Another objection urged by some
is, “The Bible contains all that God ever intended to give for our instruction,
and pronounces a curse upon any one that would add to the Bible.” Those who
urge this objection, it appears to me, are very much mistaken for several
reasons. First, The Bible does not contain all that God gave or caused to be
given to man. There are twenty-four books at least, referred to in the Bible,
which are not there now. (See Num. 21;14; 1 Sam. 10:25; Josh. 10:13; 1 Kings 4:32,
33; 1 Kings 11:41; 1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29; 2 Chron. 12:15; 2 Chron.
20:34; 2 Chron. 26:22; 2 Chron. 33:19; Jer. 36:32; Jer. 51:60, 61; Dan. 12:4; 1
Cor. 5:9; Col. 4;16; Jude 3).
Second, No such thought is
presented in the Bible as that caused to be written all that he had spoken. But
on the contrary, it teaches that God is unchangeable, and in several places he
advertises himself to be unchangeable—the God of the living and not the God of
the dead only. He plainly tells us that life is dependent on bread both earthly
and heavenly. As natural life is sustained by the bread of earth, so spiritual
life is sustained by the bread of heaven, which is his word by direct
revelation and not merely the history of his word which the Bible really is.
Natural life is not sustained by food given 1800 years ago, neither is spiritual
life sustained by the bread of life given then. We cannot do better in support
of this fact than to quote the words of Frederick William Robertson and the
comments of E. E. Bisby in the January Arena for 1896, pp. 187, 188:
“The God of the mere theologian is
scarcely a living God. He did live, but for some 1800 years, we are credibly
informed, that no trace of his life has been seen. The canon is closed. The
proofs that he was are in the things that he has made, and the books of men to
whom he spake, but he inspires and works wonders no more. According to the
theologians he gives us proofs of design instead of God; doctrines instead of
the life indeed.”
Mr. Bisby commenting on the above,
says, “Never was there a truer statement of a false theology, a theology from
which the world must break away or wander in endless night. The denial of
present day inspiration comes from the identification of inspiration with infallibility.
Herein lies one of the strangest inconsistencies of religious logic. Theologians
claim absolute Biblical infallibility, but deny present day infallibility; they
therefore feel obliged to deny present day inspiration. It will be a great day
for the human race when it is freely admitted that infallibility is not the
necessary logical consequence of inspiration. To acknowledge the very day
presence and power of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of revelation and truth,
and with the same breath to declare revelation ended and sealed is the height of
absurdity. Theologians feel this, and in order to escape they tell us that the
Bible is a special revelation, a revelation having the special credentials of
the Almighty such as miracles and minute predictions. They acknowledge that God
is always the same, that his years fail not, that he is no respecter of
persons, that he is the common Father of the greater brotherhood of man, that
in him we live and move and have our being, and yet by pre-determination he
waited several thousand years after the dawn of civilization before he began
his so-called special revelation, and then sealed it up in one of the darkest
hours of the world’s history. It is this erroneous view, this false conception
of God and revelation which has retarded progress and is the great danger of
the present hour.” (J. W. Peterson, Who Was Joseph Smith? Was
He a False Prophet? [Independence, Miss.: Ensign Publishing House, 1897],
19-21; cf. cf. Protestant
Apologist Phillip Kayser: There are Many Inspired/θεοπνευστος Books that are
Not in the Bible)
Responding to biblical proof-texts to support the formal
sufficiency of the Bible, Peterson writes:
. . . By a superficial view of
Revelation 22:18. Our opponents affirm as stated above, that God pronounces a
curse upon any one that “will add to the prophecy of this book,” which word “book”
they interpret to mean the Bible, notwithstanding the New Testament was not
then compiled. And by so doing they are compelled to throw out the three general
epistles of St. John, for they were written by the same John after he wrote the
book of Revelation. The text simply and plainly shows that the book of
Revelation is the one referred to, and not the Bible, and that man is forbidden
to add to it, but that God is not prohibited from speaking when he pleases.
Another objector quotes 1
Corinthians 12:31, as being against us. It is as follows: “But covet earnestly
the best gifts and yet show I unto you a more excellent way.” From this it is
argued that a different way than having the gift of tongues and prophecy, is
sought to be established by Paul. Why then did he wish them to covet them
earnestly? It is clear that he had no reference whatever to the gifts, but to
those who would secure them. Whether every member would receive all the fits or
whether some might receive one and some another. So he argues it is better that
way and proceeds to say, “Are all apostles? are all prophets? Etc., but covet
earnestly the best gifts [tongues and prophecy among the rest] and yet show I
unto you a more excellent way,” than to have all of one kind. He could not have
meant that the excellent way was to reject prophecy or any of the gifts of the
Spirit, for he continues the same line of argument in the following chapters,
one of which especially says, “Follow after charity and desire spiritual gifts,
but rather that ye may prophecy.” (1 Cor. 14:1).
Another objection urged is, “We
have advanced in science, literature and art, why not in the gospel of Christ,
Why not outgrow the one as well as the other?” Because one is perfect and
emanating from a perfect Being—was always perfect, the other is more or less
imperfectly discovered by man. To outgrow the “perfect law of the Lord”—the everlasting
gospel (rev. 14:6) is to outgrow perfection and become imperfect. And that is
just what the sectarian world has been doing for centuries, outgrowing
perfection.
We will answer one more objection
and then enter upon the direct proofs. This objection is based upon a text
found in 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, and reads as follows: “Charity never faileth:
but whether there be prophecies they shall fail; whether there be tongues they
shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in
part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that
which is in part shall be done away.” Form this text it is argued by some that
in the future from that time prophecies were to fail and tongues cease. So they
were each to continue as long as knowledge. No one will claim that knowledge
has yet vanished away, besides they were all three to continue until “that
which is perfect is come.” That time has not come, yet so far as language,
prophecy or knowledge is concerned. If it refers to the perfect One, then he
has not yet appeared personally, and spiritually he is no more here now than then.
If it refers to the gospel as some think, then we answer, The gospel was
perfect then and had been from the beginning, and could not become more so. But
it doubtless refers to the perfect One. It is further evident that the Holy
Ghost was to continue in full working power when men would open their hearts to
receive it, until the perfect One should come the second time without sin unto
salvation, and establish peace and perfection upon the earth. (Ibid., 21-22)
Further Reading
Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
