LOL! What A Mormon...er...MORON!
- Thread starter Twisted
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 1,182
- Reaction score
- 553
- Points
- 113
Yes, this guy is definitely a moron. By undermining the concept of the canon of Scripture, he opens the door to stuffing the Bible with any new revelations that anyone wants to toss in. Not a good idea.
Pastor Ridenhour says the canon began at the time of Constantine in the early 4th Century, but the article "Montanism and the Canon" in the Christian Classics Ethereal Library states: "It would be a mistake to suppose that the Montanistic disputes [late 2nd Century] led to the formation of a New Testament canon. On the contrary, it is plain that when these disputes arose Christians had so far closed their New Testament canon that they were shocked that any modern writing should be made equal to the inspired books of the apostolic age. The Montanist disputes led to the publication of lists recognized by the particular churches. . . . But still we think it plain from the history that the conception of a closed New Testament canon was found by Montanism and not then created."
The Montanists wanted to add their new revelations to the canon, but they failed, just as the Morons in the 1830s failed in their attempt to add their phony new revelations to the Bible. Nothing written after the First Century was ever added to the Bible - a wise policy, in my opinion.
The Reformation Charlotte article implies that there is something improper about this Mormon-defending pastor being allowed to remain a licensed minister in the SBC. As I understand it, no SBC body has the authority to revoke his licensed status. That could be done only by the local SBC church who licensed/ordained him, or else the SBC could expel that church from the national, state and local associations and then it would no longer be an SBC church and that pastor would no longer be a licensed SBC minister.
Pastor Ridenhour says the canon began at the time of Constantine in the early 4th Century, but the article "Montanism and the Canon" in the Christian Classics Ethereal Library states: "It would be a mistake to suppose that the Montanistic disputes [late 2nd Century] led to the formation of a New Testament canon. On the contrary, it is plain that when these disputes arose Christians had so far closed their New Testament canon that they were shocked that any modern writing should be made equal to the inspired books of the apostolic age. The Montanist disputes led to the publication of lists recognized by the particular churches. . . . But still we think it plain from the history that the conception of a closed New Testament canon was found by Montanism and not then created."
The Montanists wanted to add their new revelations to the canon, but they failed, just as the Morons in the 1830s failed in their attempt to add their phony new revelations to the Bible. Nothing written after the First Century was ever added to the Bible - a wise policy, in my opinion.
The Reformation Charlotte article implies that there is something improper about this Mormon-defending pastor being allowed to remain a licensed minister in the SBC. As I understand it, no SBC body has the authority to revoke his licensed status. That could be done only by the local SBC church who licensed/ordained him, or else the SBC could expel that church from the national, state and local associations and then it would no longer be an SBC church and that pastor would no longer be a licensed SBC minister.
Well what a surprise...a self professed "SBC" minister is wrong. First, it says he is licensed...but by whom? There is no such thing as a person licensed by the SBC. Second, it no where says that a church felt secure enough with this individual to offer ordination. The article is really reaching...and in the wrong direction...to impugn the SBC. The author ought to educate themselves on how things work in churches that voluntarily cooperated with the SBC.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,789
- Reaction score
- 2,663
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
illinoisguy said:
No indeed. And in fact, definitive lists of the biblical canon began to develop in the early 2nd century, likely in response to Marcion--who rejected both the Old Testament and certain books of the New that he regarded as too Jewish, because he believed the God of the Old Testament was a wrathful, vengeful being and not the merciful God of the New. So the earliest controversy over the canon was actually over books being omitted by Marcionites, not revelation being added by Montanists.
It's less that the canon began at the time of Constantine, as that it was more or less settled by then. Athanasius' Easter letter of 367 was the first written list of the New Testament canon as we now know it. It didn't just happen (and, as popularly but mistakenly believed, the canon was never officially defined by the Council of Nicaea). Athanasius' letter reflects the consensus that had arisen by the fourth century, after centuries of reflection.
T-Bone said:
He was a professor at Liberty University but the idea of someone being licensed by the SBC doesn't make sense to me. Whenever someone says they are licensed I'm thinking they probably just perform weddings or funerals and these days you can become ordained or licensed just by going online. Also I remember years ago comedien Sam Kinison who was an ordained minister even after he was kicked out of the denomination that once you are ordained you are always ordained (at least in the eyes of the law) so this guy is just using the term licensed loosely in the same way. Maybe he links himself to the SBC because he wants to look legit but he's probably non-denominational.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 9,498
- Reaction score
- 1,443
- Points
- 113
T-Bone said:
The twister again illustrates that he is a dull, unimaginative troll who knows nothing about the SBC or the meaning of autonomous. Gail Let her Riplinger and Pete Ruckman are his go to skolars.