Hi Perry. I do not accept the additional Mormon Scriptures, but I am interested in being fair with our scholarship. I have a few comments to which perhaps you would consider responding.
Charles wrote: > One of the tenets of Christian theology is that the > canon of scripture is closed (as mentioned in Jude > 3), and that there will be no more revelation of the > kind Joseph Smith purports to have received, i.e., > revelation that reveals anything more than the Bible > reveals, contradicts the Bible, or reveals any new > doctrines that were not aready revealed in the Bible. What you say above has certainly been a growing traditional perspective since the fifteenth century, but it does not appear that the Scriptures themselves either establish a canon, nor indicate any closure to it. Would you agree? Perry wrote: > The prime test of anything anyone says they received > from God is that it has to be in accord with the existing > canon. If it contradicts scripture, or teaches a different > gospel, then it can't be from God. I agree with you on this. The Scripture cannot be broken, so all subsequent revelation must not contradict previous revelation. Nevertheless, some might argue that the New Testament Scripture changed what was revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures. For example, some say that whereas before it was clear that one ought to observe the seventh day and keep it holy in the Hebrew Scriptures, subsequent revelation did away with that. If this is true, then there appears to be a contradiction here, or at least a paradox that needs explaining. In what way can new Scripture abrogate older Scripture? Perry wrote: > ... only by disregarding the statement in Jude 3 that > the gospel was delivered "once for all" to the saints, > can the LDS get away with trying to add new revelation > to the already existing and closed canon of scripture. > It is so unfortunate that so many have been blinded > to these simple truths. I certainly don't want to be in the position of defending Mormon Scripture, but in the interest of fair and true scholarship, I must point out that Jude 3 does not settle the matter of the canon being closed. The phrase, "once for all" is not in the actual Greek. There is only one Greek word present, "hapax," which might mean "once for all" as in the sense of once for all completed, but it also might instead mean "formerly." Because I view "faith" as something that is ongoing and dynamic, I do not interpret this verse to mean "once for all," neither do I view "faith" as "religion" or "doctrine" or "gospel" or "Scripture." The passage basically means that we need to contend and fight for the faith which we once received. Ever hear people talk about how they wish they could be like they were when they were first saved? That is what he is addressing, keeping this faith alive, and not being like the Israelites, who after having been delivered from Egypt, some murmured and were destroyed after this deliverance had been once given to them. Jude 5 uses this word hapax again. Unfortunately, the modern translations favor those older Egyptian texts which the majority text adherents consider corrupted. Jude 5 is one of those verses where the underlying Greek text is different, especially in regard to the use of this word "hapax." If we accept the majority of Greek Texts, the ones that have the ending to Mark 16 and numerous other passages that are missing in the more modern Greek Texts, then we can readily see that "hapax" in Jude 5 means "formerly" and not "once for all time." For example, in the King James, this verse reads, "I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this..." Clearly, the idea that they once knew this does not mean that they might not come to be told it again fresh. And if they once knew it but have forgotten it, they would yet know it once again. We might also look at 2 Cor. 11:5 where Paul says, "once was I stoned..." The idea here also is not, "once for all time was I stoned" but rather simply that he was once stoned. It might happen again. Let me quote for you the King James Version since it appears that you are reading a modern version that might be leading you to read more into the text than what actually exists. Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Jud 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. It seems to me, from reading this text, that the idea is not about "Scripture" being delivered, but about "faith." Secondly, this faith is something that must be held onto and protected, something that must be contended for and fought for, because those who were saved by the Lord in Egypt, those who later lost their faith and believed not, they were destroyed. So Jude's exhortation is for the saints to contend and continue to believe. The passage doesn't say anything about Scripture being once given but never again. I believe that this is a twist that some modern theologians have pushed onto the text in order to buttress their traditional belief. It does not appear to be something taught from the text itself. Perry wrote: > Think about this: The OT covers from the beginning > (creation) to about 400 years before the cross. Unless you are Roman Catholic, then the Bible covers much more of that 400 year missing period. :-) Perry wrote: > The NT covers from the birth of Jesus to the end > of the world. That pretty much tells it all. The OT also covers the New Testament period and even to the period at the end of the world. Therefore, a Jew might use your same reasoning here to argue that there is no need for a New Testament. From his perspective, the OT covers all of history past, present, and future. :-) So can you see that he might use your same argument to dismiss the New Testament, if your argument is truly valid (which I do not believe that it is)? Perry wrote: > Why would we need any additional revelation (of the > gospel changing kind) for the period in between? Jesus > told us what we needed to do to be saved and have eternal > life, and the apostles taught it. Why does that need to be > enhanced? What could anyone possibly say that could > change or improve that? A person could hypothesize all kinds of questions that might be answered if additional Scripture came forth. I'm talking about truth which would not contradict prior revelation. Nevertheless, I do not expect more Scripture to come forth. I'm just saying that we ought to think clearly on this or we are not being open to truth. Instead of pushing our agenda in blindness, we need to look at the question from all sides. In my opinion, the canon of Scripture is closed, but that is only my opinion, not a dogmatic tenet of my faith. I suppose if I had lived just before the birth of Jesus, I might have said the same thing. When one looks at the times about us, and all the things going on, it simply does not appear that more Scripture is going to be added. Nevertheless, God is God, and if his Scriptures do not presently declare that no further written revelation will happen, then we should be cautious about making such statements. Rather than rejecting the Koran or the Mormon Scriptures based on the idea that further written revelation cannot be given by God, I think we should judge the Scriptures themselves and show where and how they fail as inspiration from God. It takes a little more work this way, but greater knowledge and truth come by it. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida USA ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
