From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>The canon is closed. You repeat what you have read in the scripture, you do not deliver new inspired scripture. Otherwise, following Revelation we would have "The Book of DavidM".
David Miller wrote:
>> What exactly does that mean to you, that the
>> "delivery of the gospel was complete"?
Perry wrote:
> 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.
I understand how the sacrifice and resurrection won't happen again, but I am
very confused as to why you would say that the reporting on it won't happen
again. I continue to report on it today, as do many other people.
David Miller wrote:
>> Surely you do not mean that it no longer was being
>> delivered or preached, do you?
Perry wrote:
> No.
Glad to hear that. Then what do you mean by saying that the reporting on it
will not ever happen again?
I mean the canon is closed. However, preachers tell the story over and over.
Do you mean first hand reporting? Very little
of the New Testament consists of first hand reporting.
I mean the canon is closed.
True, Jude is not one of the 24 Apostles. However, since I believe that the canon of scripture is closed, I am referring to those who wrote the New Testament, and referring to Jude since it is entirely possibly that his book was the last one written. Apostles was not the proper term to use.David Miller wrote: >> 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? Perry wrote: > When was nothing else added to it? Since > the last Apostle wrote about it. That most > likely was Jude. But Jude doesn't really touch on the gospel much in his letter, and I think it likely that others wrote after him. And what do you mean by "last" Apostle? Do you mean of the twelve? As you know, Paul was not of the twelve, nor a first hand eyewitness. The author of Jude appears not to be one of the twelve apostles either. So I'm confused about what you mean by saying "since the last Apostle wrote about it." Most of the apostles did not write about it, and many who were not apostles did write about it. This focus upon apostles writing Scripture bothers me.
Perry wrote:
> 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<)
You seem to have the same mentality about the church that the Roman
Catholics and the Mormons do, as some single huge institution for the whole
world. I see churches less institutionalized, as defining the community of
believers within a local community, who actually have relationship with one
another. Therefore, I do not see the writing of Scripture as having much to
do with establishing churches. The apostles weren't creating some huge
institution. They were preaching the gospel, primarily vocally, and
establishing people in the faith through face to face relationship. Through
this effort, many churches were established, and the writing of Scripture
was a side product, a glimpse for the rest of history concerning what was
happening.
Whatever.
Zodhiates has two versions ...one is the "Complete Word Study Dictionary" and one is the "Word Study New Testament". The latter contains the NT with interlinear greek but does not contain the full dictionary.
Perry wrote:
> 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.
I think the script was finished before God created the earth and all that is
in it. I agree with you that he is not rewriting the script.
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".
Sure, there is room, but it has to do with context, and sometimes modifying
prepositions. For example, the Greek word "pros" before "hapax" would imply
once for all, but that is lacking in Jude 3. One must rely on context, and
"hapax" corresponds nicely with our numerical word "once" so it doesn't take
a Greek scholar to look at the passage and determine from context whether it
means "once for all" or just "once before." There are Greek scholars on
both sides concerning this specific passage.
Perry wrote:
> Are you familiar with The Complete Word
> Study Dictionary, New testament" (by Spiro
> Zodhiates)?
Yes I am, but my copy of this text does not have an entry for hapax. Maybe
I have an older copy.
As a result of posting this several times, and rethinking it over and over, I am convinced that even if we let hapax mean purely the word "once", that my argument still can be made.Perry wrote: > 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). > ... 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! Well, just including Jude 3 simply means that he is on that side of the camp. Notice his arguments deal with other passages that clearly mean once for all, but there are many other passages in Scripture as well as early secular documents that clearly do not mean "once for all." We use the word "once" in a similar way. Sometimes people say, "I'm only going to tell you this once." They mean, once for all time in this context. Other times, however, they say, "I once told my students that I would have to look that up." In this context, he might tell them again, and again, and again, the same thing. Once in this context does not mean "once for all" but rather "once before."
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".
There are other references that also have "the faith" without prior mention
of faith without the definite article, but I don't have time to list them
for you. Furthermore, I'm not sure it is all that important. In Greek, the
definite article is used to emphasize and personalize a noun. It is used
even with proper names, something we never do in English (the David or the
Perry).
I guess, since you have dismissed both the work of McArthur and Zodhiates as biased I don't have a leg to astand on. And to think, I trusted those guys!
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'".
I think it does say that. Out of time right now, but maybe we can take this
up in a future thread.
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.
I agree with you here, but the Scriptures also teache us that revelation
ought to continue in the lives of those who are saved.
Perry wrote:
> ... 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?
No, not if John were here to debate me on this, but he is not here. I
suspect his bias in abolishing all revelation and focusing only on objective
written revelation of the past will affect his judgment about how passages
ought to be understood.
You see, I think "labels" are okay if they help us understand the beliefs, characteristics, religions, and other obvious groups. For example, I am a male. That not only divides me and other males from the females, but allows to understand who we should marry!
Perry wrote:
> David, are you a charismatic? If so, this would
> explain your deep grilling of my position.
I don't care much for labels like "charismatic" or "Pentecostal" because I
think they divide the body of Christ. I believe in revelation along the
lines of most charismatics, in the sense that revelation comes to us through
the Holy Spirit and it is a very dynamic and ongoing thing in the life of
the disciple of Christ.
Grouping is necessary for meaningful conversation. In fact, you use labels all the time to identify Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, Catholics, Protestants. It would be near impossible to have a discussion if we did not. And yes, these labels divide people into groups...that is the purpose of them. Why is it that all of a sudden "pentecostal" and "charismatic" become taboo?
What is not right, is when people use the labels to deny people under a label their basic rights. Now, that is a misuse of labels.
Also what is not right is when the label's purpose is to abase a group of people.
Do you think that either of the labels "pentecostal" or "charismatic" is abasing, or being used to deny those in the groups their rights?
Perry
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
----------
"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.
