Perry wrote: > I agree that the scripture does not directly > address the issue of the closing of canon, or > even the cononicity of any particular book. > ... However, I do thnk that Jude felt that the > delivery of the gospel, in his day, was complete.
What exactly does that mean to you, that the "delivery of the gospel was complete"? Surely you do not mean that it no longer was being delivered or preached, do you? And if not that, then you must mean that the content of the gospel message didn't have anything else added to it, but when did this happen? Surely a good many years before Jude wrote his epistle. Surely the gospel was complete in this sense prior to any of the New Testament being written, don't you think? Perry wrote: > 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. I agree with you about this. Not everyone on TruthTalk seems to have this perspective. Many take a more dispensational approach. Perry wrote: > 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. And when I examine the Greek, it seems to me that the NASB adds additional words not found in the Greek, and incorrectly communicates an idea of finality which is not present in the Greek. I guess it all depends what kind of preconceptions we have when reading it. Perry wrote: > 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. Definite articles don't make the object they modify impersonal. Definite articles simply draw attention and make emphasis. Consider the following passage that has a definite article preceding faith: Act 3:16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all. Do you take the phrase, "the faith," in this passage to refer to some body of knowledge, or does it refer to something dynamic, a trust and reliance upon Christ? Perry wrote: > "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". Do you think all this simply because of the definite article? Was the gospel preached by Jesus incomplete, and then completed just prior to Jude's epistle being written? I'm having trouble accepting your perspective on this. Perry wrote: > Second, I believe that between Jesus and the > Apostles everything that there is to know about > "the faith" has been recorded in the NT. Everything that there is to know? Why then does that which is recorded in the NT teach that the Holy Spirit would be given as our teacher? Jesus never promised that one day there would be Scripture to show us all things. Rather, he taught his followers that they would receive the Holy Spirit who would teach them all things. The testimony of the New Testament, in my opinion, is that it is only a partial record of "the faith" and it points us to receiving the Holy Spirit. It is by the Holy Spirit that we can have the mind of Christ and know all things, according to the New Testament. Perry wrote: > The holy scripture contains everything "necessary and > sufficient" to understand the gospel. I agree, but those Holy Scriptures point us to ongoing revelation. The Scriptures do not say, "believe only what is written in the Scriptures and shun revelation by the Holy Spirit." No, the Scriptures give us all the knowledge necessary so that each of us can receive the Holy Spirit within ourselves and receive revelation. Perry wrote: > 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. I don't see it that way at all. John said the reason everything wasn't recorded about Jesus was because the world could not contain all the books if they were all written down. We really only need a subset or information written down to be able to enter into the same relationship with Jesus that they had. The Scriptures are sufficient and complete enough to lead people unto salvation and receiving the Holy Spirit, but it would be foolish to think that they contain everything that has ever been known or revealed from God concerning salvation and the things of God. Even the Scriptures themselves mention people having revelation whereby they could not write what they heard and saw, and the Scriptures also quote other books and passages from other Scripture which we do not have. Perry wrote: > So, if we assume God is capable, then we must > assume that from day one, the gospel was complete, > and the scriptures report it. >From day one? When was day one? When Jesus started preaching, or when Peter preached in Acts 2, or sometime after the last book of the New Testament was written? Perry wrote: > 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! But you seem to interpret "faith" to mean "story" and then you add the word "whole" in there, as in "whole story" which is not in the text at all. By the time you get done adding words to this passage (something which we both agree ought not be done), it seems to me that you have changed the text, something which you are arguing should not be done. :-) On its face, the text in Jude 3 is very straightforward. It teaches saints to contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints. It goes on to warn about certain men who have crept in unawares, men ordained long ago to act in this ungodly way, to turn the grace of God into lasciviousness. He reminds them how this happened also in Moses's time, and how these men were destroyed by God. Jude finished his letter saying, "unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory." Clearly, the faith he is talking about is not some religious tenets, nor Scripture, but a dynamic living faith which keeps us walking pure and holy before God. Perry wrote: > 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). Ah, I see. John McArthur. Surely you understand that McArthur has an extremely strong bias against modern revelation. He is against the teaching of pentecostals and charismatics concerning the operation of the Holy Spirit. He grabs at straws to twist the Scriptures to say things which they do not say. I think he has led you astray on the proper understanding of Jude 3. 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.
