From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Christ made one sacrice and was resurrected once, the apostles reported on it with eyewitness accounts, set up churches, and wrote letters defining doctrine to those churches. All of this was done to establish "the faith". Neither the sacrifice, resurrection, or the reporting on it will ever happen again.
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?
No.
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?When was nothing else added to it? Since the last Apostle wrote about it. That most likely was Jude.
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?Christ's part (that is, the visible part) seems to have been complete before any of it was written down. The Apostles still had to establish the church through their missionary journeys, and then it had to be recorded. (No job is done until the paperwork is complete >G<)
I am not meaning to imply that He is not still active in His church through the Holy Spirit, but just that He is not rewriting the script as the play is going on.
Perry wrote:All of my "learning", Bible studies I have attended, preachers I have listened to all teach the dispensational view, except one, but I have some problems with the dispensational approach, specifically the futurist nature of it.
> 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:Well, not being a greek scholar, I have to rely on others who are much more educated than myself. However, I did look in Strong's Dictionary, if that is a reliable source at all, and it said "one (or a single) time (numerically or conclu-sively):--once.", and to be honest, I see plenty of room for it meaning "once for all".
> 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.
Are you familiar with The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New testament" (by Spiro Zodhiates)?At the risk of boring you, let me include an excerpt from his entry for "hapax":
"Once for all, already, formerly (Heb. 6:4; 9:26, 28; 10:2; Jude 1:3,5; Sept. Ps 62:12; 89:36). The word hapax with the meaning of once and for all is stressed in Heb. 9:26 in regard to the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ as contrasted by the appearance of the High Priest every year in the Holy of Holies. (Heb 9:25). Hapax means in this sense that this was the first and last time that Christ's offering was made, and that it was made for the once-and-for-all removal of sin..."
He goes on for another half page, and my typing is too poor to continue his description. While he gives examples from Hebrews, at the beginning he lists the verses that take on this meaning, and includes Jude 3. So, in my estimation, with my limited knowledge and resources, it appears that the NASB actually reflects more accurately the intent of the word!
Perry wrote:Yes, I agree with you in this instance. But here we have the situation where "the faith" refers specifically to the previous use of "faith" in the passage. We do not see a similar reference in Jude, but a fresh new "the faith". Now, if there is no precedence from which to infer a reference, could Jude be talking about "THE faith" as I explained it above?
> 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.
That, plus the lack of a previous reference in Jude to a personal faith.
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?
Concerning the gospel, that is.
Why then does that which is recorded in the NT teach that the Holy Spirit would be given as our teacher?I have admitted that the Holy Spirit guides us personally in our walks. My position is that he does not provide new revelation that adds to or changes the gospel message delivered once for all to the saints!
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.Does "all things" here refer to "all things pertaining to the gospel, salvation, and what has been prophecied in the NT", or "all things in the universe"? It could simply mean that the Holy Spirit is the force that leads us to even be able to seek, understand, and accept the gospel. Besides, 2 Tim 3:16-17 makes the scripture sound pretty sufficient to me. I know that in their time "scripture" was the OT, but if we accept the NT as scripture, which I believe you do, then it is grafted into this statement by Paul.
Perry wrote:The Scripture also does not say, "well, that is the end of part one, folks. You have to tune into the Holy Spirit to get 'the rest of the story'".
> 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:I never claimed that they contained everything that had ever been known or revealed from God, just that what they do contain is enough for us to understand and receive salvation.
> 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.
Does it really matter? My "day one" is a figurativre phrase meant to indicate from when the gospel was complete, which all I know was sometime before Jude penned the word "hapax".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?
Hey David, I am not an inspired writer, as I am sure you noticed, and I am sure that anyone with half the intelligence that you have can absolutely jump down my throat no every other word I write.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. :-)
I give. Uncle! Uncle! Uncle!
On its face, the text in Jude 3 is very straightforward. It teaches saintsI have delivered the wooden stake directly into your hand >g<. Because I have mentioned John McArthur as a proponent of this position, now I have probably lost all credibility with you.
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.
Actually, Mr. Zodhiates supports this view (of 'hapax'), and I see plenty of room in Strongs for this position, but because you may not agree with John McArthur on his view toward charismatics, that is no reason to cast doubt on his understanding of greek, is it?
David, are you a charismatic? If so, this would explain your deep grilling of my position.
Perry
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 limited-time offer: Join now and get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_newmsn8ishere_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.
