
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
| Answers portal |
| Holy Bible |
|
Book of Mormon & Bible: |
This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.
==
Critics claim that there is no need for on-going divine revelation today; some even charge that claims of visions from God or revelations to a modern prophet is a blasphemous idea.
To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]
If revelation was meant to cease, it would have ceased after Jesus ascended to heaven, it would have been more rational to assume that. Gladly we all can agree that visions and revelations didn't cease after Jesus accented. However, there is clearly no Biblical evidence that revelation and visions wouldn't be necessary after the death of the apostles. However, the available Biblical evidence does suggest continuing revelation. Critics must give a rational reason why revelation, all the sudden stop being necessary after the first century, and never again be necessary.
[needs work] Hebrews 1:13
Critics provide no rational evidence or reason for this claim. The Bible does not teach that we only need the Bible, or that we only need 66 books, or that On-going divine revelation is not necessary after the first century.
If revelation was meant to cease, it would have ceased when Jesus Christ ascended to heaven.
Matthew 28:19-20
Mark 16:15
John 20:30-31
Why would new revelation be needed, if Jesus Christ already taught the gospel? Since we have the teachings of Jesus in the four gospels, then surely there would be no need for Paul's vision, John's vision of the last days, and even spiritual gifts, if God would have meant to cease revelation. Wouldn't the teachings of Jesus be enough as the Word of GOD? Wouldn't his perfect example be enough? If revelation was only for the original 12 apostles, then why did Jesus appear to Paul in a vision? Why did Paul received revelation? He was not part of the original 12 apostles, he neither was a eye witness of Jesus mortal ministry.
Critics should be careful with their accusations, because one can also argue that revelation ceased after Jesus ascended to heaven, and that their is no need for books, like the Book of The Revelation of St John the Divine
Deuteronomy 18:15
Daniel 9:24
The thing that leads to salvation, is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It has always been the same, and was taught since Adam. It was also taught by the apostles. One might ask, that if the Bible was the only thing needed for our salvation, then why did people in the 1st century didn't have the whole Bible? Not all 27 books existed for most of the 1st century. Let alone that there was no Bible for the first 3 centuries. What did people have prior to that? Why assume that word of God was completed at the end of the first century? Was the word of GOD incomplete prior to that?
None

FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.
Donate Now