My apologies in taking so long to respond. As I read your response to my #38, I can’t help but feel that you are bolstering my position with your comments while undermining your own.

In your analysis of 2 Tim 3:16-17, you say that it gives us “criteria that the Holy Spirit gives us for determining what Scripture should carry authoritative rule over our lives.” I agree with this analysis, but once again point out that what you have described is not a claim of a closed canon. Not even close. Thus, I conclude that even your own analysis of these verses demonstrates that you were wresting the scriptures when you used them as a proof-text for a closed canon.

You suggested that you might have to shift me over to Heb 1:1-2 as a scriptual claim of a closed canon:

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (Hebrews 1)

I honestly believe that without any commentary from me, we should be able to agree that these verses do not claim that the canon is closed. Can we?

Can a man experience full belief in the Messiah, full redemption, and a full, blessed, mortal life by just reading the Old Testament? Yes, I believe so.

This argument, again, undermines your own position by arguing against it directly. Here, you argue that even if the currently revealed scripture is sufficient to instruct us in the way of salvation, it does not mean that the canon is closed. I agree. The sufficiency of the scriptures already given does not limit God’s ability to reveal more. But, isn’t this exactly opposite the position you were taking before, that the sufficiency of the scriptures argues for a closed canon?

Yes, more God-breathed writings came in undeserved graciousness to mankind during the apostolic era, but that does not detract from the sufficiency of what was already inspired canon.

No, it does not subtract from their sufficiency (as you are using the word), but it does detract from your argument about a closed canon. The Mormon position is that we continue to received “undeserved graciousness” by way of continuing revelation. You have yet to offer any valid argument in favor of a closed canon. You have already shown that scriptural sufficiency does not guarantee a closed canon, so this doesn’t help your position.

How come modern-day graphe in 2006 (and for the past 150 years or so) by the LDS prophets or apostles, alleged to be theopneustos, is not canonical?

This is a bit of a tangent, but I will respond since it is a good question. The reason is that our canon is determined by common consent. As I mentioned in #38, we have a scripture which says everything said by the power of the Holy Ghost is to be considered scripture, but how are we to determine what was said under the influence of the spirit. In general, we can tell by having the spirit confirm the words to us individually, but as an institution, the only way is to have the proported revelation put to a vote. (We don’t claim infallibility for our prophets, so the fact that it was said by a prophet is not sufficient to prove it is scripture.) I want to emphasize so that there is no chance of being misunderstood: This vote does not determine whether or not a statement/passage was actually inspired scripture, it only determines whether or not the church as an body will accept it as such (thus making it canonical).

Jacob, why do I need more scriptures when the graphe I have in my hands?

Todd, you just argued that the Old Testament is sufficient bring you full redemption, so I turn your own question around on you: Why do you need more scriptures than the Old Testament? The answer seems obvious to me, and it is that I want to know more about God and the universe, even if I already know enough to be saved. You keep implying that they only information you want from God is that which is both necessary and sufficient for salvation. I see no reason to limit God’s revelations in such a way and I welcome everything God is willing to reveal to me, even if it is in addition to what is necessary and sufficient for salvation.

So, even after your big response, I don’t feel that I am any closer to understanding your claim that the canon is closed while the heavens are open.

Jacob (#38)
I justify using II Timothy 3:16-17 for the sufficiency of the Bible because of the principle Paul is declaring. He seems to be looking into the future, Jacob. (Maybe, I should shift you over to Hebrews 1:1-2).

THEOPNEUSTOS
In II Timothy, Paul writes, pasa graphe theopneustos kai ophelimos (every scripture God-breathed and profitable) pros didaskalian, pros elegmon, pros epanorthosin, pros paideian ten en dikaiosune (for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness).
(Sidenote – this is criteria that the Holy Spirit gives us for determining what Scripture should carry authoritative rule over our lives. It is 1. God-breathed, 2. profitable by telling us what is wrong, what is right, how to make things right, and how to keep things right.)

ARTIOS
But in verse 37, Paul communicates, “in order fitted may be the man of God, for every good work having been furnished.” He is broadcasting the fact that the written scripture of his day, including all the Old Testament, was enough to equip a man for doing the good work of God. Can a man experience full belief in the Messiah, full redemption, and a full, blessed, mortal life by just reading the Old Testament? Yes, I believe so. Do you believe that Jacob? Do you believe that a Jew living in the first century could be prepared for every trial, every temptation that he would face in the future just by reading and trusting the God-breathed Scripture that was available and accessible to him?

Jacob writes: Secondly, and more importantly, these verses are in strong tension with your point. The statement “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” is a statement that affirms the openness of the canon. Should we not conclude from this that words inspired by God should be considered “scripture.

Yes, more God-breathed writings came in undeserved graciousness to mankind during the apostolic era, but that does not detract from the sufficiency of what was already inspired canon. And yes, any graphe characterized by theopneustos is canon. How come modern-day graphe in 2006 (and for the past 150 years or so) by the LDS prophets or apostles, alleged to be theopneustos, is not canonical?

Jacob writes: If God continues to speak from heaven (the open heavens you support) then how can you conclude that the canon is closed? Are God’s words today less useful? Less authoritative? Less binding? Less canonical? This is the fundamental question you have not answered. In Timothy it says “all” scripture is profitable, but it seems you are not willing to give God’s revelations today the status of “scripture.” Why not?

Jacob, why do I need more scriptures when the graphe I have in my hands, completed during the apostolic era, answers fully some of the fundamental questions of metaphysical philosophy: How did I get here? What is my purpose in life? And where am I going? “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.”

And heaven is still open because God through the Holy Spirit illuminates and deepens my faith each day in the answers already provided (completed specific revelation), whereby all I can do is reciprocate in awe and thanksgiving. Reading the holy writ of the 66 canonical books, I am assured a complete cleansing of all my stinking sins; an unbreakable, spiritual union between myself and Christ; and an eternal fellowship directly in the presence of God. I am seated en tois epouraniois (in the heavenlies) in Christ Jesus. And Peter also adds with Paul, “through the full knowledge (epignoseos) of him . . . whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” Talk about Scripture that expresses sufficiency! I am overwhelmed with joy.

Honestly, Jacob, in my exploration of LDS writings, they constantly seems to bumping me into the corner, by giving me contra rather than additional. If I wasn’t so immersed in any particular book in the Bible, perhaps this wouldn’t be the case.

Geoff (#39)
Yes, I really mean to say that the Holy Spirit determines what is the authoritative writings that should rule our lives. Christians, no matter how sincere, don’t determine the canon, they only recognize it when believing the Spirit.

Yes, I do think that there has not been any book inspired by the Holy Spirit in basically 2000 years. And here is a sincere question. Why is there the need for more?

To your third question . . . that is a good question. I don’t know. Personally, I believe in a future dispensation (i.e. the Messianic Millennium on the earth, though there is difference of opinion in evangelicalism. Some of my good brothers-in-Christ might differ with me). I can easily imagine words written down, sourced directly from the lips of the King. And yes again, any words coming from God is canonical.

Your fourth question . . . I have not read in church history how the same Holy Spirit as revealed in specific revelation, the 66 canonical books, overcame any man in the activity of pheromenoi (II Peter 1:21) since the first century apostolic era. When any prophet does claim words that ought to be placed in the canon, I need to understand that we are talking about the same God, and secondly does it contradict the divine messages already recognized.

Fifth question . . . yes. Why? The Holy Spirit is God.

Blake (#40)
1. Yes, I am aware of Jude quoting the Book of Enoch. And I did note many months ago what Holzapfel, Skinner, and Wayment wrote in What Da Vinci Didn’t Know (2006), “Some early Christian authors, Peter and Jude for example, preserve information about other sources known by early Christian writers. Peter and Jude used noncanonical sources when they wrote their general epistles to the saints, thus demonstrating that they had a larger library of texts they considered helpful and inspirational than we have today. For example, the author of Jude quoted briefly from the apocryphal book I Enoch as well as from the Testament of Moses (see Jude 1:9,14). Eventually, both of these writings were excluded form the Hebrew canon and then later from the New Testament canon for legitimate concerns over their authorship and antiquity, but portions of both have been preserved. These sources, although they do not mention Jesus or anything concerning Christianity generally, demonstrate that early Christian authors used a more expanded canon than that which has been preserved today. These sources are mostly of Jewish origin, and some show traces of having been altered by Christian scribes” (pp. 17-18).

Referring back to an undergrad textbook, D. Edmond Hiebert in Second Peter and Jude: An Expositional Commentary (Greenville: Unusual Publications, 1989) says some things worth considering, “Sometime during the first century B.C. some apocryphal works belonging to the last two centuries B.C. were compiled to form what is known as the Book of Enoch, which is regarded as one of the most remarkable extant examples of Jewish apocryphal literature. It is a composite work of 108 chapters, falling into five divisions or books. Its original language was Semitic, having been written either in Hebrew or Aramaic, probably in both. It was translated into Greek, but known Greek fragments do not cover the entire book. The Ethiopic version of the book shows that it must have been in the Greek Bible that was taken to Abyssinia when that country was Christianized in the fourth century.”

“The Book of Enoch exerted a strong and widespread influence on the Jewish and early Christian literature. Its popularity among the Jews is indicated by the fact that no fewer than eleven manuscripts of parts of the book have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It was highly regarded by several early Christian writers, Barnabas (16:5), Tertullian (Idolatry, 15:6), and Clement of Alexandria (Eccl. proph. 3), who regarded it almost as highly as Scripture. There was a feeling that Jude’s use of the Book of Enoch supported its inspiration. But later when the book fell into disfavor in the Western Church, according to the testimony of Jerome, many questioned the epistle of Jude because of its quotation from the Book of Enoch. By the fourth century the Book of Enoch had largely fallen into disfavor, especially in the Western Church.

“When Jude wrote, “Enoch . . . prophesied, saying” (Epropheteusen . . . Henoch legon), he clearly accepted that as a historical fact. The prophecy is not recorded in the Old Testament, nor is it mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament. The prophecy, with some variations, is found in the Book of Enoch 1:9. Lenski is technically correct in asserting that “Jude quotes Enoch, not some book.” But were it not for the apocryphal nature of the Book of Enoch, the source of Jude’s quotation would appear to be self-evident. It seems clear that the early Christian writers assumed that the quotation was drawn from the Book of Enoch. But this view does not mean that Jude accepted the Book of Enoch was inspired or approved of all its contents. It simply means that under the leadership and illumination of the Holy Spirit he accepted the statement as true. Blum notes that “the prophecy does not give any startling new information but is simply a general description of the return of the Lord in judgment (cf. Deut. 33:2; Dan. 7:10-14; Zech. 14:5; Matt. 25:31)” (pp. 265-266).

2. No, I didn’t know I Timothy almost certainly quotes the Testament of Judah. Now you have me curious to your sources.

3. Blake, what entire genre of literature are you referring to? I do realize that with each inspired book of the Bible coming on to the scene, heretical books have followed the heels in hot pursuit. Just for a little humor, The Gospel of Thomas, states, “Simon Peter said to them: ‘Let Mary go away from us, for women are not worthy of life.’ Jesus said: ‘Lo, I shall lead her, so that I may make her a male, that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself a male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” How do you think the Feminist Mormon Housewives would take that? I can only laugh at the ridiculous instruction of this false literature.

4. Yes, I did know the Septuagint included the apocrypha. I thank God for the Septuagint. Sure, some the apocrypha gives me interesting, helpful history, but the Septuagint (even with some of its corrupt text) persuades me, transforms me. I can hardly explain it. Most in Idaho Falls would say I speak as a fool. But the experience is nonetheless real. And Blake, surely you know, how many times the N.T. writers quote the Old Testament and than how many times the apocrypha?

5. Blake writes, He did not write 2 Thess. Blake, which scholars have you been listening to in order to make such a bold statement? Robinson over at Claremont? Obviously, II Thess 3:16 confirmed his use of an amanuensis, but to deny him the authorship of the message? Wow. Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria – I don’t think any of these guys had a problem, though I would allow you to correct me on the stance of any of these early church fathers. And just to throw this in. Did you catch over at Dave’s Mormon Inquiry, the recent review of Cities of God? Despite the endnote, look up what Rodney Stark believed on 2 Thessalonian’s authorship (p. 52). I trust a Bible book that is authentic rather than forgery.

6. Blake writes, Peter almost certainly did not write 2 Peter. On this particular book, if you had mentioned the debate that has raged throughout church history on this book, I would have agreed. Again, I encourage you to sometime purchase Hiebert’s commentary. He writes, “The authorship of 2 Peter is beset with serious difficulties. It has been the subject of debate down through the centuries, and the debate still continues. The problems involved are notoriously complex; doubt and uncertainty have marked its history more than any other book in the New Testament” (1). But after 20 pages (and covering the disbelief of II Peter 3:15-16) concludes, “Acceptance of the epistle’s claims to Petrine authorship carries with it acceptance of its rightful inclusion in the New Testament canon. This view, while admittedly beset with difficulties, is fully as rational and satisfactory as the other views. It receives the claims of the epistle at face value and eliminates all implications of deception in its personal preferences. These notes fully fit the Apostle Peter. Its acknowledged superiority to all the known pseudo-Petrine literature is a weighty fact in its favor” (19).

7. Blake writes, You have no basis for adopting a closed canon if being inspired by the Holy Ghost is the standard. Indeed, if being inspired is the key to constituting scripture then the inspiration you claim to have received is also scripture – and I am sure you consider that blasphemous. I simply don’t understand why it is so alarming to say that the canon is the Holy Spirit’s words through human men. When God speaks, it had better be canon, beginning all the way back with the Ten Commandments. Believers have only recognized canon and preserved them through the centuries. And the only inspiration I claim is when I parrot the biblical text as the Holy Spirit gives me understanding. Yes, my scholarly, personal opinions don’t mean squat (pardon the Idahoan expression :) ).

8. A closing question—Blake, do you treat the Bible as equal authority with other LDS authoritative texts?

(Sidenote – Blake, I just read your article “The Gospel of Grace in the Writings of John” placed in the book, The Testimony of John the Beloved (1998). Sometime, I would like to engage with it on my blog. Have you published anything else on John’s Gospel?)

Jacob (#41)
I really appreciate your short post. I will have to go back and look. A week has gone by and I have forgotten what I asked. By the way, I turned 37 on December 13. Man, I am old. (oops, how is that for a tangent?)

Matt W. (#42)
Ok, on my blog this week, I will put up an article entitled “JST on John 2”. When it appears, share with me your thoughts. Fair enough?

But is this an accurate statement in regards to latter-day texts? Then why is Joseph Smith crossing out statements in the biblical text so there is no contradiction?

1. Yes, it is an accurate statement.

2. Please bring forth where Joseph Smith crossed out statements so as to remove contradiction. I know of no such examples.

I can’t speak for everyone, but the reason I am not answering your questions is most of them seemed to be rhetorical, and the rest appeared to me as off-topic. If there is something on-topic I have ignored it is probably because I thought it was rhetorical. Point it out and I’ll take a stab.

How come no one is answering my questions?

I will get back with you guys.

In The NJBC the authors maintain that there was no clear canon of scripture at the time of Christ. After reviewing the data they state “The conclusion that there was no rigidly closed canon in Judaism in the 1st or 2nd centuries AD means that when the church was in its formation period and was using the sacred books of the Jews, there was no closed canon for the church to adopt” [p. 1041] Part of the evidence they present is the existence of Deuterocanonical books in the Qumran scrolls (Dead Sea scrolls). In these scrolls were found parts of three Deuterocanonical texts giving the impression that there was very little distinction between a closed canon and all other texts. They note that both “scriptural” texts and secular texts are included together, with no apparent distinction.

They also dispel any notion that Jews in Jerusalem had a different canon than Jews elsewhere. “The thesis that the Jews in Alexandria had a different theory of inspiration from the theory shared by the Jews in Jerusalem is gratuitous” [p 1041]

I add that most scholars have extreme doubts that Paul wrote all of the epistles attributed to him. He did not write 2 Thess., Peter almost certainly did not write 2 Peter. The point is that if you adopt the criteria you do, you will have to re-think very seriously your notion of what constitutes scripture.

Further, Geoff is quite right. You have no basis for adopting a closed canon if being inspired by the Holy Ghost is the standard. Indeed, if being inspired is the key to constituting scripture then the inspiration you claim to have received is also scripture — and I am sure you consider that blasmphemous.

In addition to Jacob’s points and questions, I wanted to ask you about this odd statement you just made:

A book, inspired of the Holy Spirit, is what makes it canonical. I don’t care what church councils ultimately decide or not. Some early church fathers and latter church councils were screwed up. Some are today. I don’t think the Church is the final mother for deciding what is canonical. The Holy Spirit is the determining Person.

So you are saying that any book inspired of the Holy Spirit is not only scripture but is in fact canonical scripture… Did you really mean to say that? Does this mean that you think that there has not been any book inspired by the Holy Spirit in basically 2000 years? And since you believe the canon is closed, doesn’t it mean that you believe that there cannot be any book inspired by the Holy Spirit ever again? (If there were a book or epistle inspired by the Holy Spirit it would be canonical according to your statement after all.)

Further, you claimed that the Holy Spirit is the person who decided what would be canonized in the Bible and no one else… how then do you you know the canon is closed? Couldn’t the Holy Spirit decide to add to the canon any time if He is the person who makes such decisions?

Indeed, you are a man of many tangents. I will be disciplined and refrain from engaging those tangents while the topic at hand is still unresolved. In #33 you made the following statement:

For me to believe in a closed heaven? Not true. Closed canon? Yes.

Geoff started pressing you on this statement and I want to jump in on the same riff. You offer the scripture in Timothy as support:

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

Firstly, how can you possibly justify using this scripture as a proof text for the sufficiency of the Bible? It is obvious from you #37 that you know full well that the Bible didn’t even exist at the time this statement was made. These verses haven’t prevented you from accepting books of the Bible written after 2 Timothy, so they don’t even support a closed canon in your own view of the canon.

Secondly, and more importantly, these verses are in strong tension with your point. The statement “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” is a statement that affirms the openess of the canon. Should we not conclude from this that words inspired by God should be considered “scripture.”

(By the way, we have a scripture about that: “And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation” (D&C 68:4).)

If God continues to speak from heaven (the open heavens you support) then how can you conclude that the canon is closed? Are God’s words today less useful? less authoritative? less binding? less canonical? This is the fundamental question you have not answered. In Timothy it says “all” scripture is profitable, but it seems you are not willing to give God’s revelations today the status of “scripture.” Why not?

The O.T. canon
In regards to the OT, I could give you all kinds of info on how the Jewish community looked at the Law, Prophets, and Writings; the early church at the Masoretic Text and Septuagint (the Torah, former prophets, latter prophets, the Kethubim or Hagiographa, the wisdom section, the rolls or Megilloth, and the historical books); the reformers; and even some modern day Protestants on accepting the 39 canonical books of the O.T.

Yes, the Septuagint contained the Apocrypha, as well as the 1611 King James Version, but I find it remarkable that the New Testament writers frequently quote or allude to the 39 O.T. books. The N.T. authors believed these books to be inspired. A book, inspired of the Holy Spirit, is what makes it canonical. I don’t care what church councils ultimately decide or not. Some early church fathers and latter church councils were screwed up. Some are today. I don’t think the Church is the final mother for deciding what is canonical. The Holy Spirit is the determining Person.

Some in past history would contend that a book like Ezekiel ought to be included in the Antilegomeno, I would hotly contest “No”. The Spirit of God has been teaching me unbelievable things in that book. (Sidenote – I find it interesting that latter-day texts quote the Bible over and over, but there is only silence where the Bible should have been quoting Alma. Why is it that Alma and Nephi knew John the Baptist by name and not the historical Ezekiel or Jeremiah, etc.?).

Yet I will admit this about the Apocrypha. Though I don’t believe the Apocryphal books to be of inspired content, they have been helpful to me, especially 1 and 2 Maccabees, when I provided exposition of Daniel 11 to my church family.

The N.T. canon

After having been born again by the Spirit of God, the 27 books of the N.T. in further progressive revelation, as well as the 39 from the Old came alive for me. I don’t always understand nor trust perfectly, but I recognize what pointed the way to my spiritual life.

Geoff, do you have Millet’s book, Getting At The Truth (Deseret, 2004)? I had to chuckle when I read Millet’s initial opening of his answer to the question: How can the Latter-day Saints justify having additional books of scriptures? He wrote, “In a seminar on biblical studies I attended at an eastern university years ago, the instructor emphasized for at least two hours that the word canon—referring, of course, to the biblical books that are generally included in the Judaeo-Christian collection – was the “rule of faith,” the standard against which we measure what is acceptable in belief and practice. He also stated that the canon, if the word meant anything at all, was ‘closed, fixed, set, and established.’ He must have stressed those words at least ten times as he wrote them on the blackboard again and again. At the next session on this topic the instructor seemed a bit uneasy. I remember thinking that something must be wrong. Without warning, he stopped what he was doing, banged his fist on the table, turned to me, and said, “Mr. Millet, will you please explain to this group the Latter-day Saint concept of canon, given your people’s acceptance of the Book of Mormon and other books of scripture beyond the Bible?”

“Startled, I paused for several seconds, looked up at the blackboard, saw the now very familiar words under canon, and finally answered, ‘Well, I suppose you could say that the Latter-day Saints believe the canon of scripture is open, flexible, and expanding.’ The class then had a really fascinating discussion!” (87-88).

He inserts later, “Occasionally we hear certain Latter-day Saint teachings described as unbiblical or a particular doctrine as being contradictory to the Bible. Let’s be clear on this matter. The Bible is one of the books within our standard works, and thus our doctrines and practices within our standard works, and thus our doctrines and practices are in harmony with the Bible. There are times, of course, when latter-day revelation provides clarification or enhancement of the intended meaning in the Bible. Additions to the canon is not, however, the same as rejection of the canon. Supplementation is not the same as contradiction” (90).

Millet’s statement is true in regards to the amazing unity between the Old and New Testaments. But is this an accurate statement in regards to latter-day texts? Then why is Joseph Smith crossing out statements in the biblical text so there is no contradiction?

Perhaps, Geoff, I might appear very subjective in my rambling answer to you. I really haven’t given you any of my rational lists for (#1) recognizing the canon (Is it authoritative? Prophetic? Authentic? Dynamic? Received by other people of God? Etc. In the N.T., did it have the witness of Christ or the apostles? Etc.) and (#2) why it is closed (other than the words themselves like in II Timothy claim sufficiency for what I need to know now. And even through the trials of this life, I can be brought to a position where I am perfect, entire, lacking nothing. Where I need wisdom, I just ask God. And He has given it to me repeatedly and will continue to do so without having to violate His already written, inspired canon. I trust that God has given me everything that I need to know for my life on this earth. And while I have been studying for years the canonical books, I feel like I am still on the first page in what there is to know within the holy writ.)

I believe that the Holy Spirit carried men along in writing inspired books. The Spirit testifies to me of their trustworthiness, the sixty-six books, as I continue to pour all my mental acuity into them. Supernaturally, I find myself being sanctified, changed by the Word. No other books do this for me. In my voracious reading of Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha and other religious books, none even come close to the inspired content of the canon.

So one more thing and I will shut up. You asked for a definition of “inscripturation.” I laughed at my word choice. Perhaps the word is an evangelical invention. I don’t know who is the original source. I was simply thinking of the process, where words put on paper are both divine and human. It is amazing to think about it.