apparently elevated the inspired translation to canonical status. Even so, it doesn't seem to have any relevance to the observation I made in the context of the 4th Century when rampant hellenization within the church, resulted in choosing books that are entirely satisfactory to Latter-day Saints. 

 

Rory

 

You are incorrect that LDS have added not one word to Scripture. We clearly have as witnessed by the Inspired Version. We also accept as doctrinal the KJV of the Bible, and any version that best conveys the ideas that we want to share. Our canon is open as opposed to nearly every other Christian sect that i know of. IE; We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

SEE http://www.mormon.org/beliefs/articles-of-faith

 

For further clarification.

SEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Bible.shtml

[3DOP]

You are incorrect that LDS have added not one word to Scripture. We clearly have as witnessed by the Inspired Version. We also accept as doctrinal the KJV of the Bible, and any version that best conveys the ideas that we want to share. Our canon is open as opposed to nearly every other Christian sect that i know of. IE; We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

SEE http://www.mormon.org/beliefs/articles-of-faith

 

For further clarification.

SEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Bible.shtml

 

Good night, thesometimesaint! Do you think I don't know you have an open canon after all these years? I wasn't suggesting that you reject the Book of Mormon. My point is and was limited to the 4th Century literature available to post-Nicene Christianity in the Old World. There are many if not most thoughtful LDS who consider the beliefs of the Christians of this era to have been corrupted by an overemphasis on Greek philosophy, as opposed to having an adequate regard for Scripture. My observation is that it is remarkable that souls more dedicated to a god defined by philosophy than the God of the Scriptures, for some reason, chose those Apostolic Scriptures and only those Apostolic Scriptures which Mormons insist invalidates their truth claims. 

 

It would be a similar phenomenon if the economic offspring of V.I. Lenin should adopt Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and proclaim that it teaches communism.    

Edited January 9, 2015 by 3DOP

[Spammer]

Good night, thesometimesaint! Do you think I don't know you have an open canon after all these years? I wasn't suggesting that you reject the Book of Mormon. My point is and was limited to the 4th Century literature available to post-Nicene Christianity in the Old World. There are many if not most thoughtful LDS who consider the beliefs of the Christians of this era to have been corrupted by an overemphasis on Greek philosophy, as opposed to having an adequate regard for Scripture. My observation is that it is remarkable that souls more dedicated to a god defined by philosophy than the God of the Scriptures, for some reason, chose those Apostolic Scriptures and only those Apostolic Scriptures which Mormons insist invalidates their truth claims. 

 

It would be a similar phenomenon if the economic offspring of V.I. Lenin should adopt Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and proclaim that it teaches communism.    

 

I need an eating popcorn emote.

[thesometimesaint]

Good night, thesometimesaint! Do you think I don't know you have an open canon after all these years? I wasn't suggesting that you reject the Book of Mormon. My point is and was limited to the 4th Century literature available to post-Nicene Christianity in the Old World. There are many if not most thoughtful LDS who consider the beliefs of the Christians of this era to have been corrupted by an overemphasis on Greek philosophy, as opposed to having an adequate regard for Scripture. My observation is that it is remarkable that souls more dedicated to a god defined by philosophy than the God of the Scriptures, for some reason, chose those Apostolic Scriptures and only those Apostolic Scriptures which Mormons insist invalidates their truth claims. 

 

It would be a similar phenomenon if the economic offspring of V.I. Lenin should adopt Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and proclaim that it teaches communism.    

 

For LDS it's more like what we have is what we have. We are open to additions and emendations to all Scriptures including the Bible. We thoroughly believe  Article of Faith 9.We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

[Tacenda]

For LDS it's more like what we have is what we have. We are open to additions and emendations to all Scriptures including the Bible. We thoroughly believe  Article of Faith 9.We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

And this is ever so clear in the changes to the D&C or the putting forth the D&C and putting behind the Book of Commandments.

[thesometimesaint]

And this is ever so clear in the changes to the D&C or the putting forth the D&C and putting behind the Book of Commandments.

 

TTBOMK the KFD was never part of the Book of Commandments.