Subject: Apostles, Prophets? An Office for Today? |
Bible Note: "And back to the origanal topic... Since when in the Bible was it taught that there are to be no more Apostles or Prophets, it doesn't..." And yet the LDS gets it backward, placing the Prophet (why only one?) on a higher authoritative ground than the Quorum of the Apostles. I think it is clear from the New Testament that the apostles were the leaders of the church, not the prophets. "I know you will quote those same verses, but then I quote Acts 7:55-56... but if the Bible does not contradict itself, how can Christ stand on the right hand of the Father if they are the same..." Because Christ and the Father are NOT the same. You misunderstand the church's doctrine of the Trinity. The Father is God; the Son is God; but the Father is not the Son. "So if we can do this, why should we not have Apostles and Prophets to settle these petty doctrinal issues?" Because they are not needed. We have the teachings of the apostles inscripturated in the New Testament. The church plays a role in interpreting the Scriptures (albeit imperfectly). The LDS errs in allegedly providing additional revelation above and beyond (and in contradiction to) what God has already revealed. We do not need "another testament" or any other supposed teaching from God; what he gave us in the Old and New Testaments is absolutely, 100 percent sufficient for the church and for the individual disciple of Christ. --Joe! |