"Charles P. Locke" wrote:
>From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>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.Not at all...it is an open forum.
>
>"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.John's epistles and the Revelation are the only ones that are dated after
Jude, but those dates seem to be in debate. One group places them from 80-95
AD, while yet others place them around 65 AD. Jude comes in at 66-80 AD.>
> > 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?I do not believe that all mysteries must be revealed. When we arrive in
heaven I think all mystery will be revealed.God has revealed aspects of his nature throughout the scripture, but there
is still much about God we do not know or cannot understand.>
> > 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.There are specific tests that we mortal men use to determine if a body of
work is part of the canon. They include things like internal consistency,
external consistency, historical accuracy, OT references, references to
known NT people and places, references to Christ, etc.As you know, there are many books that are considered by some to be
scripture. The Catholic Bible, for example, contains books that the
protestants do not recognize as canon. And, no need to mention LDS
extra-biblical works.>
> 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?Well, the gospel has already been revealed in the NT, so maybe that angel
has already spoken. Or, since it is in Revelation, maybe it is just a review
before the final exam :-) Just because something is mentioned in revelation
does not necessarily mean that it is still future. The timing in the
Revelation is tricky, especially if it we can assign an authorship date of
c. 65 AD (The implications of this are astounding WRT (with respect to)
understanding Revelation. Change the accepted date, and the line between
"is" and "is to come" shifts to the right!)>
> > >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.[I am adding this comment after having written the following
paragraphs...prepare yourself...I am climbing up onto my evangelical soapbox
at the corner of Christian Street and LDS Ave - cpl]David, I spent a lot of time testing LDS doctrines (trying to be good
Berean, while giving LDS a chance), reading the works, reading commentaries
(not only anti-LDS lit., but Roberts, Nibley, and Reynolds; I even OWN the
book "Book of Mormon Authorship revisited". I have the standard works on my
own computer for quick and easy reference, and an LDS friend near SLC even
sent me one of Nibleys books to read and return), talking to and debating
with LDS members, and LDS doctrine and standard works fail every test I
could come up with or read about. One has to be totally blind in order to
believe the outlandish stuff that it teaches, especially in view of the
evidence for plaigerized authorship that exists. If the LDS works held any
resemblance at all to what God has already said, I would have had a hard
time rejecting it. My research began with the open consideration that it
might be true, and ended with certainty that it is bogus. LDS accept the
things JS said/wrote without a critical eye because of the investment they
have in it and indoctrination from their youth into the system (and the
biggie: their pride makes them want to be God, as Satan's and Eve's did!).
The whole system is set up from the beginning to bias children and other
adherants against traditional Christianity! That is called brainwashing (Ya
hear that, Glenn?) My mother-in-law is LDS (she has a history of following
fringe religions...she attended the Church of Scientology prior to becoming
a Mormon) and I took her with me on two business trips to SLC (I always
carried a pack of Rolaids so I could determine if I was becoming a Mormon
:-) so she could use the geneology library and do the temple stuff. I have
walked Temple square, talked with LDS there, visited the Tabernacle, visited
the library, watched the VIM (Visitor Indoctrination Movie) in the visitor's
center. Everyone was sweet, pretty, wonderful, and deceived. (I was so
disappointed. I met a young LDS greeter on Temple Square from Wittenberg,
Germany. She had never heard of Martin Luther! Boy, had she been sheltered
from Christian History! Best not to let her know the truth...she might make
an informed decision!)Do you think I gave it a fair evaluation, or do you have some witticism to
discount my effort and time?[Hopping down from the soapbox, I continue...]
Let me state my position one more time, as clearly as I can...
I never said that God COULD NOT or WOULD NOT reveal new things at a later
date. All I said was1) He revealed all that is "necessary and sufficient'" in the canon of
scripture for receiving and understanding the gospel message,2) Jude seems to support this, and
3) there have been no new books added to the Bible since the canon was
formed, indicating that no new works hold muster with the requirements for
canonicity, including the LDS works.I agree that it would be cool if there were a lot of unanswered questions
that were answered by further revelation, but I can accept the fact that God
has revealed what he wants me to know. I do not have to make up stories to
make it fit, or to answer the unanswered questions. But one thing I know for
sure...if God HAS revealed additional scripture, and we some how missed it,
THE LDS BOM , D&C, THE PEARL (not Steinbeck's), AND THE BoA (not Bank of
America) ARE NOT THOSE REVEALED WORKS!>
> 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.>From my statements above, you can see that I have not discounted the
possibility, I am just convinced that it has not happened up to this point,
and I do not see any need for it to happen, and Jude seems to support this.
Had I felt it was impossible I would not have goven LDS doctrine a fair
shake...I would have discounted it on that principle alone.It is not a matter of any purported revelation just being acceptable to me,
David. In fact, I find that statement to be a bit disingenuous considering
all that I have posted on this topic already. It is a matter of purported
revelation being tested and found to be supportive of and in agreement with
sound biblical principles, which the LDS works are not, and, in fact, no
works since the closure of canon have been.Shortsited, or cautious not be duped by the first religion that comes along
and promises me I will become God?Yes, the Jews were blinded, like some other modern day religionists.
Perry
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dave Hansen
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.langlitz.com
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8: advanced junk mail 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_advancedjmf_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.orgIf 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.
