Array

The Bible/Open canon vs. closed canon: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary
 
(29 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{Main Page}}  
{{BiblePortal}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H2
|L=Mormonism and the Bible/Open canon vs. closed canon
|H=Open canon vs. closed canon
|S=
|L1=Question: Is Mormonism in error because Christianity requires a "closed canon" instead of the Church's "open canon"?
|L2=Gospel Topics, "Are Mormons Christian?"
}}
<onlyinclude>
{{:Question: Is Mormonism in error because Christianity requires a "closed canon" instead of the Church's "open canon"?}}</onlyinclude>


{{Resource Title|Open canon vs. closed canon}}
===== =====
{{ChurchResponseBar
|link=http://www.lds.org/topics/christians?lang=eng
|title=Are Mormons Christian?
|author=Gospel Topics
|publication=Gospel Topics
|summary=Latter-day Saints Believe in an Open Canon.<br>
A third justification argued to label Latter-day Saints as non-Christian has to do with their belief in an open scriptural canon. For those making this argument, to be a Christian means to assent to the principle of sola scriptura, or the self-sufficiency of the Bible. But to claim that the Bible is the sole and final word of God—more specifically, the final written word of God—is to claim more for the Bible than it claims for itself. Nowhere does the Bible proclaim that all revelations from God would be gathered into a single volume to be forever closed and that no further scriptural revelation could be received.
}}


=={{Criticism label}}==
{{Critical sources box:The Bible/Open canon vs. closed canon/CriticalSources}}
Other churches sometimes claim that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in error because Christianity requires a "closed canon" (no more authoritative revelation) instead of the Church's "open canon" (potential for more binding revelation).
{{endnotes sources}}


{{CriticalSources}}


=={{Conclusion label}}==
The doctrine of a closed canon and the end of authoritative revelation is not found in the Bible.  To insist upon this doctrine is to place a non-Biblical doctrine in a place of pre-eminence, and insist that God must be bound by it.  Such a doctrine would require the very revelation it denies to be authoritative.  Even the proper interpretation of Biblical teachings requires authoritative revelation, which are necessarily extra-Biblical.


Critics are free to hold these beliefs if they wish, but they ought not to criticize the LDS for believing extra-Biblical doctrines when they themselves insist upon the non-Biblical closed canon.


== ==
<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Response label}}


===God is superior even to His Word===
[[de:Bibel/Offener oder geschlossener Kanon?]]
 
The Bible is an important record of God's message to humanity.  However, the Bible&mdash;or any other written text&mdash;cannot be the focus of the Christian's life or faith.  Only One deserves that place: God.
 
One non-LDS Christian author cautioned believers from placing the Bible 'ahead' of God:
 
:It is possible, however, to stress the Bible so much and give it so central a place that the sensitive Christian conscience must rebel.  We may illustrate such overstress on the Bible by the often-used (and perhaps misused) quotation from Chillingworth: “The Bible alone is the religion of Protestantism.”  Or we may recall how often it has been said that the Bible is the final authority for the Christian.  If it will not seem too facetious, I would like to put in a good word for God.  It is God and not the Bible who is the central fact for the Christian.  When we speak of “the Word of God” we use a phrase which, properly used, may apply to the Bible, but it has a deeper primary meaning.  It is God who speaks to man.  But he does not do so only through the Bible.  He speaks through prophets and apostles.  He speaks through specific events.  And while his unique message to the Church finds its central record and written expression in the Bible, this very reference to the Bible reminds us that Christ is the Word of God in a living, personal way which surpasses what we have even in this unique book.  Even the Bible proves to be the Word of God only when the Holy Spirit working within us attests the truth and divine authority of what the Scripture says.  Faith must not give to the aids that God provides the reverence and attention that Belong only to God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.  Our hope is in God; our life is in Christ; our power is in the Spirit.  The Bible speaks to us of the divine center of all life and help and power, but it is not the center.  The Christian teaching about the canon must not deify the Scripture.{{ref|floyd1}}
 
To argue that the canon is closed effectively seeks to place God's written word (the Bible) above God Himself. Some have even called this practice "bibolatry" or "bibliolatry." Critics are effectively ordering God not to reveal anything further, or refusing to even consider that He might choose to speak again.
 
===Closed canon is not a Biblical doctrine===
 
The idea of a closed canon is not a Biblical doctrine.  The Bible bears record that God called prophets in the past.  Why could He not&mdash;indeed, why ''would'' He not&mdash;continue to do so?
 
Ironically, it would seem that the only way to know that there can be no extra-Biblical revelation is via revelation: otherwise, decisions about God's Word are being made by human intellect alone.  Yet, since the Bible does not claim that it is the sole source of revealed truth, the only potential source of a revelation to close the canon would be extra-Biblical.  Thus, those who insist on a closed canon are in the uncomfortable position of requiring extra-Biblical revelation to rule out extra-Biblical revelation!{{ref|tpjs1}}
 
As one non-LDS scholar observed: "For ''evidence'' about what was within the canon, one had to go outside the canon itself."  After all, there was “no ''scriptural'' evidence to decide what were the exact limits of the canon.”{{ref|barr1}}
 
Throughout Biblical history, the canon was clearly ''not'' closed.  New prophets were called, and new authoritative writing was made.  It would seem strange for this to cease without revelatory notice being given that God's practices were about to change.
 
Some authors are even now asking if the decision to close the canon was a mistake:
 
:The first question, and the most important one, is whether the church was right in perceiving the need for a closed canon of scriptures....did such a move toward a closed canon of scriptures ultimately (and unconsciously) limit the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the church?...Does God act in the church today and by the same Spirit? On what biblical or historical grounds has the inspiration of God been limited to the written documents that the Church now calls its Bible?...one must surely ask about the appropriateness of tying the church of the twentieth century to a canon that emerged out of the historical circumstances in the second to the fifth centuries CE. How are we supposed to make the experience of that church absolute for all time?...Was the church in the Nicene and post-Nicene eras infallible in its decisions or not?  Finally, if the Spirit inspired only the written documents of the first century, does that mean that the same Spirit does not speak today in the church about matters that are of significant concern, for example, the use of contraceptives, abortion, liberation, ecological irresponsibility, equal rights, euthanasia, nuclear proliferation, global genocide, economic and social justice, and so on?...{{ref|macdonald1}}
 
These are striking questions, and those who insist upon a closed canon may have difficulty resolving the issues which they raise.  Joseph Smith's insistence that God did not cease to speak, and that the canon was not closed, resolved these issues many decades before modern Christians began to grapple with them.
 
===Early Christians did not have a closed canon===
 
The early Christian Church did not have a fixed canon, nor did it restrict itself to the canon used by most modern Christian churches:
 
:If the term “Christian” is defined by the examples and beliefs passed on by earliest followers of Jesus, then we must at least ponder the question of whether the notion of a biblical canon is necessarily “Christian.” They did not have such canons as the church possesses today, nor did they indicate that their successors should draw them up....
 
:Even in regard to the OT canon, it has been shown that the early church’s collections of scriptures were considerably broader in scope than those presently found in either the Catholic or Protestant canons and that they demonstrated much more flexibility than our present collections allow....in regard to the OT, should the church be limited to an OT canon to which Jesus and his first disciples were clearly not limited?{{ref|macdonald2}}
 
===Scriptural interpretation requires revelation===
 
Even if one were to grant that the Bible contains all ''necessary'' teachings, it is clear from Christian history that the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways by sincere readers.  What else but additional, on-going revelation can settle legitimate questions of interpretation and application of God's word?  Are we to rely on human reason alone to do so?  Does this not in essence turn to an extra-Biblical source for information about divine matters?
 
=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|floyd1}} Floyd V. Filson, ''Which Books Belong in the Bible?'' (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1957), 20&ndash;21.
#{{note|tpjs1}} Joseph Smith made this observation in {{TPJS1|start=61}}
#{{note|barr1}} James Barr, ''Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism'' (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983), 24, 25; emphases in original.
#{{note|macdonald1}} Lee Martin McDonald, ''Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon'' (Hendrickson Publishers; Rev Sub edition, 1995), 254&ndash;255.
#{{note|macdonald2}}Lee Martin McDonald, ''Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon'' (Hendrickson Publishers; Rev Sub edition, 1995), 254&ndash;255.
 
{{FurtherReading}}
[[de:Offener_oder_geschlossener_Kanon%3F]]
[[es:Canon abierto vs. canon cerrado]]
[[es:Canon abierto vs. canon cerrado]]
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}
[[fr:Latter-day Saint scripture/Open canon vs. closed canon]]

Latest revision as of 20:06, 27 April 2024


Open canon vs. closed canon


Jump to Subtopic:


Does the fact that the Bible states that nothing should be "added to" or "taken away" from the book mean that the Book of Mormon is false?

Misuse of the Book of Revelation

Some Christians claim that the Book of Mormon cannot be true because nothing should be "added to" or "taken away from" the Holy Bible. However, those who claim this misuse Revelation, misunderstand the process by which the Bible canon was formed, and must ignore other, earlier scriptures to maintain their position. Their use of this argument is a form of begging the question whereby they presume at the outset that the Book of Mormon and other scriptures are not the Word of God, which is precisely the point under debate.

The verse often cited (as by Martin, above) is Revelation 22:18-19:

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: 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.

The book of Revelation was written prior to some of the other biblical books

Some claim that this verse states that the Bible is complete, and no other scripture exists or will be forthcoming.

However, the critics ignore that:

  • The book of Revelation was written prior to some of the other biblical books, and prior the Bible being assembled into a collection of texts. Therefore, this verse can only apply to the Book of Revelation, and not the Bible as a whole (some of which was unwritten and none of which was yet assembled together into 'the Bible'). While the traditional date of the book of Revelation is A.D. 95 or 96 (primarily based on a statement by Irenaeus), many scholars now date it as early as A.D. 68 or 69. The Gospel of John is generally dated A.D. 95-100.[1]
  • The New Testament was organized by placing the gospels first, and then the letters of apostles and other leaders in order of decreasing length.
Since the book of Revelation is neither a gospel nor an epistle, it was placed at the end of the canon in its own category. Therefore, John cannot have intended the last few sentences of Revelation to apply to the entire Bible, since he was not writing a 'final chapter' for the New Testament and since the Bible would not be completed and canonized for some centuries later.
  • Other scriptures (such as Deuteronomy 4꞉2, 12꞉32, and Proverbs 30꞉6) likewise forbid additions. If the critics' arguments were self-consistent, they would have to then discard everything in the New Testament and much of the Old, since these verses predate "other scripture" added by God through later prophets.
  • Further evidence that Rev. 22꞉19 is not referring to the entire bible when it reads "words of the book of this prophecy" is found if one reads Revelation 1:3,11:

Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand...Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

It is clear that the book referred to at the beginning of Revelation is the same book being referred to at the end.

Everything that John saw and heard in between these two statements are the contents of that book.

Many biblical authors warned against editing their work

Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman wrote:

The very real danger that [New Testament] texts could be modified at will, by scribes who did not approve of their wording, is evident in other ways as well. We need always to remember that the copyists of the early Christian writings were reproducing their texts in a world in which there were not only no printing presses or publishing houses but also no such thing as copyright law. How could authors guarantee that their texts were not modified once put into circulation? The short answer is that they could not. That explains why authors would sometimes call curses down on any copyists who modified their texts without permission. We find this kind of imprecation already in one early Christian writing that made it into the New Testament, the book of Revelation, whose author, near the end of his text, utters a dire warning [quotes Revelation 22꞉18-19].

This is not a threat that the reader has to accept or believe everything written in this book of prophecy, as it is sometimes interpreted; rather, it is a typical threat to copyists of the book, that they are not to add to or remove any of its words. Similar imprecations can be found scattered throughout the range of early Christian writings.[2]

God may add to God's word

Even if the passage in Revelation meant that no man could add to scripture; it does not forbid that God may, through a prophet, add to the Word of God. If this were not possible, then the Bible could never have come into existence—the Old Testament, for example, would have precluded having the New Testament.

Learn more about "adding to" or "taking away from" the Bible
Online
  • Scott Gordon, "To Add To or To Take From," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, April 2002) PDF link
  • Howard W. Hunter, "No Man Shall Add to or Take Away," Ensign (May 1981): 64. off-site
  • Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1993). off-site FAIR linkoff-site
Navigators

Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources
  • “Mormonism in America,” The Christian Witness (Plymouth, England) 5, no. 1 (January 1838): 23–24. off-site
  • Anon., "Difference Between the Baptists & Latter-Day Saints. From the North Staffordshire Mercury," Millennial Star 1 no. 12 (April 1841), 296–99. off-site
  • George J. Adams, "[Letter to Parley P. Pratt, 14 December 1841]," Millennial Star 2 no. 9 (January 1842), 141-43. off-site
  • M.S.C., “Mormonism,” Painesville Telegraph (Painesville, Ohio) 2, no. 35 (15 February 1831): 1-2. off-site
  • Philander Chase, A Pastoral Letter of Bishop Chase, to the Clergy of His Diocese of Illinois (1843), 1-8. off-site
  • John A. Clark, “Gleanings by the way. No. VIII,” Episcopal Recorder (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) (26 September 1840): 106–07. off-site
  • John A. Clark, “Gleanings by the Way No. X,” Episcopal Recorder (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) (10 October 1840): 114-115. off-site* H., Letter to the Editor, Observer and Telegraph (Hudson, Ohio) (30 December 1830). off-site
  • Samuel Haining, Mormonism Weighed in the Balances of the Sanctuary, and Found Wanting: The Substance of Four Lectures (Douglas: Robert Fargher, 1840), 4, 15-16. off-site
  • Walter Martin, Mormonism (Minneapolis, Bethany House Publishers, 1976), 29.
    "[Joseph] Smith apparently was either oblivious to the expressed warning about adding to or subtracting from the Word of God, or willfully disobedient to it (see Rev. 22:18,19)."
  • Philanthropist of Chester County, Mormonism Unmasked, Showed to be an Impious Imposture, and Mr. Bennett’s Reply Answered and Refuted (Philadelphia: T. K. & P. G. Collins, 1840), 6. off-site Response
  • Erastus Fairbanks Snow, E. Snow’s Reply to the Self-Styled Philanthropist, of Chester County (Philadelphia?: s.n., 1840?), ??. off-site
  • La Roy Sunderland, “Mormonism,” Zion’s Watchman (New York) 3, no. 6 (10 February 1838), 22. off-site
Past responses


Gospel Topics, "Are Mormons Christian?"

Gospel Topics,  Gospel Topics

Latter-day Saints Believe in an Open Canon.
A third justification argued to label Latter-day Saints as non-Christian has to do with their belief in an open scriptural canon. For those making this argument, to be a Christian means to assent to the principle of sola scriptura, or the self-sufficiency of the Bible. But to claim that the Bible is the sole and final word of God—more specifically, the final written word of God—is to claim more for the Bible than it claims for itself. Nowhere does the Bible proclaim that all revelations from God would be gathered into a single volume to be forever closed and that no further scriptural revelation could be received.

Click here to view the complete article

Source(s) of the criticism—Open versus closed canon of scripture
Critical sources
  • Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), Chapter 7. ( Index of claims )
  • La Roy Sunderland, “Mormonism,” Zion’s Watchman (New York) 3, no. 6 (10 February 1838): 22off-site
  • Luke P. Wilson, “Lost Books & Latter-Day Revelation: A Response to Mormon Views of the New Testament Canon,” Christian Research Journal (Fall 1996): 27–33.
Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ For more information on the dating of Revelation, see Thomas B. Slater's Biblica article.
  2. ↑ Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (HarperSanFrancisco, [2005] 2007), 54–55. ISBN 0060859512. ISBN 0060738170.
Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=The_Bible/Open_canon_vs._closed_canon&oldid=247696"