While going through old files on my laptop, I encountered a response to Kurt Van Gorden's defence of Sola Scriptura. I am reproducing it here as (1) sola scriptura is one of the main topics I have discussed on this blog and (2) it demonstrates Van Gorden’s poor exegetical abilities and grasp of even the basics of Latter-day Saint theology rather well.
As an aside, Van Gorden is the author of a booklet entitled, Mormonism (Zondervan, 1995). It was thoroughly refuted by Daniel Peterson and L. Ara Norwood in the following reviews:
Daniel C. Peterson, FARMS Review of Books 8/1 (1996): 95-103 (PDF)
L. Ara Norwood, FARMS Review of Books 9/2 (1997): 164-201 (PDF)
The URL’s referenced in this article seem to be inactive, so one may have to use archive.org to access the Web Pages referenced. Notwithstanding, here is the article:
This short article is a point by point response to an online article written by one Kurt Van Gorden. His presentation can be found at http://answers.org/theology/add_to_scripture.html
The thesis of his presentation asks whether or not LDS scriptures should be added to the traditional canon, and considered authoritative as divine revelation.
Van Gorden: In answering the resolution "Does the Bible allow for additional Mormon Scripture?" the panel representing the Christian position denies such a proposition. Before my case can be built, it is necessary to define the terms of this resolution.
Mr. Van Gorden should feel obligated to provide a description of this so called panel, which supposedly represents the "Christian" position. Clearly Van Gorden is excluding the vast majority of what the world typically considers Christian. Roman Catholism for instance, does not agree with Mr. Van Gorden's "panel." Van Gorden would have been more accurate if he had said this panel was an invention of his particular brand of Christainity, which probably derives from some form of American Protestant Fundamentalist Church. All too often do we find counter-cult groups referring to themselves as the Christian representative, without further shining the light on their particular corner of the Christian world.
Van Gorden: The word Bible as I use it in my talk and throughout the debate consists of the Old and New Testaments, containing 39 books in the Old Testament (Genesis through Malachi), and 27 books in the New Testament (Matthew through Revelation). This 66-book collection comprises the only scriptures sanctioned by Jesus and His Apostles, as noted in Hebrews 1:2.
Mr. Van Gorden makes a huge mistake in this instance since this is assumption is clearly, demonstrably false. According to Evangelical scholar, M. James Sawyer, "The church existed at least a decade before the earliest book of the New Testament was penned, and possibly as long as six decades until it was completed."[1]
Simply put, the New Testament Church did not sanction the NT books because they didn't even exist during that time. Jesus knew nothing of these works during his ministry. Therefore, to use the 66 book Bible according to Van Gorden, as a set of confines for what can be considered scripture, is a framework of his own creation that demonstrates a tremendous amount of ignorance of the development of the NT canon.. Furthermore, the Bible as we have it today was not finalized in canonical form, until the late fourth century. According to Youngblood, another Evangelical Scholar,
"The earliest known recognition of the 27 books of the New Testament as alone canonical, to which nothing is to be added and from which nothing is to be subtracted, is the list preserved by Athanasius (A.D. 367). The Synod of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Third Synod of Carthage (A.D. 397) duly acquiesced, again probably under the influence of the redoubtable Augustine"[2]
Van Gorden continues by correctly demonstrating what constitutes extra-biblical scripture for Latter-day Saints, but he fails miserably in trying to prove them to be �unbiblical.� He insists on asking the question, �Does the Bible permit additional Mormon scripture to be interwoven in its message?� But what should be asked is whether or not the Bible disallows such additional revelation. Typically, anything not mentioned in the Bible will be considered �unbiblical� to counter-cult Evangelicals. Van Gorden sets up his thesis as though the Bible were a living entity that actually spoke of it, and by extension, sets the confines for what should and should not be included within its own pages. Since this premise has already been proven false, what follows from Van Gorden is fallacious argumentum.
Van Gorden: In order for these six Mormon scriptures to be added to that of the Bible, our opponents first would have to prove that their revelations fit the historical time frame for those who were qualified to judge -- namely, the Apostles. Second, our opponents would have to prove express apostolic authorship or endorsement.
Again, Van Gorden starts out with the false premise that the apostles actually formed the Bible as he knows it, and should therefore be the ones who decide what should or could be added. But apparently Mr. Van Gorden is unaware of the true nature of the development of the NT canon, which had absolutely nothing to do with the Apostles standards. For at least a decade the NT Church went without NT scripture. What was important to them was oral tradition. Even the Old Testament wasn�t even canonized at that time, and ironically enough, the Jews later canonized the Old Testament as a means to fight off the heathens of Christianity. They didn�t want further scripture added either.
Van Gorden: Third, they would also have to prove consistency with the same gospel message.
This can be done quite easily, although I�m sure an anti-Mormon�s perspective will be quite different.
Van Gorden: Finally, they would have to prove these writings were received as inspired by the Apostolic community of believers to whom they were addressed.
With this imaginative prerequisite, Mr. Van Gorden has clearly doomed any possibility for further revelation since a community that no longer exists must first approve such revelation.
Van Gorden: There is no other way for our opponents to show that Mormon revelations belong with the body of scriptures we know as the Bible.
Strictly speaking, Mr. Van Gorden is correct. Modern scriptures such as the Book of Mormon, do not belong in the Bible because the Bible is a testament in itself. However, this doesn�t have any bearing on whether or not they constitute �modern scripture.�
Van Gorden: We intend to win this point of the debate by proving the impossibility of the contrary. If we apply the same standards to the Mormon scriptures that affirm to us that the New Testament is authoritative, we discover they do not fit the criteria.
But when did the LDS ever concede to a criterion that Mr. Van Gorden created? While Mr. Van Gorden is free to accept the Bible on fallacious criteria, Latter-day Saints are also free to base their knowledge of scripture on a criteria developed around faith and spiritual confirmation.
In order for Van Gorden�s argument to carry any merit, one must first adopt the fallacious premise that he himself creates from scratch. It was rigged from the beginning so that modern scriptures of any sort could not conform to his criteria. Hence, they must be considered �unbiblical.�
Upon reading Van Gorden�s next comments, he seems to predict the common LDS response, but he immediately refers to this as a �fallacy of irrelevance.�
Van Gorden: Before I elaborate upon the criteria for authoritative scripture, let me defuse irrelevant Mormon arguments that only confuse the issue. Any argument presented concerning an open or closed canon of the Bible is a fallacy of irrelevance, that is, it attempts to prove the wrong point.
These statements are nothing short of amazing. Mr. Van Gorden attempts to create an argument that demands certain assumptions about the Bible�s origin. He begins his argument with the bald assertion that Jesus and the Apostles �sanctioned� the 27 New Testament books as we have them. It is the base from which he is arguing, and determining the truth of his assertion is far from being irrelevant. Indeed, it is entirely relevant since any proof to the contrary would undermine his argument before it gets off the ground. And as we have seen, Mr. Van Gorden has no argument since his entire premise is unfounded biblically, historically and chronologically.
Van Gorden: An open canon or closed canon of the Bible does not address the content of Mormon revelation, which we must address. Any argument presented concerning the dates of New Testament canonical booklists is also the fallacy of irrelevance.
This is pure silliness. Mr. Van Gorden bases his entire argument on an assumed platform that cannot be opened for scrutiny, because in so doing, would be irrelevant. Again, this is simply amazing.
Van Gorden: The proposition is not concerned with the dates of canonical lists, but rather, does the Bible allow additional Mormon scripture?
The proposition is most certainly concerned with such data, since this is what forms the basis of his argument.
Van Gorden: Finally, a fallacy of begging the question needs to be avoided. One cannot quote the Book of Mormon to prove the Book of Mormon. If one claims that the Book of Mormon has internal statements saying its message is the same as as the Bible, then one is merely using the contents to prove the whole.
Mr. Van Gorden continues butchering the LDS revelation with this litmus test construct of his own design. He finally asks a question that hits home to his assertions:
Van Gorden: Why must additional Mormon scripture fit the historical time frame? The Bible tells us that Jesus was sent in the fullness of time (Galatians 4:4).
Actually, this isn�t what Galatians 4:4 says necessarily, and it certainly isn�t conclusive that this passage should carry the theological freight that Mr. Van Gorden foists upon it.
�But when the right time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman�(NLT)
�But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law�(NIV)
�But when the proper time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman�(Amplified Bible)
One of the most important scriptures that makes the transition from the meridian of time, the time of Christ, to the modern age is Acts 3:19-21. Peter, on the day of Pentecost stated: "Repent ye and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and he shall send Jesus christ, which before was preached unto you: 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."
What are these "times of restitution of all things" or "times of refreshing" spoken of by Peter? In Ephesians 1:9-10, Paul describes these "times" in terms of the last days: "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him." Here Paul describes the "times of restitution of all things"(Acts 3:21) as a time when Christ "might gather together in one all things in Christ." More specifically, he describes that period as the "dispensation of the fulness of times."
So, while Mr. Van Gorden pays so much attention to the fulness of times phrase, he ignores the verse which refers to this as a future time period.� Furthermore, in Daniel 2:31-44, Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream about the various nations that would arise from Daniel's time forward, ending in verse 44, where he clearly prophesies about the last days: "In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever."
I agree, but nowhere does the Bible suggest an end of scripture or revelation. This is what Mr. Van Gorden needs to demonstrate, but instead, he spends his entire time trying to prove what the Bible doesn�t say (that future scripture will come along someday and meet Mr. Van Gorden�s criteria).
Van Gorden: Does Mormon scripture have express Apostolic authorship or endorsement? No, it doesn't.
From ancient apostles? No, of course not. Again, the answer to this question is obvious, for none of the ancient apostles are alive today. Mr. Van Gorden is relying too heavily from an argument from silence. He assumes that the NT apostles, if alive today, would reject LDS scripture.
Van Gorden: The Book of Mormon was supposed to have been written by others who never knew the Apostles. The other Mormon scriptures were by men of the 19th and 20th centuries, which places them outside of the realm of knowing the Apostles. It begs the question, again, to claim that New Testament Apostles appeared in Pennsylvania in 1829 to restore "apostleship," because that uses a Mormon revelation to prove Mormon revelations. Mormon scriptures cannot be added to the Bible because they lack express New Testament Apostolic authority or endorsement.
This is a straw man argument since no Mormon claims the Book of Mormon is true simply because NT apostles came and visited Smith. Their visitation had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon and everything to do with priesthood authority. However, it also begs the question to assume such a prerequisite of apostolic sanctioning must be attained before something could rightly be considered scripture or inspired revelation. Mr. Van Gorden is clearly relying on a criterion for scripture that even the Catholic Church doesn�t follow.
Van Gorden: Our third test asks, Does Mormon scripture contain the same gospel message as the Bible? No, it does not. The contradictory messages between the Bible and Mormon scripture are many. The Bible teaches the eternal existence of one true God, whereas the Mormon scriptures teach the existence of many true gods.
This is where Mr. Van Gorden�s subjectivity gets the best of him. I find it ironic that many anti-Mormons complain because the Book of Mormon doesn�t support the concept of multiple gods at all, and quite emphatically states the same �One God� verses that are found throughout the Old Testament. In this instance, Mr. Van Gorden wants to have it both ways. Having said that, the Bible, as scholarship has concluded, was initially polytheistic, as Judaism moved to a strict form of monotheism during and after the exile: "Israel�s great achievement�was monotheism.�[3] According to the Encyclopaedia Judaica, "biblical monotheism is [now] seen by modern biblical scholars as emerging gradually and in a continuous line from the polytheistic thought of paganism."[4]
Van Gorden: The Bible teaches the heavenly Father is an omnipresent Spirit and not man, but Mormon scriptures teach that He is an exalted man with a body of flesh and bone, dwelling on a planet (D&C 130:4).
Mr. Van Gorden is now reading into the Bible what he thinks it says instead of what it actually says. God is most certainly called a man in the Bible, and nowhere does the Bible say God is only a spirit. For a further treatment of this issue, I direct your attention to Richard Hopkins� review found in Mormonism 201.[5]
Van Gorden: The Bible teaches that salvation is by grace through faith, not of works; while Mormon scriptures teach that salvation depends on self-meriting works.
For further treatment of this issue, please redirect your attention to my article found here http://www.anti-mormonism-revealed.com/M20111.htm The LDS and Book of Mormon position is entirely harmonious with the Bible�s true doctrine of salvation.
Van Gorden: The Mormon scriptures do not carry the same gospel message as the Bible. There are strict warnings by the Apostle Paul about following a different gospel.
I agree with Mr. Van Gorden in this instance as well. However, to suggest these apostles were warning against the LDS faith is to merely beg the question. In reality, these warnings were directed to the Church at their time, as it was on the edge of apostasy.[6] Therefore, there is little reason to believe Paul was warning the first century Galatians of a Church that would come forth 1800 years later. These scriptures can be used to prove any Church is wrong, so long as they come from the predetermined assumption that the Church in question is the one being referenced.
Van Gorden: Our fourth test asked, "Was Mormon scripture received as inspired by the Apostolic community of believers?" No, it was not.
Again, this silly prerequisite is demanded time and time again for the sole purpose of scoring points. It is an illusion that has no basis in reality.
In the end, Van Gorden insists on dealing with modern scriptures as applied to his self created 'win-win' scenario. While his presentation might appear to be meritorious, it is based on a number of fallacies which he inists their examination is "irrelevant". He has presneted no case against LDS cripture other than to say it cannot be scripture because his definition of scripture is something that was allegedly sanctioned by Jesus christ and His apostles.
As usual, anti-Mormons create their own standards instead of examining the Book of Mromon for what it is, and asking God for spiritual confirmation of its authenticity as scripture.
As an aside, Van Gorden is the author of a booklet entitled, Mormonism (Zondervan, 1995). It was thoroughly refuted by Daniel Peterson and L. Ara Norwood in the following reviews:
Daniel C. Peterson, FARMS Review of Books 8/1 (1996): 95-103 (PDF)
L. Ara Norwood, FARMS Review of Books 9/2 (1997): 164-201 (PDF)
The URL’s referenced in this article seem to be inactive, so one may have to use archive.org to access the Web Pages referenced. Notwithstanding, here is the article:
This short article is a point by point response to an online article written by one Kurt Van Gorden. His presentation can be found at http://answers.org/theology/add_to_scripture.html
The thesis of his presentation asks whether or not LDS scriptures should be added to the traditional canon, and considered authoritative as divine revelation.
Van Gorden: In answering the resolution "Does the Bible allow for additional Mormon Scripture?" the panel representing the Christian position denies such a proposition. Before my case can be built, it is necessary to define the terms of this resolution.
Mr. Van Gorden should feel obligated to provide a description of this so called panel, which supposedly represents the "Christian" position. Clearly Van Gorden is excluding the vast majority of what the world typically considers Christian. Roman Catholism for instance, does not agree with Mr. Van Gorden's "panel." Van Gorden would have been more accurate if he had said this panel was an invention of his particular brand of Christainity, which probably derives from some form of American Protestant Fundamentalist Church. All too often do we find counter-cult groups referring to themselves as the Christian representative, without further shining the light on their particular corner of the Christian world.
Van Gorden: The word Bible as I use it in my talk and throughout the debate consists of the Old and New Testaments, containing 39 books in the Old Testament (Genesis through Malachi), and 27 books in the New Testament (Matthew through Revelation). This 66-book collection comprises the only scriptures sanctioned by Jesus and His Apostles, as noted in Hebrews 1:2.
Mr. Van Gorden makes a huge mistake in this instance since this is assumption is clearly, demonstrably false. According to Evangelical scholar, M. James Sawyer, "The church existed at least a decade before the earliest book of the New Testament was penned, and possibly as long as six decades until it was completed."[1]
Simply put, the New Testament Church did not sanction the NT books because they didn't even exist during that time. Jesus knew nothing of these works during his ministry. Therefore, to use the 66 book Bible according to Van Gorden, as a set of confines for what can be considered scripture, is a framework of his own creation that demonstrates a tremendous amount of ignorance of the development of the NT canon.. Furthermore, the Bible as we have it today was not finalized in canonical form, until the late fourth century. According to Youngblood, another Evangelical Scholar,
"The earliest known recognition of the 27 books of the New Testament as alone canonical, to which nothing is to be added and from which nothing is to be subtracted, is the list preserved by Athanasius (A.D. 367). The Synod of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Third Synod of Carthage (A.D. 397) duly acquiesced, again probably under the influence of the redoubtable Augustine"[2]
Van Gorden continues by correctly demonstrating what constitutes extra-biblical scripture for Latter-day Saints, but he fails miserably in trying to prove them to be �unbiblical.� He insists on asking the question, �Does the Bible permit additional Mormon scripture to be interwoven in its message?� But what should be asked is whether or not the Bible disallows such additional revelation. Typically, anything not mentioned in the Bible will be considered �unbiblical� to counter-cult Evangelicals. Van Gorden sets up his thesis as though the Bible were a living entity that actually spoke of it, and by extension, sets the confines for what should and should not be included within its own pages. Since this premise has already been proven false, what follows from Van Gorden is fallacious argumentum.
Van Gorden: In order for these six Mormon scriptures to be added to that of the Bible, our opponents first would have to prove that their revelations fit the historical time frame for those who were qualified to judge -- namely, the Apostles. Second, our opponents would have to prove express apostolic authorship or endorsement.
Again, Van Gorden starts out with the false premise that the apostles actually formed the Bible as he knows it, and should therefore be the ones who decide what should or could be added. But apparently Mr. Van Gorden is unaware of the true nature of the development of the NT canon, which had absolutely nothing to do with the Apostles standards. For at least a decade the NT Church went without NT scripture. What was important to them was oral tradition. Even the Old Testament wasn�t even canonized at that time, and ironically enough, the Jews later canonized the Old Testament as a means to fight off the heathens of Christianity. They didn�t want further scripture added either.
Van Gorden: Third, they would also have to prove consistency with the same gospel message.
This can be done quite easily, although I�m sure an anti-Mormon�s perspective will be quite different.
Van Gorden: Finally, they would have to prove these writings were received as inspired by the Apostolic community of believers to whom they were addressed.
With this imaginative prerequisite, Mr. Van Gorden has clearly doomed any possibility for further revelation since a community that no longer exists must first approve such revelation.
Van Gorden: There is no other way for our opponents to show that Mormon revelations belong with the body of scriptures we know as the Bible.
Strictly speaking, Mr. Van Gorden is correct. Modern scriptures such as the Book of Mormon, do not belong in the Bible because the Bible is a testament in itself. However, this doesn�t have any bearing on whether or not they constitute �modern scripture.�
Van Gorden: We intend to win this point of the debate by proving the impossibility of the contrary. If we apply the same standards to the Mormon scriptures that affirm to us that the New Testament is authoritative, we discover they do not fit the criteria.
But when did the LDS ever concede to a criterion that Mr. Van Gorden created? While Mr. Van Gorden is free to accept the Bible on fallacious criteria, Latter-day Saints are also free to base their knowledge of scripture on a criteria developed around faith and spiritual confirmation.
In order for Van Gorden�s argument to carry any merit, one must first adopt the fallacious premise that he himself creates from scratch. It was rigged from the beginning so that modern scriptures of any sort could not conform to his criteria. Hence, they must be considered �unbiblical.�
Upon reading Van Gorden�s next comments, he seems to predict the common LDS response, but he immediately refers to this as a �fallacy of irrelevance.�
Van Gorden: Before I elaborate upon the criteria for authoritative scripture, let me defuse irrelevant Mormon arguments that only confuse the issue. Any argument presented concerning an open or closed canon of the Bible is a fallacy of irrelevance, that is, it attempts to prove the wrong point.
These statements are nothing short of amazing. Mr. Van Gorden attempts to create an argument that demands certain assumptions about the Bible�s origin. He begins his argument with the bald assertion that Jesus and the Apostles �sanctioned� the 27 New Testament books as we have them. It is the base from which he is arguing, and determining the truth of his assertion is far from being irrelevant. Indeed, it is entirely relevant since any proof to the contrary would undermine his argument before it gets off the ground. And as we have seen, Mr. Van Gorden has no argument since his entire premise is unfounded biblically, historically and chronologically.
Van Gorden: An open canon or closed canon of the Bible does not address the content of Mormon revelation, which we must address. Any argument presented concerning the dates of New Testament canonical booklists is also the fallacy of irrelevance.This is pure silliness. Mr. Van Gorden bases his entire argument on an assumed platform that cannot be opened for scrutiny, because in so doing, would be irrelevant. Again, this is simply amazing.
Van Gorden: The proposition is not concerned with the dates of canonical lists, but rather, does the Bible allow additional Mormon scripture?
The proposition is most certainly concerned with such data, since this is what forms the basis of his argument.
Van Gorden: Finally, a fallacy of begging the question needs to be avoided. One cannot quote the Book of Mormon to prove the Book of Mormon. If one claims that the Book of Mormon has internal statements saying its message is the same as as the Bible, then one is merely using the contents to prove the whole.
With this statement I agree. However, Mr. Van Gorden requires the fallacy of� �special pleading� since it equally begs the question to cite the Bible as proof for the Bible, or as in this case, proof for what the Bible should contain. As the old saying goes, �Standards are good, but double-standards are better.�
Van Gorden: Why must additional Mormon scripture fit the historical time frame? The Bible tells us that Jesus was sent in the fullness of time (Galatians 4:4).
Actually, this isn�t what Galatians 4:4 says necessarily, and it certainly isn�t conclusive that this passage should carry the theological freight that Mr. Van Gorden foists upon it.
�But when the right time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman�(NLT)
�But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law�(NIV)
�But when the proper time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman�(Amplified Bible)
One of the most important scriptures that makes the transition from the meridian of time, the time of Christ, to the modern age is Acts 3:19-21. Peter, on the day of Pentecost stated: "Repent ye and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and he shall send Jesus christ, which before was preached unto you: 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."
What are these "times of restitution of all things" or "times of refreshing" spoken of by Peter? In Ephesians 1:9-10, Paul describes these "times" in terms of the last days: "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him." Here Paul describes the "times of restitution of all things"(Acts 3:21) as a time when Christ "might gather together in one all things in Christ." More specifically, he describes that period as the "dispensation of the fulness of times."
So, while Mr. Van Gorden pays so much attention to the fulness of times phrase, he ignores the verse which refers to this as a future time period.� Furthermore, in Daniel 2:31-44, Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream about the various nations that would arise from Daniel's time forward, ending in verse 44, where he clearly prophesies about the last days: "In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever."
Daniel referred to this day and age when God's kingdom or church would be established, never to be destroyed again by apostasy or otherwise. It will stand forever. Thus, this must refer to the kingdom to be set up by god in the last days or the dispensation of the fullness of times. Some have interpreted this kingdom mentioned in Daniel to mean the church set up by Christ in the meridian of time. Yet note in Daniel 2:44 that "the kingdom shall not be left to other people." Christ's kingdom was left to other people, as clearly stated in Matthew 21:43, where the Savior said, rebuking the Jews and those of that generation, "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruit thereof." Thus, we see that Christ was referring to a kingdom of God in the future, not the kingdom of God Christ set up in approximately A.D. 34.
Van Gorden: It was through His Apostles in Palestine that He sent His gospel to the world. He said, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations" (Matthew 28:19). "You shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts 1:8). They were His chosen witnesses to the world, resulting in the historic time frame known as the Apostolic age.I agree, but nowhere does the Bible suggest an end of scripture or revelation. This is what Mr. Van Gorden needs to demonstrate, but instead, he spends his entire time trying to prove what the Bible doesn�t say (that future scripture will come along someday and meet Mr. Van Gorden�s criteria).
Van Gorden: Does Mormon scripture have express Apostolic authorship or endorsement? No, it doesn't.
From ancient apostles? No, of course not. Again, the answer to this question is obvious, for none of the ancient apostles are alive today. Mr. Van Gorden is relying too heavily from an argument from silence. He assumes that the NT apostles, if alive today, would reject LDS scripture.
Van Gorden: The Book of Mormon was supposed to have been written by others who never knew the Apostles. The other Mormon scriptures were by men of the 19th and 20th centuries, which places them outside of the realm of knowing the Apostles. It begs the question, again, to claim that New Testament Apostles appeared in Pennsylvania in 1829 to restore "apostleship," because that uses a Mormon revelation to prove Mormon revelations. Mormon scriptures cannot be added to the Bible because they lack express New Testament Apostolic authority or endorsement.
This is a straw man argument since no Mormon claims the Book of Mormon is true simply because NT apostles came and visited Smith. Their visitation had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon and everything to do with priesthood authority. However, it also begs the question to assume such a prerequisite of apostolic sanctioning must be attained before something could rightly be considered scripture or inspired revelation. Mr. Van Gorden is clearly relying on a criterion for scripture that even the Catholic Church doesn�t follow.
Van Gorden: Our third test asks, Does Mormon scripture contain the same gospel message as the Bible? No, it does not. The contradictory messages between the Bible and Mormon scripture are many. The Bible teaches the eternal existence of one true God, whereas the Mormon scriptures teach the existence of many true gods.
This is where Mr. Van Gorden�s subjectivity gets the best of him. I find it ironic that many anti-Mormons complain because the Book of Mormon doesn�t support the concept of multiple gods at all, and quite emphatically states the same �One God� verses that are found throughout the Old Testament. In this instance, Mr. Van Gorden wants to have it both ways. Having said that, the Bible, as scholarship has concluded, was initially polytheistic, as Judaism moved to a strict form of monotheism during and after the exile: "Israel�s great achievement�was monotheism.�[3] According to the Encyclopaedia Judaica, "biblical monotheism is [now] seen by modern biblical scholars as emerging gradually and in a continuous line from the polytheistic thought of paganism."[4]
Van Gorden: The Bible teaches the heavenly Father is an omnipresent Spirit and not man, but Mormon scriptures teach that He is an exalted man with a body of flesh and bone, dwelling on a planet (D&C 130:4).
Mr. Van Gorden is now reading into the Bible what he thinks it says instead of what it actually says. God is most certainly called a man in the Bible, and nowhere does the Bible say God is only a spirit. For a further treatment of this issue, I direct your attention to Richard Hopkins� review found in Mormonism 201.[5]
Van Gorden: The Bible teaches that salvation is by grace through faith, not of works; while Mormon scriptures teach that salvation depends on self-meriting works.
For further treatment of this issue, please redirect your attention to my article found here http://www.anti-mormonism-revealed.com/M20111.htm The LDS and Book of Mormon position is entirely harmonious with the Bible�s true doctrine of salvation.
Van Gorden: The Mormon scriptures do not carry the same gospel message as the Bible. There are strict warnings by the Apostle Paul about following a different gospel.
I agree with Mr. Van Gorden in this instance as well. However, to suggest these apostles were warning against the LDS faith is to merely beg the question. In reality, these warnings were directed to the Church at their time, as it was on the edge of apostasy.[6] Therefore, there is little reason to believe Paul was warning the first century Galatians of a Church that would come forth 1800 years later. These scriptures can be used to prove any Church is wrong, so long as they come from the predetermined assumption that the Church in question is the one being referenced.
Van Gorden: Our fourth test asked, "Was Mormon scripture received as inspired by the Apostolic community of believers?" No, it was not.
Again, this silly prerequisite is demanded time and time again for the sole purpose of scoring points. It is an illusion that has no basis in reality.
In the end, Van Gorden insists on dealing with modern scriptures as applied to his self created 'win-win' scenario. While his presentation might appear to be meritorious, it is based on a number of fallacies which he inists their examination is "irrelevant". He has presneted no case against LDS cripture other than to say it cannot be scripture because his definition of scripture is something that was allegedly sanctioned by Jesus christ and His apostles.
As usual, anti-Mormons create their own standards instead of examining the Book of Mromon for what it is, and asking God for spiritual confirmation of its authenticity as scripture.
[1] The Development of the New Testament Canon http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/biblio/canon.htm#P83_25787
[2] Youngblood, Christianity Today 27 -- In addition to the books of the canon, Athanasius mentions that other books are profitable for instruction, "That there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles [Didache], and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read." see also, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (2nd series), (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), IV, 552
[3] Irwin, W. "The Hebrews," H. Frankfort, ed. The Intellectual Adventure of Man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946, p. 224
[4] Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM Edition, "Monotheism," Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd., 1997