As I describe here “Writing an open canon, line upon line“, one of the foundational principles taught in scripture is the notion that we are instructed line upon line, precept upon precept.
The premise of this principle is that we don’t have it all. That there is more to come and it will be distributed by degrees (the subject for a future post).
It’s the assumption of “what I have taught you, is not all I have to teach… there’s more.”
But most traditional Christian denominations believe that there is no more, accepting instead the idea of a closed canon.
What a dreadful thought, at least to one who has witnessed the incredible clarity gained through additional scripture (which is why “out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, shall every word be established”).
But because this comes up so frequently in discussions here, I decided it was worthy of a dedicated post, so that we could explore it together. Hopefully we will each gain appreciation for the other’s views. I can only assume I am egregiously ignorant in understanding the notion of a closed canon, for the premises upon which it is based just seem so rejectable.
It seems to me, that in order to accept a closed cannon, you must accept at least one of the following:
God has already told us all there is to tell
Under this premise, I could accept that perhaps additional scripture is unnecessary.
But I can’t get past the mere idea of this. First, if we had been given it all, we would not be given line upon line, but rather the whole truth all at once, which seems absurd, realistically, to assume that the sum-total of God’s knowledge could somehow fit within a single volume of scripture. My goodness, even if it were a bazillion pages long, it couldn’t even come close to containing the full breadth and depth of God’s eternal knowledge. To assume that “well, this is all there is” seems shockingly arrogant.
I cannot accept that somehow God has run out of things to say.
God is unable to speak to man today
Surely, if he were simply unable, this could account for the ongoing silence anticipated by accepting a closed canon. But that contradicts the very notion of an omnipotent God.
I cannot accept that God has run out of ways or the ability to communicate.
God us unwilling to speak to man today
Perhaps if he’s not unable, then he’s unwilling, but why would that be? Why would he so clearly establish a pattern of prophets and others who record the revelations of God, and which become known as scripture. Why would he be unwilling to communicate through revelation today, for the bible said that it is “upon this rock” the rock of revelation that his very church shall be built, and in countless references has he instructed man to turn to God, to ask God, to Knock, and in return he will answer, and open.
I cannot accept that God is simply unwilling to communicate.
God’s words today are less important
If you accept that there’s no way on earth or in heaven that the Bible can contain the sum total of all God’s knowledge, and that he HAS told us he’d continue to instruct us line upon line, precept upon precept… if you accept that god is neither unable, or unwilling to speak to man today, then it seems you must accept the principle of revelation.
But if you accept the principle of revelation, to say the canon is closed, is to say that the words he says today are somehow less important than those he said in the past, as if they’re somehow drowned out by words he spoke some 2,000 years ago. Why would his words to man spoken 2,000 years ago be worthy of canonization, but the words he speaks to man today, are not?
If God lives (and I attest that he does), then he speaks, and if he speaks, then his words are of equal, if not greater importance for us today, for they are given directly TO us, in our time, for our benefit, and in consideration of our specific needs and circumstance.
How is man somehow able to decide which of his words should be “canon” and which of his words are unworthy?
But I have a testimony that the words of God are all true, and that there is no end to his instruction, and that all instruction from God must be considered equal, eternal, and ongoing, and as such, am happy to belong to a religion that embraces an open canon, that it may never be found saying “we have enough”.
Rusty
P.S. See also a video of Jeffrey R. Holland discussing an open canon, and “Writing an open canon, line upon line“
{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }
Is this what LDS believe Isaiah 28 teaches?
Those phrases are encouraging words for positive open canon?
Rusty, have you read any modern translations or paraphrases on Isaiah 28?
Good start Rusty,
There are definitely some things I would have said differently, but certainly a good start. Part of the major problem, I see for so-called “orthodoxy” is that they believe something that certainly isn’t logical. The honest ones, like Blomberg and McDermott have to admit that there is no biblical requirement for what puts something into the bible. Both Blomberg and McDermott admit that in the theory the canon MUST remain open (thinking Evangelicals!!!), but also MUST in practice remain closed. They never get the irony that it is only job security that keeps it closed in practice.
NOYDMB, cute.
But I never said that God is finished with speaking to mankind.
Yet I am curious. Is this the standard LDS interp of Isaiah 28? And aren’t there LDS bookstores named “Line upon Line” suggesting it is the standard interp of the Isaianic text?
Rusty,
It’s funny how God works things together in His providence. Two nights ago I was in a class where we discussed this exact topic (among a few others relating to Scripture).
I’ll try to address each of your points from a Christian perspective.
1. God has already told us all there is to tell
By means of Scripture-writing, yes.
“But I can’t get past the mere idea of this.”
Of course, we shouldn’t accept or reject a doctrine merely because it seems odd, unjust, etc. to us. If Scripture teaches a closed canon, we must accept it.
“…if we had been given it all, we would not be given line upon line, but rather the whole truth all at once…”
All at once? How do you figure? Were Moses and Paul contemporaries? The 66 books of the Bible were written by various authors, in various locations, under various circumstances, over a period of many centuries. I’m not sure I follow your particular gripe here.
“My goodness, even if it were a bazillion pages long, it couldn’t even come close to containing the full breadth and depth of God’s eternal knowledge. To assume that “well, this is all there is” seems shockingly arrogant.”
Do you have access to “the full breadth and depth of God’s eternal knowledge”? THAT seems shockingly arrogant. Do Mormons believe they do now, or at some point in this pre-exalted state will, possess this kind of exhaustive divine knowledge? This seems to me another example of the Mormon’s failure to comprehend God’s “otherness” (an intrinsic part of His holiness). Because God is not merely an exalted man, but the eternal Creator of all that exists, His knowledge is ultimately unfathomable and unsearchable (meaning not that we can know nothing, but that we can know only what He chooses to reveal). We will only ever scratch the surface of all that God knows.
And Christians don’t believe in a closed canon because we think it contains EVERYTHING. We believe the canon is closed, because the Bible essentially says so. (More on that later.)
“I cannot accept that somehow God has run out of things to say.”
Again, no Christian believes the canon is closed because God has nothing more to say. Christians believe all God has ordained to reveal via Scripture has been revealed in the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.
2. God is unable to speak to man today
“Surely, if he were simply unable, this could account for the ongoing silence anticipated by accepting a closed canon. But that contradicts the very notion of an omnipotent God.”
Um… Yeah.
3. God us unwilling to speak to man today
So, Catholics say the “rock” of Matthew 16:18 is Peter and Mormons say it is revelation? While not a Catholic, I think Peter is less of a stretch than revelation. “Rock” is clearly a play on Peter’s name (Petra/rock), but it seems clear the thing the church is founded upon is Peter’s attestation of Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
God is willing to communicate to His people today (in these “last days”) through Holy Scripture illumined to the believer by the indwelling Holy Spirit. Do you believe that the Bible is incapable of sufficiently informing the Christian today on how to live and believe? If so…
2 Tim. 3:16 – All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
If Scripture (Paul is here explicitly referring to the OT, but elsewhere equates his own writings as well as the other NT writings with OT Scripture) is profitable for all these things, and is able to equip the believer for EVERY good work, what need would there be for further revelation in these last days?
4. God’s words today are less important
Regarding Isaiah 28 and the LDS use of “line upon line, precept upon precept”: The context of Isaiah’s prophecy here – Israel’s failure to listen/obey God’s Word and the impending judgment of an Assyrian assault – make the LDS use of this phrase unfitting. The phrase seems to be a mocking play on words, stating that the Lord’s words are slowly leading this obstinate people toward destruction. This is actually a tricky text, but it certainly has nothing to do with a never-ending canon of Scripture.
In fact, I found a brief LDS commentary on this text honest enough to admit it does not contextually have any relevance to the Mormon doctrine of revelation. That meaning has been imported into the biblical text from Mormon texts like Nephi 28:30.
http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/03/line-upon-line/
No Christian believes what God might have to say today is “less important” than what He said 2000+ years ago. Christians simply trust in Christ’s imminent return and the trustworthiness and usefulness of His gospel. The NT authors repeatedly refer to Christ coming “soon” and to the period of time after Christ’s ascension as the “last days”. Christians don’t believe the NT (or the OT) was written only for First Century Christians, but for all Christians everywhere and at all times until Christ’s return.
This is how I would argue for a closed canon:
1. 2 Tim. 3:16 (cited above) – The OT and NT writings are sufficient for every good work. Therefore, there is no reason to expect some other future Scripture-writing.
2. Hebrews 1:1-2 – Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
“the prophets” is a clear reference to the OT. Yet, in these “last days”, how has God spoken to His people? “by his Son” – Christ is the fulfillment of all the OT; He is the expectation of Zion. Christ’s gospel is the final word. Looking at the NT, we can see how this works: First, we have the Four Gospels, the narrative accounts of Jesus’ life, ministry, death and resurrection. Second, we have the Acts of the Apostles, the narrative accounts of the ministry of Jesus’ Apostles (those who ministered with Christ or had first-hand contact with Him) after His ascension. Third, we have the Epistles, the didactic writings of Christ’s Apostles fleshing out the implications and applications of Christ’s teachings (the gospel). Finally, we have Revelation, John’s vision of the end.
Revelation is the summing up of all things in Christ. And this is how Revelation ends:
Revelation 22:18-19 – I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
While I readily acknowledge that this warning explicitly applies only to the Book of Revelation, I don’t think it ONLY applies here. I think this, because of the nature of God’s speaking to His people in these “last days”. He has spoken to us through Christ. He has spoken to us in Christ’s gospel. Revelation is clearly a summing up of God’s redemptive history and of Christ’s redemptive work. It is the completion of the work of the gospel. John is delivering a final revelation of hope for the Christian: God wins. It seems very clear to me that Revelation was intended to be the last writing of Scripture before Christ’s return. Therefore, John’s warning should guard believers against any introduction of new Scripture beyond this.
I think it is also worth noting that the NT writings beyond the Four Gospels really introduce no new doctrine. Nothing Paul, Peter, John, James, etc. write communicates anything Christ did not teach in His own life and ministry. These writings simply expound upon Christ’s teaching. The BoM, however, clearly introduces doctrines foreign to anything taught in the OT or NT.
I apologize for the over-long comment, but hopefully it will help build an understanding on where we are each coming from on this important issue.
God Bless
I haven’t read it all yet, but will read and reply shortly.
In the meantime, you say this is the Christian perspective, but can you specify which Christian perspective this is? I know you’re not Mormon (safe assumption I guess), so what specific Christian denomination does this represent, or is it more from your own individual perspective?
Rusty,
While I certainly don’t wish to pretend to speak for all Christendom, I do think the majority of Christians would agree with what I’ve written above vis a vis the canon of Scripture. Catholics would add that Rome has authority to say what is and what is not Scripture, and therefore the canon is closed, because Rome says so. I don’t believe that, but we still both end up with a closed canon.
I cannot think of any Christian denominations that hold to an open canon. On the general issue of revelation/prophecy, you will find varying opinions, but these don’t directly deal with the canon. (I take more of conservative approach to revelation/prophecy precisely because it often DOES end up indirectly affecting one’s view of the canon.)
Hope that helps/clarifies.
God Bless
As a Lutheran, I don’t find anything of significance that I would have problems with upon a first quick reading. I’d suggest that most Christians would have only minor, and maybe inconsequential differences.
Pondering Pastor
Clarification … the previous note was referencing Jim B’s note, not Rusty’s original note.
Pondering Pastor
Jim B.
First, thanks for your reply and opening up the discussion.
You say: “I cannot think of any Christian denominations that hold to an open canon.” Except of course the obvious… Mormons.
Additionally, I have added comments to your above remark, since by repeating the post in your reply, it makes for a good, segmented discussion platform.
I haven’t yet been able to digest your arguments for a closed canon, but will shortly.
You don’t need to wait for me to reply to my comments though, we’ll sort of just do it all at the same time! LOL.
Rusty,
Only have time for two quick notes:
1. I don’t consider Mormons a Christian denomination for the same reason I don’t consider myself a Jew. While it might be technically correct for me to say that I am a Jew (a spiritual offspring of Abraham in Christ), it would be unhelpful for me to do so. Everyone recognizes that Christianity and Judaism are different religions (though they share the OT scriptures). Christianity takes a radical turn from Judaism by adding the New Testament and by interpreting all of the Old Testament from the vantage point of Christ as Messiah and as a fulfillment of the OT. While I think this is a correct turn, I don’t see what good thing I would accomplish by insisting I am a Jew.
Likewise, LDS so radically departs from Christianity by adding the BoM, D&C and by deviating from core Christian doctrines, that I think it unhelpful (and in some instances flat-out dishonest) to refer to Mormons as belonging to a Christian denomination.
2. You said, “Peter knew of Christ through revelation and the Holy Spirit, which then Christ says “upon this rock will I build my church”, in other words, “this is how my church will grow, this is the rock upon which it is based, that people will come to know me through revelation and a testimony from the spirit, and not through physical evidence”.”
First, I think we need to distinguish revelation from “a testimony from the spirit”. I agree that no one comes to faith in Christ without first being regenerated by the Holy Spirit. However, regeneration is not the same as revelation. All Christians experience regeneration. Not all Christians (some would say none) experience personal divine revelation apart from Scripture.
Second, Peter was not attesting to Christ’s divinity in a vacuum of experience/evidence. This was, after all, the same Peter who walked on water with Christ!
God Bless
I finished up Romans tonight and heard the following. I thought I would share them with you.
Romans 16:
25Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
26But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
27To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
Mark L, thanks for that. How grateful I am for prophets to bring us scripture.
Jim B.
Your analogy of not being a Jew is radically flawed in one substantial way. You don’t claim to be a Jew, so you are not one. You have the right to label yourself as you will, but you don’t have the right to label others. You can do so (as many choose to do), but that doesn’t change who they are, it just changes how you see them. Choosing to label others is an unhealthy way to create a false reality; it’s nothing but a distorted lens you choose to look through in order for your world to be cohesive, and is typically done by those who are unable to accept the world or those around them as they are. I speak not only to you, and in this instance, but to labeling in general.
To say that LDS are not Christians, and that it would be flat out dishonest to say they were, is disturbingly beneath the esteem in which I hold you. Decide how you wish to label yourself as you will, but label others at your own peril, for it is not yours to judge.
Regarding your distinction between revelation and a testimony from the spirit, this is perhaps a good analogy of how truth has been lost through inaccurate interpretation. Look at this specific incidence. You’re determined to call this “regeneration”, which is odd, since it was Christ, not me, who said it was revelation. He said “faith and blood hath not revealed it unto you, but my Father, which is in heaven.” So, the scripture says the “Father… in heaven” “revealed” it unto him. And that’s not revelation?
It’s like earlier, on “Do Mormons have more than one God” when I quoted Athanasius saying “God became human so humans would become Gods”, you said “Of course, Athanasius did not mean that humans would become Gods…” Which is funny, because that’s exactly what he said. Still, you called me a liar for saying so, and proceed to describe some other way you interpret this, other than what it explicitly says.
It’s again illustrative that you’re choosing to see things through some sort of filter that lets you make sense of the world as you want it to be, and calling me a liar anytime I suggest otherwise (going back over your comments, I counted nearly 20 instances where you explicitly accuse me of dishonesty).
Don’t worry, I’m not offended, in fact, I appreciate that people may disagree with me, but I do think it’s a bit much to so frequently and explicitly accuse me of lying, just because we interpret things differently.
Regarding your scriptural support for a closed cannon, I’ve now added my comments in the appropriate places above, along with some questions that I’m anxious for you (or someone) to answer.
Sigh…
“Choosing to label others is an unhealthy way to create a false reality; it’s nothing but a distorted lens you choose to look through in order for your world to be cohesive, and is typically done by those who are unable to accept the world or those around them as they are.”
How very postmodern of you, Rusty! What if I were to insist on the blog, “I am a kangaroo!” Would it be cruel, harsh, judgmental, etc. for you to correct me? I should hope not.
Truth is truth, Rusty. Do not Christians reserve the right to define what Christianity is and isn’t? Was it sinfully judgmental for the Church to condemn Arians, Socinians, Sabellians, Montanists, etc. as heretics and place them outside the faith; to not consider them Christians? Were they “creating a false reality” by labeling them as other than that which they wished to be labeled: Christian?
“Decide how you wish to label yourself as you will, but label others at your own peril, for it is not yours to judge.”
Are you sure? What about all the biblical commands to judge and exercise discernment? The biblical command to “not judge” in Matthew 7 refers to issues of sin – I should not judge your (hypothetical) porn addiction whilst I am (hypothetically) cheating on my wife. Logs & specks. And even here, it is more complex than that; the church is also commanded to remove the unrepentant sinner from their midst. How can the church do this without “labeling”?
Should Paul have left the Judaizers alone? I mean, who was he to judge? Paul damned their false teaching! He certainly would not have considered them Christians. Yet, the Judaizers would have. Was Paul “creating a false reality” by labeling these men something other than what they labeled themselves?
Regarding regeneration vs. revelation: I should have been clearer in what I was trying to say here. Yes, God REVEALED the truth of Christ’s identity as the Son of God to Peter. But, this is true of regeneration – it is a kind of revelation. When a sinner is regenerated by the Holy Spirit, God reveals to him his sin, his guilty status before an Almighty Creator, and also the beauty, power, sufficiency, etc. of a wonderful savior, Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit makes what was once dull, unreal, fanciful, etc. – Jesus Christ and His gospel – beautiful, mighty, worthy of all praise and devotion, etc. This is a revelation – it is something man cannot conjure up within himself. It is a gift of God.
There are different kinds of “revelation”. Surely, Rusty, you would acknowledge the difference between regeneration (or the Mormon “burning bosom”) and foretelling, prophetic revelation? That’s all I was trying to say. I think the revelation of Matthew 16:17 is clearly the former kind of revelation.
To deny that God reveals himself in different ways is to deny a biblical reality.
“It’s like earlier, on “Do Mormons have more than one God” when I quoted Athanasius saying “God became human so humans would become Gods”, you said “Of course, Athanasius did not mean that humans would become Gods…” Which is funny, because that’s exactly what he said. Still, you called me a liar for saying so…”
Speaking of funny… I think it’s funny when you conveniently quote only portions of my comments to caricature my arguments as incomplete. If you reread my comment (I just did), I went out of my way to NOT call you a liar, but did contend your use of Scripture and other texts in this particular instance were patently dishonest. I await your rebuttal to demonstrate otherwise.
Why didn’t you quote MY references to Athanasius? I’ll do it for you:
“To become as the Father is impossible for us creatures.”
“There be one Son by nature…we too become sons, not as He in nature and truth, but according to the grace of Him that calleth, and though we are men from the earth, and yet called gods, not as the True God or His Word…. We are sons, not as the Son, as gods, not as He Himself.”
Unless Athanasius was a schizophrenic, one of us is wrong here. I hope neither one of us wishes to say Athanasius simultaneously maintained Christians are Gods (in the Mormon sense) and are also not Gods. The question is, “What did Athanasius (and the other church fathers) mean by referring to Christians as ‘gods’?” If you actually READ Athanasius, instead of ripping single sentences from their larger context, it is indisputably clear that Athanasius did not hold to ANYTHING remotely comparable to the Mormon doctrine of exaltation.
Prove me wrong.
God Bless
Rusty,
Labeling a person who is teaching a false doctrine is exactly what the bible commands. There is no false reality because reality is taught in scripture that we are surrounded by anti christs determined to undermine the purity of the Gospel.
The canon is the measuring rod to separate truth from error. We are the protector of the Gospel, that mystery has been revealed to all mankind, and now God is silent. In Christ Jesus, God has revealed all His glory, and that glory is endless. There isn’t anymore to be revealed.
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high”
I invite you to see your nakedness before Him. You may be moral as compared to others around you, yet that righteousness will never vindicate you before His law.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
Jim,
I shouldn’t have even brought it up, it’s not that important what you call me, at least not compared to the issue we’re really trying to discuss here. I’m disappointed that in such a long reply the only thing you tried to defend was your right to label me as you want. I’d rather not take us further down that route.
There are literally hundreds of people reading along with this post (254 yesterday alone), and I daresay most of them are non-Mormons who are sincerely wondering about this topic. As it stands now, there are serious questions I’ve raised based on the scriptures you present in defense of a closed canon, and that you chose not to address. I’d rather we focused on that, lest they assume that you avoided the topic intentionally. For both yours and Ken’s comments failed to address them (I assume you simply lacked the time for a full response, but intended to come back later).
Many people find my posts “post-mortem”, so having a thorough discussion on this issue, and a clear presentation of both sides is valuable. Not that we’ll “resolve” anything, but the goal is to have both sides clearly articulated so future readers can discern for themselves. You and PP particularly have an eloquence and familiarity with scripture that makes your role in their visits and your ability to impact their decisions particularly poignant. I hope you’ll accept my invitation to renew the original discussion (along with all others who can add value to this important topic).
Rusty
Rusty,
“I’m disappointed that in such a long reply the only thing you tried to defend was your right to label me as you want.”
I am disappointed in your unwillingness and/or inability to defend against legitimate challenges to your argumentation and use of biblical (and extra-biblical) texts. Instead of defending your misuse of Athanasius by blatantly taking him out of context to make him say something he never said; instead of defending your half-quote of Harper’ Bible Dictionary; instead of defending your inversion of Paul’s argumentation in 1 Cor. 8:4-6 to say THE OPPOSITE of what he actually said… you seem content to claim I’m mean for calling you out. As if my meanness excuses you from having to deal with the challenges.
(Folks following along can see for themselves here:
http://rustysblog.com/2008/07/02/are-mormons-polytheistic/)
Whatever. It’s your blog. And as you stated, there are a lot of folks following this conversation.
“As it stands now, there are serious questions I’ve raised based on the scriptures you present in defense of a closed canon, and that you chose not to address. I’d rather we focused on that, lest they assume that you avoided the topic intentionally.”
This is not the first time you’ve wheeled out this tactic; I believe others have commented on this elsewhere, Rusty. Please don’t pretend like you have this mountain of devastating critiques and questions that have remained unanswered. I and many others have spent a great deal of time and energy answering your challenges to orthodox Christianity. It is dishonest (yep, I said it again) to intimate otherwise. Just within this one post I have taken pains to answer several of your questions. I will get at your more recent inserts into my above comment when I am able to do so.
“Many people find my posts “post-mortem”…”
I find your posts neither cold nor clammy. When I called you postmodern, I was referring to your bristling at labels (pomos hate labels), not your commentary on this blog in general.
God Bless
Comments above. You don’t have to feel obligated to continue, of course, if it becomes overly burdensome. Perhaps others may join the conversation and add to the discussion.
Rusty – Kudos on a well written article about this very important core LDS belief, and thoughtful comments. It is interesting that the conversation so quickly diverted from the main point of this post which is simply “How does one justify a CLOSED canon and a SILENT GOD?” It seems to me that there is no satisfactory or simple or logical explanation. This is my personal assessment. Others are free to feel differently.
In the end, we could debate and posture all we like, but when we do, the Holy Spirit departs immediately. He will not dwell among contention. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints extends our warm invitation to the world to read the beautiful additional scriptures and revelations which are pouring down from heaven today, and then pray, ponder and judge for yourself if they sound like God’s voice, if they help your path, and if you receive a witness through the Holy Spirit to your soul that they are truth. I testify along with Rusty that they are. I have had this witness continually each time I read the Book of Mormon, or Doctrine & Covenants or Pearl of Great Price, or listen to our prophet and apostles speak to us at a General Conference. The Spirit of God It is ever present, and it is powerful and it communicates directly to each individual that these are God’s words being spoken to us today. God loves us. We are His children. He is not dead. He is not silent. He has not abandoned us. He is speaking to the earth today, and the invitation to all is “Come, do not delay, partake!” It is my prayer that each person reading this post will be willing to do so.
Thanks, that’s such a great point. The best way to know for yourself if our latter-day prophet and apostles have truly been called of God is to listen to them yourself. We are told that “by their fruits ye shall know them”.
It’s a coincidentally opportune time, for in the next few weeks we’ll actually be able to hear from them live (televised, streamed from the website, or in person at the conference center) at the 179th Annual October General Conference.
For those of you not aware, twice a year there is held a vast general conference, televised and communicated via sattelite transmission throughout all the world, where our prophet, apostles, and other general authorities speak to us. They speak about doctrine, life, principles, and the issues of our day. Listening to their words yourself is sure to give you a better, more clear sense of what Mormonism is all about, what we teach, believe, and what specific instructions the Lord desires for us to hear RIGHT NOW.
What’s more, it’s incredibly convenient. Not only will General Conference be televised live, in hundreds of languages, world-wide, but you can also go to the Church website (here) shortly thereafter and download the audio podcast, stream the audio, read the talks online, or download them for later perusal in a number of varying formats and in almost any language you can imagine. You can also listen live through online streaming audio if you can’t catch or “DVR” the televised version.
Even better, and in the meantime, on that same link you can click through and review talks from the prophet and apostles from conferences going back to 1997.
What better way to determine for yourself, than experiencing it for yourself, and then seeking your own spiritual confirmation about it’s truthfulness.
Mormonsoprano, thanks for bringing this up!
Rusty, don’t you think the sum of all these verses finalize His last words to us and the closing of revelation. Note the “Behold I come quickly.” Seems to me that He’s done speaking and the next time we will hear from Him is when we see shall Him face to face.
Revelation 12
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen
Thanks for joining.
In fact, I do think so; I think it sounds like he meant it to be the conclusion of his book. But that wouldn’t incline me to believe that is the conclusion to God’s communication to man. For as I said above, even after this book (the book of Revelation) was written, other books were written, by other authors, which are included in the Bible. It’s just that in what would be the final compilation of books that would compose the bible, Revelation was chosen to be last, perhaps, in part, for this very purpose.
But whether or not other authors would write after him, adding unto his words themselves, I still wouldn’t make the assumption that those words marked the end of God’s communication to man, for while they sound “conclusory”, they don’t say he shall talk no more to man. Rather, he tells us (in Ephesians) that we must “build ourselves upon the foundation of apostles and prophets”, and why (in Mathew) he says “he that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophets reward”, because the pattern of prophets is one Christ established, and will continue.
And then when we get to the Book of revelation, this prediction of the pattern of prophets is further made clear by explicitly prophesying of their existence in the latter days.
I’ve not really weighed in here. (This week has had many other priorities!) But in many ways, the question about an open or closed canon for Christians has missed the real point. I want to take a shot at describing some things that have been missing from the discussion.
First, the whole notion of “closing the canon” was really an issue of describing what was and was not canonical. In the very late 1st century and then certainly in the 2nd century, there were many writings, especially gnostic writings, which sprang up claiming to be authoritative. Some communities used them, others did not. Many were found to be problematic. Last year’s “Gospel of Judas” revelation was a good example of this kind of material. The church worked long and hard, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and eventually determined which books are considered scripture. Some of that depended upon authorship, some of that depended upon use within the life of congregations. But, let’s be clear, the attempt was to provide people with an authoritative list and to prevent the abuse that was taking place when any “Tom, Dick or Harry” could write something claiming to be divine revelation. In that process, apostolic authorship was very important, and the church (rightly) decided that Paul’s writings met this criteria. The effect was that the canon was closed to prevent abuse.
Second, it is the church as people and congregations, that determine what is scripture and what is not. It is not really some official church body. That gets determined by “use”. An interesting example of this is that there is good evidence that ancient Hebrews had at least 155 Psalms, not 150 as we have now. The last 5 have been lost, probably because of scroll deterioration and lack of use. If we obtained copies of those additional 5 Psalms, we would not likely use them, because they have not been scripture for centuries of Judaism or Christianity because they have not been used and therefore have not shaped the community of faith. It is use and that function of shaping the community of faith that determines what is and is not scripture, more than any official church decision. (This is also where you begin to get denominations also … there is a different set of scriptures which shape each community a bit differently. Westboro Baptist Church focuses on judgment passages of the Old Testament. Lutherans focus more on grace-filled passages. You might say that there is a canon within a canon for churches.)
Finally, no longer is there a church body which could authoritatively “open the canon”. The church has been so denominationalized that who would be able to speak? The era of the great Councils of the church is over. There remains division even about what is scripture in Christianity today. Eastern Orthodoxy has its canon, Roman Catholics and Episcopalians have theirs, and “Protestants” have yet another.
Having said all this (and not referring to scripture to “proof text” any of this, I then have some questions for Rusty and other Mormons here.
1. If indeed the canon is “open” for Mormons, do you include the so-called “deutero-canonical books” of scripture? If not, why not?
2. If 5 additional Psalms are discovered, or we stumble upon another Old Testament book, or we discover gnostic writings like “The Gospel of Judas” or the well-known “Gospel of Thomas”, how do you decide whether or not to include these books in your “open canon”?
I think that will do … off to carpet cleaning.
Pondering Pastor
Rusty,
I have read your statement above pertaining to Ephesians 2:20 “we must build ourselves upon the foundation of apostles and prophets”. I thought I would take it through so you may understand it’s purpose.
The first three chapters of Ephesians deal with the position of the believer. They really don’t ask us to do anything. They just state what is true about us. The believer’s position, because we know Jesus Christ, that this is true of us. Then Chapters 4-6 discuss how we ought to act. And that’s why Chapter 4, verse 1 begins with the word therefore.
In Chapter 1 teaches that God had master-planned the body of Christ before the world began. The first ten verses of Chapter 2 speaks of how God brings people into the body through salvation. And then we begin in verse 11 to see that once we’re in the body we’re one with each other.
And that is the message of verses 11-22. And Paul particularly focuses on the concept of the Jew and the Gentile, because that was divisive point in his particular world. And he is saying that Jew and Gentile verse 15 at the end have become one new man. There is one body, verse 16 says. We have been reconciled into one body.
Verse 14, “God has broken down the thing that separated us, the middle wall of partition.” Verse 16, “The system of commandments and ordinances, the Jewish ceremonies have done away with in Christ.” And so all of the barriers between Jew and Gentile are done away that the church would be one new man made up of Jew and Gentile. We’re one in Christ. We are all one in Him. Now this is the essence of what Paul is covering here, this concept of unity. And in order for us, you see, to live as one and to act as one and in humility to look upon the things of others more than our own things in order to serve each other and love each other equally, we’ve got to understand that this is who we are.
Paul closes his discussion of the unity of the body by giving three other metaphors to illustrate it. How Jew and Gentile have been made one. How we’re all one body. How there’s no more division. No more separation and he does it by three pictures. He calls us fellow citizens, household of God, and a holy temple in verse 21. These are three pictures. First of all, the fellow citizens concept in verse 19. “Now therefore,” therefore just coming off of all that he said, “because we’re all one, because we’ve been made one in Christ, because we have access and peace with God, we are no longer strangers.” And that word zenoi, means somebody who’s an outcast, wretched, vial, rotten, keep them at a distance kind of person. And sojourner, and a sojourner is someone completely different. Paraoikoi means somebody who’s a friend. You bring them into the house. He’s not a part of the family. He’s not really a citizen of anything. You just let him be there as a guest. So he says you’re either wretched outcast that you wouldn’t have in the house or you’re a houseguest with no rights. But that’s no longer true. You now are fellow citizens with the saints.
Second one, we go further than that citizens also with the saints and the household of God were not only fellow citizens we’re family, we’re family. We’re not just strangers, naturalized and allowed to be in the kingdom. We are family.
Thirdly, he says we’re built together as a holy temple and the reason he follows in this sequence is because in each of these little sections the little root word oikos appears. It’s connected to the word sojourner. It’s connected to the word household and it’s connected to the word building. And that’s the trigger in Paul’s mind that makes him use these three metaphors. That little word keeps triggering his thoughts. So he goes from being in the kingdom to being in the family to being a building. And he says in 20 that his chief cornerstone of the building is Christ. You know the cornerstone was the major stone that was set down. It had to be so large to support the super structure. It had to be so accurate because the walls were all conformed to the angle of that stone. And every other block in the entire building fits into that stone. So the cornerstone was the thing that framed everything. It was the thing to which everything was adapted. The cornerstone was the support, the unifier, the connector, the strength giver, it was everything. And that is Jesus Christ
Then notice it says that the foundation then is built of the apostles and prophets. Now we could say then that the foundation is the apostles and prophets and that would be true in a sense, but I think more true than that is the fact that they laid the foundation. In Greek, we would call it a subjective genitive. And we would say what it means is not so much that the apostles and the prophets are the foundation as they that laid it.
So it was the apostles who laid that foundation. They are really inseparable from it. Christ the chief cornerstone. The apostles and their doctrine the foundation and from there the building goes up, verse 21. “All the building then fitly framed together.” And by the way that verb fitly framed together is a rare, rare verb in the Greek language that means every single part fit snug. When God builds His church it fits compact, firm, not loose and ill arranged masonry, unstable and ugly, solid, cohesive, snug, firm. Every stone fitted perfectly into it’s place without defect. No stone out of place. And no stone broken.
Thank you, Ringer.
The metaphor of Christ being the cornerstone of the church came to life with your words.
I am so happy that there are people like you who are truly Christian. I can tell by your words that your belief in Christ permeates all aspects of your life. He has become real to you. Unfortunately, this is rarer than should be. So many people claim to be Christian, but don’t give their religion a second thought. They only go to church on Easter and Christmas. And those two holidays have become so secularized that many have forgotten the true meaning.
When I find people who “live their religion” I am drawn to them. These are kind, considerate people who are firmly founded on Christ and His teachings. I want to number myself among them.
Although we have bantered our differences on this blog, I esteem you to be a brother in the gospel, a friend.
So I just wanted to share with you a favorite scripture of mine, and please don’t disregard it just because it comes from a source unfamiliar to you. I guess today I just wanted to celebrate our likeness in wanting to found ourselves on the cornerstone of Christ:
“And now, my sons, remember, remember that is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation: that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall.” –Helaman 5:12
I realize you’ve been busy Rusty, but I do want to bump my post (3rd upstream) into your consciousness.
Pondering Pastor
PP,
I love what you said. It is true that as more verses become available, they likely will not be “cannonized” and incorporated into newer versions of the Bible for reasons you very eloquently wrote.
But I guess the bigger question is, “Does God still speak to man?” Mormons believe wholeheartedly–YES! Isn’t it wonderful? Through a living prophet God can reemphasize certain commandments that we are not following so well. In the past few years we have heard of the evils of pornography, gambling, child abuse, and how the internet can bring these evils so close to us. We are encouraged to strengthen our families, pray often, save for a rainy day. It is so comforting to have guidance in this way.
Now we don’t rewrite the scriptures every time our prophet opens his mouth. But we can learn from his inspiration and leadership as if new scriptures were made available.
We both await Rusty’s reply . . .
“Does God still speak to man?” God still speaks to men and women. (I object to the now sexist “man” to mean humanity or human beings.) Yes of course! But not just to “prophets”. The presuppositions and questions that were in the initial post on this topic were incomplete caricatures.
Pondering Pastor
Since there is more than 1 Margaret, I’ll use my last initial.
I really don’t mind “man” meaning humanity. I think political correctness has gotten out of hand. I’m a daughter, sister, wife, mother and grandmother. I’m very secure in my femininity.
I know that God speaks to anyone who is in tune and will listen. Wouldn’t it be great if everyone listened and acted upon what he or she heard? However, God is not going to give me a revelation that concerns the state of the world. I expect revelation concerning myself, my children & grandchildren, my marriage, my relationship with friends, my Church callings, etc. Only my sphere of influence. For local congregations, it would be the Bishop. Revelations concerning the entire Church, or mankind in general, are given the the Prophet. Heavenly Father is a God of order and has procedures He follows as any organized person does. That’s why when the Prophet speaks, we listen.
Good distinction.
PP, I totally agree. God communicates to men and women today, just as he would have during biblical times, but that doesn’t negate the role of the prophet, today, as before the need for prophets persist, for the precise reason Margaret (Margaret D, that is
suggests.
PP, regarding your most excellent and enlightening conversation of canonization you provided above, I think you hit on something very important (and insightful). The different way we each view the canon, as a mechanism.
It seems, by your description (and please correct me if I’m wrong), that you’re suggesting that for most Christian churches, canonization was a mechanism for man to prevent pollutants from being regarded as scripture. Whereas my understanding of the LDS (Mormon) view of canonization is broader, seeing it as a mechanism to describe the whole of the Lords teachings, whether it be in times past or today.
Your fascinating illustration of the 5 missing psalms is a terrific example. You suggest that it’s likely, even if they were found, that they’d not be accepted into the cannon, because they haven’t BEEN in the canon, haven’t played a role in the lives of Christians and their worship. Illustrating the idea that even though they were inspired, and prophetic, they’d be denied because of timing, and therefore stating that inclusion in the canon has less to do with God’s choice, and more to do with man’s. Perhaps that sounds more rude then it was intended. What I mean is that God directed their writing the same as the other 100 psalms, but it is man who would decide to exclude them from the canon.
The LDS view of the canon is more encompassing, endeavoring to leave God as the judge of what is canonized, allowing the canon to stretch as far back as possible, and as far forward as possible, that the whole of Gods communication to prophets might combine to create a sweeping view of as much inspired revelation as possible, and as complete a picture as possible.
Your other illustration of this point is that you suggest that there is “no longer a church body which could authoritatively ‘open the canon’”. Again suggesting that the canon is a mechanism for the convenience of man, whereas my view would be that something’s worthiness of cannonization should not be subject to (nor decided by) man, but determined by God. In other words, if the 5 missing psalms were found, the lack of a single authoritative body to approve them, shouldn’t determine their addition to the canon.
So on the one hand, based on the traditional view of the canon, the 5 missing psalms aren’t worthy because they weren’t found in time, practiced early enough, or able to be approved by a single authoritative body.
Whereas the LDS view of the canon (and to answer your question), would likely be the opposite, if the 5 missing psalms were found, they too would be considered sacred writ, no less important than the other psalms. Leaving the definition of their value to the Lord (since he inspired their writing the same as the other 100).
As for the deuterocanonical books. I’d actually never even heard of that word until I read your post (yeah, I know, in some things I’m grotequely ignorant), so I must confess I know nothing about them.
Rusty,
Thanks for your relply.
Wikipedia has an acceptable description of Deuterocanonical books.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books
These books, including Tobit, Judith, additions to Esther, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Song of the Three Children, Story of Suzanna, Bel and the Dragon, 1 & 2 Maccabees, 1 & 2 Esdras, Prayer of Manasses and others are recognized by very significant parts of the church (esp. Roman Catholic & Orthodox) as scripture. They are not part of the Hebrew Jewish Bible, but are Greek works of God’s revelation in the “intertestamental” period of time (between the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament). It would seem, that since Mormons don’t want humans to limit what is scripture, that these would be included in your Bibles. If they are not, then why not?
Likewise, there were many so-called “gnostic” scriptures written in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. A pretty complete listing again can be found on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_texts . Why do Mormons exclude these?
The Dead Sea Scrolls did reveal 5 additional Psalms. The Dead Sea Scrolls also revealed a text of Jeremiah 1/7 longer than the version in our Bibles. There were other texts found too. I’ve not heard of Mormons inviting change to the texts of the Bible based on these discoveries. I’ve not heard of Mormons accepting these as “sacred writ”.
You see, Mormons have accepted a canon of the Bible, as accepted by the church, and closed by the church. Mormons have added to the list, but only those texts unique to Mormonism. That doesn’t sound like what you were describing about recognizing all revelations of the Lord.
I see the church as the living body of Christ. It is guided by the Holy Spirit. The guidance of the Holy Spirit has been that this canon is sufficient. I think that term is of ultimate importance here, and one that is not an option in your opening post on this subject. Closing the canon by the guidance of the Holy Spirit indicates sufficiency of that which is recorded.
Thanks for your response.
Pondering Pastor
Thank you, PP, for the correction. Please take no offense at my political incorrectness.
Hey, and ignorant Rusty–the word is spelled “grotesquely.”
Just keeping the conversation on the most recent comments.
LOL, okay, I was just so offended at Ryan’s poking fun of my grotesque spelling error, that I was shying away from this thread. Actually, just been busy. I’ll do my best to catch up on this thread today.