Biblical Keys For Discerning True And False Prophets

[mfbukowski]

Rev. 11:19??? Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.

 

What does that have to do with truth, let alone true or false prophets?

 

Where does James mention true or false prophets? Why do you assume that verse can be applied to testing a prophet?

 

You're right, Paul doesn't define "gospel" in verse 8 or 9, but that doesn't mean we should downplay Paul's very serious warning. The term "model" isn't there either, but how would you describe it? Can we agree the verses are a method of testing a gospel? How can we move onto testing a gospel if we haven't discussed what Paul's method was?

 

Why do you believe those passages can be used to test a prophet? Most of them aren't talking about the issue of true or false prophets. For instance, Hebrews 5 is about how priests were chosen before Christ, but now Christ is our high priest and vastly superior all other priests before him. There's nothing in the text that suggests it can be used to test of a prophet, unless that person is directly contradicting the teaching in the passage.

 

Okay, that was my mistake for missing the Galatians reference, but posting references to a bunch of verses doesn't mean much. Could you talk a bit about what you think Paul meant?

 

Paul is putting an extreme amount of faith and trust in the reliability of the gospel. He even puts himself, the other apostles and all men under the authority of the gospel he already gave them. He certainly doesn’t act like that gospel would soon be lost. He doesn’t give an out to explain why anyone should trust a “restoration” of the gospel.

 

The world already had a gospel in the Bible when Smith restored the gospel. Doesn’t the restoration mean the restored gospel is different than the gospel people see just by looking at the Bible? Even if the restored only adds doctrines to the gospel of the Bible, that’s still a different gospel. So why doesn’t the restored gospel fall under Paul’s warning? What was Paul talking about?

You are avoiding the question of why we should believe the bible at all, with it's circular proofs.

 

Obviously you are not here to discuss the truth- you are here to prove your own version of truth, and not doing very well at that.

[Kevin Christensen]

I already said that was my mistake. Plus, I'm asking about verses 8 and 9, not 6 and 7. But none of that explains what Paul was saying or how we should apply it to a test of a prophet.

 

Paul is putting an extreme amount of faith and trust in the reliability of the gospel. He even puts himself, the other apostles and all men under the authority of the gospel he already gave them. He certainly doesn’t act like that gospel would soon be lost. He doesn’t give an out to explain why anyone should trust a “restoration” of the gospel.

 

The world already had a gospel in the Bible when Smith restored the gospel. Doesn’t the restoration mean the restored gospel is different than the gospel people see just by looking at the Bible? Even if the restored only adds doctrines to the gospel of the Bible, that’s still a different gospel. So why doesn’t the restored gospel fall under Paul’s warning? What was Paul talking about?

 

You might try reading these essays to get an idea of what might be missing from the Bible:

 

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/SecretTradition.pdf

 

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf

 

The author is an important Bible scholar in England.   Once a person gets an idea of what might be missing, then you might be

in a good position to recognize and appreciate what the Restoration includes, and better assess the worth of Joseph Smith's achievement.

 

And Paul and the other New Testament writers did spend quite a bit of time warning people of forthcoming losses.  For a recent assessment of what happened, see this essay:

 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1100&index=3

 

FWIW,

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Vance]

Paul is putting an extreme amount of faith and trust in the reliability of the gospel.

 

And why not, considering the source?

 

He even puts himself, the other apostles and all men under the authority of the gospel he already gave them.

And why not, considering the source?

 

He certainly doesn’t act like that gospel would soon be lost.

Don't be silly.  Why did he say "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:"?

 

It is called APOSTASY.

 

He also said,

"28 ¶ Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

  29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock."

 

What part of "not sparing the flock" is so difficult to understand?

 

He doesn’t give an out to explain why anyone should trust a “restoration” of the gospel

.

See above

 

The world already had a gospel in the Bible when Smith restored the gospel.

Paul makes it clear that the Bible was not his source for the gospel.

 

Doesn’t the restoration mean the restored gospel is different than the gospel people see just by looking at the Bible?

Again, the Bible was not Paul's source.  Why should your interpretation of the Bible be accepted as a valid source?

 

Even if the restored only adds doctrines to the gospel of the Bible, that’s still a different gospel. So why doesn’t the restored gospel fall under Paul’s warning? What was Paul talking about?

See above.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Vance

[Vance]

That's all nice but why should we believe the bible as being the criteria for selecting prophets in the first place?

 

That is circular reasoning.

 

The bible says we should follow the bible because the bible says we should follow the bible.

 

Can you see there is a little problem there??

 

THERE HAS TO BE AN OUTSIDE CHANNEL DIRECTLY TO GOD TO CONFIRM THAT THE BIBLE AND OTHER SCRIPTURES ARE INDEED "SCRIPTURES" THAT HE WANTS US TO FOLLOW, OR IT IS ALL CIRCULAR.

 

pardon my yeling but everyone always seems to miss this point.

 

"If anyone lack wisdom....."   THAT is what started it all- THIS VERY QUESTION.

 

HOW DO WE KNOW THE BIBLE IS RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

 

There is no getting around that question and the only answer is direct personal revelation.  THAT is the only possible answer.

 

That makes us all prophets, as confirmed itself in scripture that a testimony of Christ is "the spirit of prophecy"

Good questions.

 

But, as usual, our critic will avoid discussion of these questions.

[NotaMormon]

I guess that must mean that CV75 can't be a prophet either, because he also said "Rev 11:19" when he really meant Rev 19:10.

 

Curses be upon thee CV.

So an angel tells John to worship God, not angels. I give up. What does that have to do with how we can test prophets?

 

 

I always find it interesting that critics ALWAYS stop at verse 9, when verse 12 has the key to understanding.

 

  10 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.

  11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

  12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

Did Paul get the gospel he preached from scripture?  Did he get it from the Bible?

 

No.

 

There's a big difference between descriptive verses and prescriptive verses.

 

Verses 6-9 prescribe a method of testing a gospel teaching or prophet. Verses 11-12 describe where Paul got the gospel he taught. Why should we read verse 12 as a prescription of how to test a prophet?

 

Yes, Paul received the Gospel from Christ. Paul was an apostle and we're not. Since we haven't received any gospel directly from Christ, we need to know what gospel we should trust. Don't verses 8-9 address that issue? Why would you jump over 8-9 to 11-12?

[Vance]

You might try reading these essays to get an idea of what might be missing from the Bible:

 

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/SecretTradition.pdf

 

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf

 

The author is an important Bible scholar in England.   Once a person gets an idea of what might be missing, then you might be

in a good position to recognize and appreciate what the Restoration includes, and better assess the worth of Joseph Smith's achievement.

 

And Paul and the other New Testament writers did spend quite a bit of time warning people of forthcoming losses.  For a recent assessment of what happened, see this essay:

 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1100&index=3

 

FWIW,

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

I don't think he came here to learn anything.  I think he came here to preach at us.

[Vance]

So an angel tells John to worship God, not angels. I give up. What does that have to do with how we can test prophets?

 

It really does look like you aren't interested in learning anything. 

 

You need to sit down and ponder what "I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: . . . : for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" really means.

 

 

There's a big difference between descriptive verses and prescriptive verses.

 

Verses 6-9 prescribe a method of testing a gospel teaching or prophet. Verses 11-12 describe where Paul got the gospel he taught. Why should we read verse 12 as a prescription of how to test a prophet?

Are you rejecting Paul's prophetic calling?

 

Yes, Paul received the Gospel from Christ. Paul was an apostle and we're not. Since we haven't received any gospel directly from Christ, we need to know what gospel we should trust. Don't verses 8-9 address that issue?

No.

 

What Paul preached to the Galatians is unknown because we have no record of it.

 

Why would you jump over 8-9 to 11-12?

Simple.

 

Since we have no way of knowing what Paul actually preached, all we can do is go to the same source.  And that source is REVELATION.  And how will it come?  By the way in which Christ declared. "49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:"

Edited March 8, 2015 by Vance

[NotaMormon]

Don't be silly.  Why did he say "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:"?

 

It is called APOSTASY.

 

He also said,

"28 ¶ Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

  29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock."

 

What part of "not sparing the flock" is so difficult to understand?

 

.

See above

 

Paul makes it clear that the Bible was not his source for the gospel.

 

Again, the Bible was not Paul's source.  Why should your interpretation of the Bible be accepted as a valid source?

 

See above.

Yes, I've seen the verses that warn about about false teachers and predict that 'some' or 'many' people will follow them. But I don't understand why we should see 'some' or 'many' and read it as 'the whole church.' None of the verses say the whole church would follow those false teachers, so why should we believe the whole church fell away?

 

Paul didn't say the whole church would fall into apostasy. He didn't say the wolves would get the whole flock. Where did the idea come from that the whole church would fall away?

 

Isn't the scripture our source for the Gospel? Even if you believe in using prayer to test prophets and gospels, you don't get the gospel through prayer. You still have to read scripture to learn about the gospel.

[JLHPROF]

Paul is putting an extreme amount of faith and trust in the reliability of the gospel. He even puts himself, the other apostles and all men under the authority of the gospel he already gave them. He certainly doesn’t act like that gospel would soon be lost. He doesn’t give an out to explain why anyone should trust a “restoration” of the gospel.

 

Uh, sure he does.  He specifically speaks of a restoration of the gospel AFTER Christ left.

 

Acts 3:

20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

21 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.

 

II Thes 2

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

[Freedom]

Notamormon-Can you please show me in the bible where is states that the bible contains all the gospel that Paul relied upon?

 

All the bible says it that scripture is given by inspiration and is profitable. Nowhere does it state that the books we have now in the bible are included what the bible refers to as scripture, and nowhere does it state that said scripture contains all the teachings we need. Being inspired and profitable is a far cry from accurate, complete or even necessary. 

[Freedom]

 

Paul didn't say the whole church would fall into apostasy. He didn't say the wolves would get the whole flock. Where did the idea come from that the whole church would fall away?

 

 

So if Paul did not expressly state it, it did not occur? I don't seem to recall him mentioning the black death or the formation of the Catholic Church, or the formation of the Muslim faith either. Should we assume that these events did not occur because Paul did not mention them? You are using faulty logic. 

[Freedom]

 

 

Isn't the scripture our source for the Gospel? Even if you believe in using prayer to test prophets and gospels, you don't get the gospel through prayer. You still have to read scripture to learn about the gospel.

You are right. So then why don't you read the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants since these books are also scripture and therefore contain the gospel?

[CV75]

Rev. 11:19??? Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.

 

What does that have to do with truth, let alone true or false prophets?

 

Where does James mention true or false prophets? Why do you assume that verse can be applied to testing a prophet?

 

You're right, Paul doesn't define "gospel" in verse 8 or 9, but that doesn't mean we should downplay Paul's very serious warning. The term "model" isn't there either, but how would you describe it? Can we agree the verses are a method of testing a gospel? How can we move onto testing a gospel if we haven't discussed what Paul's method was?

LOL I was lazy and copyied from mfb's post... it is Revelatoin 19:10.

 

The "text" I referred to is any Biblical text attributable to either John or Paul.

 

You cannot move onto a Biblical text-based testing (based on John and Paul's preaching) of a gospel by using an incomplete "model" by ignoring other pertinent texts attributed to John and Paul. This is why holdng the discussion of the model strictly to the Biblical text will require their definitions of “gospel” and “doctrine” from the text as well. Otherwise, you've gotten some really good answers on this thread.

[NotaMormon]

It really does look like you aren't interested in learning anything. 

 

You need to sit down and ponder what "I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: . . . : for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" really means.

I'm not a Mormon. I could read it 100 times and still not read it like a Mormon would. Could you give me a bit of a hint about what you believe it means and how it should be applied to this issue?

 

Are you rejecting Paul's prophetic calling?

No. Why do you ask?

 

What Paul preached to the Galatians is unknown because we have no record of it.

 

Simple.

 

Since we have no way of knowing what Paul actually preached, all we can do is go to the same source.  And that source is REVELATION.  And how will it come?  By the way in which Christ declared. "49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:"

Galatians 2-4 is Paul reviewing the Gospel he taught them. At least a few chapters of Romans also talk extensively about the Gospel. Why isn't that enough of a record to use?

 

Uh, sure he does.  He specifically speaks of a restoration of the gospel AFTER Christ left.

 

Acts 3:

20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

21 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.

 

II Thes 2

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Acts 3 mentions a restoration of "all things." It doesn't mention the Gospel. Prophets in the OT spoke about the Day of the Lord when God would conquer His enemies and establish His kingdom on earth, often in very apocalyptic language. Since the Day of the Lord hasn't happened yet, and "all things" haven't been restored yet, why should we believe that verse is talking about a restoration of the gospel almost 200 years ago?

 

Who is the man of sin/son of perdition? Has he been revealed?

 

Notamormon-Can you please show me in the bible where is states that the bible contains all the gospel that Paul relied upon?

 

All the bible says it that scripture is given by inspiration and is profitable. Nowhere does it state that the books we have now in the bible are included what the bible refers to as scripture, and nowhere does it state that said scripture contains all the teachings we need. Being inspired and profitable is a far cry from accurate, complete or even necessary. 

The NT epistles talk quite a bit about the Gospel. Why isn't that enough to judge a modern teacher?

 

Try putting yourself in the early church. Paul and other apostles come to you saying the Gospel of Christ is A and B. If anyone preaches to you another gospel, reject it. Then another apostle comes along and says Paul's gospel was incomplete. He affirms the Gospel of A and B, but says he has new revelation that includes C in the Gospel. Do you follow the A, B and C Gospel? The C doctrine doesn't contradict A and B, but does that mean it should be trusted? Including C in the Gospel makes it different than the A and B Gospel Paul taught. Paul doesn't say we should pray to know if C is true. He just says to reject a Gospel different than the one he taught.

Edited March 8, 2015 by NotaMormon

[NotaMormon]

LOL I was lazy and copyied from mfb's post... it is Revelatoin 19:10.

 

The "text" I referred to is any Biblical text attributable to either John or Paul.

 

You cannot move onto a Biblical text-based testing (based on John and Paul's preaching) of a gospel by using an incomplete "model" by ignoring other pertinent texts attributed to John and Paul. This is why holdng the discussion of the model strictly to the Biblical text will require their definitions of “gospel” and “doctrine” from the text as well. Otherwise, you've gotten some really good answers on this thread.

Of course, I'm not saying the model of testing prophets is complete just by looking at 5 verses. Like Kevin pointed out, there are many tests for prophets. But if someone claiming to be a prophet fails to pass Paul's test in Galatians, is there any point in looking at the other tests?

[CV75]

Since we haven't received any gospel directly from Christ, we need to know what gospel we should trust.

Speak for yourself! We receive (in the fullest sene of the word) the true Gospel only from the Holy Spirit and with that light discern false spirits. The fundamental method is to seek and find truth, not seek and reject a false gospel.

[rodheadlee]

 Where is Babylon? When did it fall?

IMHO 9/11/2001 NYC The Twin towers.

[NotaMormon]

Speak for yourself! We receive (in the fullest sene of the word) the true Gospel only from the Holy Spirit and with that light discern false spirits. The fundamental method is to seek and find truth, not seek and reject a false gospel.

So once you receive the Gospel from the Spirit, do you ignore all scripture and get all further guidance from the Spirit? Of course not. Yes, the Spirit guides us to truth, but we still need to rely on scripture for learning specifics about the Gospel.

 

To be clear, yes, I do believe the Spirit plays a very important role in how we find and know what truth is. I'm just saying the role of the Spirit shouldn't take priority over testing by scripture. Putting such a big emphasis on the role of the spirit would be like deciding to marry someone simply because you like talking with them. Of course, a marriage won't work if you don't like talking to each other, but there are bigger issues to be concerned about. It doesn't matter how much you like talking to each other if you disagree on basic doctrinal issues. Why can't we apply at least the same level of criticism to what faith we're married to?

[Bobbieaware]

Deleted

Edited March 8, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[carbon dioxide]

So once you receive the Gospel from the Spirit, do you ignore all scripture and get all further guidance from the Spirit? Of course not. Yes, the Spirit guides us to truth, but we still need to rely on scripture for learning specifics about the Gospel.

 

To be clear, yes, I do believe the Spirit plays a very important role in how we find and know what truth is. I'm just saying the role of the Spirit shouldn't take priority over testing by scripture. Putting such a big emphasis on the role of the spirit would be like deciding to marry someone simply because you like talking with them. Of course, a marriage won't work if you don't like talking to each other, but there are bigger issues to be concerned about. It doesn't matter how much you like talking to each other if you disagree on basic doctrinal issues. Why can't we apply at least the same level of criticism to what faith we're married to?

What scripture are you talking about.  Jesus said that we are to live by every word that proceeds forth from God.  That would everything that God says past, present, and in the future.  If you are limiting scripture to just specific books that are found in the Bible (something that no first century believer including Jesus and the apostles believed) you are not living by every word that proceeds forth from God.   The gospel that Paul and Peter preached included on with continuing revelation and an open canon of scripture.  Anyone who claims that the scripture is only what is in the Bible is preaching another gospel than the one that Paul preached.

Edited March 8, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Avatar4321]

I'm not a Mormon. I could read it 100 times and still not read it like a Mormon would. Could you give me a bit of a hint about what you believe it means and how it should be applied to this issue?

 

No. Why do you ask?

 

Galatians 2-4 is Paul reviewing the Gospel he taught them. At least a few chapters of Romans also talk extensively about the Gospel. Why isn't that enough of a record to use?

 

Acts 3 mentions a restoration of "all things." It doesn't mention the Gospel. Prophets in the OT spoke about the Day of the Lord when God would conquer His enemies and establish His kingdom on earth, often in very apocalyptic language. Since the Day of the Lord hasn't happened yet, and "all things" haven't been restored yet, why should we believe that verse is talking about a restoration of the gospel almost 200 years ago?

 

Who is the man of sin/son of perdition? Has he been revealed?

 

The NT epistles talk quite a bit about the Gospel. Why isn't that enough to judge a modern teacher?

 

Try putting yourself in the early church. Paul and other apostles come to you saying the Gospel of Christ is A and B. If anyone preaches to you another gospel, reject it. Then another apostle comes along and says Paul's gospel was incomplete. He affirms the Gospel of A and B, but says he has new revelation that includes C in the Gospel. Do you follow the A, B and C Gospel? The C doctrine doesn't contradict A and B, but does that mean it should be trusted? Including C in the Gospel makes it different than the A and B Gospel Paul taught. Paul doesn't say we should pray to know if C is true. He just says to reject a Gospel different than the one he taught.

Why does one have to be a Mormon to understand that to be a prophet or have the spirit of prophesy, you must have a testimony of jesus christ?

[Freedom]

I'm not a Mormon. I could read it 100 times and still not read it like a Mormon would. Could you give me a bit of a hint about what you believe it means and how it should be applied to this issue?

 

No. Why do you ask?

 

Galatians 2-4 is Paul reviewing the Gospel he taught them. At least a few chapters of Romans also talk extensively about the Gospel. Why isn't that enough of a record to use?

 

Acts 3 mentions a restoration of "all things." It doesn't mention the Gospel. Prophets in the OT spoke about the Day of the Lord when God would conquer His enemies and establish His kingdom on earth, often in very apocalyptic language. Since the Day of the Lord hasn't happened yet, and "all things" haven't been restored yet, why should we believe that verse is talking about a restoration of the gospel almost 200 years ago?

 

Who is the man of sin/son of perdition? Has he been revealed?

 

The NT epistles talk quite a bit about the Gospel. Why isn't that enough to judge a modern teacher?

 

Try putting yourself in the early church. Paul and other apostles come to you saying the Gospel of Christ is A and B. If anyone preaches to you another gospel, reject it. Then another apostle comes along and says Paul's gospel was incomplete. He affirms the Gospel of A and B, but says he has new revelation that includes C in the Gospel. Do you follow the A, B and C Gospel? The C doctrine doesn't contradict A and B, but does that mean it should be trusted? Including C in the Gospel makes it different than the A and B Gospel Paul taught. Paul doesn't say we should pray to know if C is true. He just says to reject a Gospel different than the one he taught.

Yes, lets put ourselves in the early church. Paul and other apostles tell you what the gospel is and over time, the writings of these apostles are lost. 300 years later a random group of uninspired men who make no claim they were inspired of god select by committee what books will be contained in a new volume we now call the bible. Of course, by the time these books have been selected, the original manuscripts are lost and the remaining text has most likely been modified. Someone like you comes along 2,000 years later and rejects new revelation, contrary to the teachings of the early church leaders such as Paul, and just assumes that what is in the bible now is the total of all the teachings of the early church leaders. This despite the fact that the new testament proves irrefutably that revelation and new instruction continued to flow through these men to the church. 

 

Your position begs the question: what exactly was the gospel that the early saints were taught before Paul was converted? The 4 gospels were not in existence at this time and would not be written for another 30 years or so. Oh wait, perhaps there were other writings in addition to those that we now have that contained teachings now found in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and covenants!!  

 

But no, because you reject revelation, a foundation doctrine of the bible, and cling to ancient texts, you are missing the mark a bit. 

[Freedom]

So once you receive the Gospel from the Spirit, do you ignore all scripture and get all further guidance from the Spirit? Of course not. Yes, the Spirit guides us to truth, but we still need to rely on scripture for learning specifics about the Gospel.

 

 

So I will ask you again, why then do you not read the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants which is also scripture?

[NotaMormon]

Why does one have to be a Mormon to understand that to be a prophet or have the spirit of prophesy, you must have a testimony of jesus christ?

Oh, that's it? I thought you were looking for some in depth interpretation. Of course a prophet needs to have a testimony of Christ. That should be obvious, but it's a low bar to set. People in most denominations would at least claim to have a testimony of Christ, so how is it a useful test of a prophet?

 

Secondly, the context of Revelation 19:10 makes no sense in this discussion. What is the marriage supper of the lamb(v. 9)? Has heaven opened and a white horse come down(v. 11)? If those events haven't happened yet, why do you assume verse 10 can be applied to any issue today?

 

Yes, lets put ourselves in the early church. Paul and other apostles tell you what the gospel is and over time, the writings of these apostles are lost. 300 years later a random group of uninspired men who make no claim they were inspired of god select by committee what books will be contained in a new volume we now call the bible. Of course, by the time these books have been selected, the original manuscripts are lost and the remaining text has most likely been modified. Someone like you comes along 2,000 years later and rejects new revelation, contrary to the teachings of the early church leaders such as Paul, and just assumes that what is in the bible now is the total of all the teachings of the early church leaders. This despite the fact that the new testament proves irrefutably that revelation and new instruction continued to flow through these men to the church. 

 

Your position begs the question: what exactly was the gospel that the early saints were taught before Paul was converted? The 4 gospels were not in existence at this time and would not be written for another 30 years or so. Oh wait, perhaps there were other writings in addition to those that we now have that contained teachings now found in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and covenants!!  

 

But no, because you reject revelation, a foundation doctrine of the bible, and cling to ancient texts, you are missing the mark a bit. 

Why do you assume the writings of the apostles were lost? Were any writings of Old Testament prophets lost? Jesus and the apostles certainly didn't say anything about having to restore or correct any of those scriptures. So since God supernaturally preserved the OT scriptures for 2000-3000 years, why can't we have faith that the same God preserved the NT scriptures for the next 2000 years? God certainly had the power to preserve the scriptures. Why wouldn't He?

 

The Gospel is described extensively in Acts, Galatians and Romans. Why isn't that enough to have a good idea of the Gospel they taught?

 

So I will ask you again, why then do you not read the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants which is also scripture?

The gospel taught in the BoM and D&C is not the same Gospel taught in Galatians and Romans, so why should I consider them scripture at all?

[Kevin Christensen]

Of course, I'm not saying the model of testing prophets is complete just by looking at 5 verses. Like Kevin pointed out, there are many tests for prophets. But if someone claiming to be a prophet fails to pass Paul's test in Galatians, is there any point in looking at the other tests?

 You are assuming that it's not possible to make a serious mistake. The Bible is full of accounts of people rejecting true prophets. If you've read all of my essay, and didn't just dip your toes in, you can see some discussion. The point of using the full range of information is to be able to make a better, well informed decision.

 

That also would be the point of reading the Margaret Barker essays on The Secret Tradition, on the unwritten teachings of Christianity and "Text and Context" on how the Old Testament scriptures were transmitted.  She wrote both essays before she came into contact with LDS scripture, both both have remarkable relevance to what they contain.

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA