From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>I agree that the scripture does not directly address the issue of the closing of canon, or even the cononicity of any particular book. In fact, I would guess that as most of the NT writers were writing, they did not consider that their writings would become part of the what we recognize as the canon of scripture today. What we accept today as the canon was assembled much later. However, I do thnk that Jude felt that the delivery of the gospel, in his day, was complete.
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 10:03:49 -0500
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?
I don't think new scripture does abrogate old scripture. The NT reveals what was prophesied and was a mystery to the OT readers (and maybe there is still OT prophecy to be fulfilled). It appears to be a continuum to me. God has progressively revealed Himself throughout both the OT and NT, and in the NT has taken us all the way up to the end of the world.
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?
I actually use several references, the KJV among them. But, I feel, the KJV in this instance did not express the meaning of "hapax" as clearly as the NASB, for example.
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.
First, Jude three uses a definite article, "the faith", so it is not referring to anyone's personal faith (or it would say "your faith"), but to some specific body of knowledge or events or both. "the faith", which was "delivered once [for all] to the saints" must refer to the whole gospel of Christ, that is, all that was known about and taught by Jesus, and written by the apostles at the time Jude was written, that is to say, "all in which we should place our faith".
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.
Second, I believe that between Jesus and the the Apostles everything that there is to know about "the faith" has been recorded in the NT. The holy scripture contains everything "necessary and sufficient" to understand the gospel. To say that there was any part of the story that was left out, or that it is incomplete, is to say that God is not capable of delivering the gospel to people in sufficient enough form for them to understand salvation. So, if we assume God is capable, then we must assume that from day one, the gospel was complete, and the scriptures report it.
In summary, when Jude writes that "the faith" (the whole gospel of Christ) was delivered "once [for all] to the saints" (given to us once) and that we are to "contend earnestly" for it, I think it clearly indicates that the whole story had been told, and we were to vie to uphold it from those who wish to reinterpret or change it. If the whole story was told, no more would need to be told, thus, the canon would be complete!
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. :-)
I am not catholic, so that is a non-issue for me. :-)
And as long as he fails to recognize that the Messiah prophesied in his own Bible has come and gone, it will never be complete for him.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)?
Had I rejected the LDS teachings strictly on Jude 3, I would not have spent a couple of years studying and researching it. I honestly considered that it might be something truthful or important. However, through my diligent work, I was able to discern that it is false. I actually learned of Jude 3 being applied to the closure of canon about 1/2 way through my research while seeking every reason I could why the BoM and other works could not be new revelation. (One of John McArthur's books expounds the Jude 3 argument, I don't recall which). So, while I still feel that, even though indirectly, Jude 3 says there will be no more scripture, I still review and evaluate claims to new revelation, and thus far have found none!
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.
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_smartspamprotection_3mf
----------
"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.
