DAVEH: Hi Perry.....I hope you don't mind me intruding on your discussion with
DavidM. Since he is responding to your Jude 3 argument that Canon is closed, I think
it is appropriate for me to make a few comments relative to this topic.
"Charles P. Locke" wrote:
> DavidM wrote:
> >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 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.
DAVEH: I would ask if there were any writings written after Jude that are accepted as
Canon. My reference material is home and my Googling time is via long distance, so
hopefully DavidM will have a quick answer that doesn't require too much of his time.
> DavidM wrote:
> . 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 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.
DAVEH: Do Protestants recognize any mysteries of the NT? If the Lord reveals his
will to explain the mysteries, then should there not be any mysteries left IF the
gospel has been totally and wholly revealed? Why would there be any mystery about the
nature of God as is left one to ponder in the T-Doctrine realm? Does Protestantism
claim to understand the nature of God??? If not, then is there not room for continued
revelation?
> DavidM wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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".
>
> 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!
DAVEH: Even IF your assumption that the entire gospel had been revealed at some point
in the past, it does not necessarily mean that the entire gospel is recorded in the
Canon. There are many other writings of the period from even some of the Bible
authors that have been discovered that may contain scriptural material.
Furthermore, there are Scriptural passages that suggest there will at some time in
the future be a restitution of all things. (Mt 17:11 & Acts 3:21) Would this not
involve some form of revelation from on High? Additionally, Rev 14:6 mentions an
angel revealing the gospel from heaven at some future time. Does that not suggest
future revelation regarding the gospel that may not be contained in the Canon as it
was known 2 millennia ago?
> >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)?
>
> 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.
DAVEH: I am not here to preach LDS theology, nor am I here to be too "clever" as you
described me in another post, Perry. But what you wrote above is similar to the way
some LDS folks may feel about Protestants and their view the "Restoration of the
Gospel" message we preach. Just as the Jews fail to acknowledge the continued
revelations and fullness of the gospel Protestants claim led to the NT, I feel
Protestants fail to acknowledge the continued revelations and fullness of the gospel
that has
been restored in latter-days.
Perry...... I'm not asking you to believe LDS theology, but I'm offering my
thoughts so you will have a better understanding of my perspective.
> DavidM wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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!
DAVEH: Why would you then discount the possibility and claim Canon is closed just
because you failed to find new revelations that are acceptable to you, Perry? Again,
that seems a bit shortsighted. Consider that the Lord may not reveal anything to
those who are not listening. The Jews at the time of Christ may have considered Canon
closed and then tuned out the message of the NT apostles and prophets due to their
short sighted attitude.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----------
"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.
