Jude 14 & 15

[Highlyfavored]

In Jude 14 &15, Jude says:



Jude 1:14 It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads,
Jude 1:15 to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."


Jude seems to be quoting from what the Protestants would consider to be the non-canonical book of Enoch:

Enoch 1:9 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”

If you have been on this forum any length of time, you know that a fair number of us here consider the book of James to be non-canonical.

My questions to you, if you accept the Book of James to be canonical, are:

If Jude is quoting from the non-canonical book Enoch and treating it as Scripture, why do you accept Jude as authoritative?

Can you find any Scripture in the 66 books that speaks of a doctrine about what is or is not canon?

If not, then you must realize that in the belief that the 66 books are the canon, it is you who actually has determined what the canon is. No matter why you believe the 66 books to be inspired, without a clear biblical doctrine on what is canon, how could you have an issue with any who determine that James - or for that matter any other book - should not be part of the canon?

Doesn’t all this beg the questions:

1. Why does one accept the 66 book canon?
2. Why do you?
3. What is it that determines the canon for you?
4. Could the men who said the 66 books are the canon be wrong?
5. Who were they and what did they believe?
6. Would God have included any non-canonical books within the 66 books?
7. If yes, why?
8. If no, why not?

I’m sure there are even more I haven't yet thought of. Please include any new ones if you like.

Many of us on this forum know why we believe the canon should not include James.
We know why we accept the books we do as canon.
We know why and what determines the canon.
We do believe that most, if not all, of the men who were eventually responsible for delivering the 66 books to us, probably did not believe the Gospel.

[trav]

I've yet to see an argument for the 66 book canon that is convincing. The majority of those with whom I associate (99.9%) that hold to the 66 book canon do so because their creeds, confessions, and theological idols held and hold to it, "if John Calvin believed and taught it it has to be true!". Whatever. The problem is that we are surrounded by a bunch of people that have no desire, nor the courage to study or think for themselves. In addition to this, they've elevated a belief in the 66 book canon to a level higher than the true Gospel, "if you don't believe in the 66 book canon you can't really be a true believer". What a bunch of crap! When I stand before God the only reason I am loved and accepted by Him is because of Jesus Christ. What Christ did for me is what saved me, not whether or not I believed James was part of the "inspired canon". "Therefore, since we have been justified, by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ".

[Robert R. Higby]

On the question of Jude, I personally do not have a problem with a non-canonical source (1 Enoch) being quoted. We could go into different NT passages where other such sources are quoted.

The short answers to the questions (which we have covered before):

Doesn’t all this beg the questions:

1. Why does one accept the 66 book canon? Tradition.
2. Why do you? I don't.
3. What is it that determines the canon for you? Scripture is determined by whether the teaching in some manner bears witness to the true gospel (without false teaching) in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is not necessary that ALL elect believers identify ALL details (chapter, verse, author, translation, interpretation) as to what is canon, as long as agreement is reached on the critical core of books that constitute scripture and testify to the gospel.
4. Could the men who said the 66 books are the canon be wrong? Yes.
5. Who were they and what did they believe? Athanasius (the 27 NT books), Calvin (the 66) were the originators. I will not go into all their beliefs right now. Calvin did not teach a consistent view of the canon; the French Confession affirmed the 66 (the first confession to do so) but Calvin doubted Revelation, 2 and 3 John, and Peter as the author of II Peter.
6. Would God have included any non-canonical books within the 66 books? Yes. The fact that the proposed 66 book canon exists was/is history predestined of God so if it contains non-scripture God purposed it to be so.
7. If yes, why? To test His elect. God rarely delivers any of His gifts in a neat package requiring no discernment. Biblical revelation is no different. In addition, God sends a strong delusion on every anti-gospel teacher with James 2:14-26, deceiving them into thinking that their teaching is from God.
   
8. If no, why not?

[Brandan Kraft]

Well said everyone. This week has proven critical to me that you all are very special people to me. It is so helpful to me to know that you all exist and that I am not the only one who thinks this way!

[trav]

Thanks Brandan, all of you on this forum mean a lot to me also.

[GraceAmbassador]

On the question of Jude, I personally do not have a problem with a non-canonical source (1 Enoch) being quoted. We could go into different NT passages where other such sources are quoted.

The short answers to the questions (which we have covered before):

Doesn’t all this beg the questions:

1. Why does one accept the 66 book canon? Tradition.
2. Why do you? I don't.
3. What is it that determines the canon for you? Scripture is determined by whether the teaching in some manner bears witness to the true gospel (without false teaching) in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is not necessary that ALL elect believers identify ALL details (chapter, verse, author, translation, interpretation) as to what is canon, as long as agreement is reached on the critical core of books that constitute scripture and testify to the gospel.
4. Could the men who said the 66 books are the canon be wrong? Yes.
5. Who were they and what did they believe? Athanasius (the 27 NT books), Calvin (the 66) were the originators. I will not go into all their beliefs right now. Calvin did not teach a consistent view of the canon; the French Confession affirmed the 66 (the first confession to do so) but Calvin doubted Revelation, 2 and 3 John, and Peter as the author of II Peter.
6. Would God have included any non-canonical books within the 66 books? Yes. The fact that the proposed 66 book canon exists was/is history predestined of God so if it contains non-scripture God purposed it to be so.
7. If yes, why? To test His elect. God rarely delivers any of His gifts in a neat package requiring no discernment. Biblical revelation is no different. In addition, God sends a strong delusion on every anti-gospel teacher with James 2:14-26, deceiving them into thinking that their teaching is from God.
   
8. If no, why not?

These seven answers are the same kind of answers I provide. Protestantism has fallen into the same error of the Roman Catholics: We elevate our heroes of faith, such as Calvin, for example, to the same level the R.C.C. followers elevate the Pope; in the back of our deepest chambers of our mind we hold them to be "infallible when speaking de cathedra", or when speaking in matters of theology. But we know it is not so! We can differ, we can dissent and still hold these men in high regard.

Interestingly enough, I am being very open in the case of the book of James to everyone with whom I get in contact and have not found a lot of resistance. Some just pretend that they have not heard me right, others even tell me that I am right, but most of them are Presbyterians and have their devotion and allegiance to the W.C.F. In all, I have found perfect peace in God as to my position regarding the book of James; it may be a good book with a lot of moral concepts, perhaps used by God somehow to the Jews of the Diaspora who were developing some kind of "religious elite" in the Christian circle the same way that had before when they were Pharisees and needed a sharp rebuke about their indifference concerning the poor and because (as it is demonstrated in the book of Acts) a bit of social bias. Other than that, it is (for me) not an Universal Epistle, it is not Christocentric, I even think it is not Trinitarian, it teaches against empty religiosity whereas teaching the rites concerning the sick and dying of chapter 5 elevating it to a means of forgiveness of sins (where do you think the RCC took the "Last Rites" teaching?), it teaches that "the prayer of a righteous man availeth much" which in the Greek it means to have "energy" and you can't escape the logical conclusion that it teaches that prayer can change God... (Read Paul about prayer and petitions and you will see the difference). So, to me it is not only chapter 2! It is most of it, without even mentioning the fact that James teaches that God "does not tempt anyone" when both Jesus and Paul state that He does (although MANY have tried to explain this text away). But then again, I am not a theologian and have no Curriculum Vitae to defend...

Good night to all!

Milt

[gerhard]

Is there anything new in Jude that makes it worthy of being included in the canon? Much of Jude is already in books that are rejected by all denominations, or included only in the Papist canon, or repeated in another questionable NT book.

[Robert R. Higby]

Since Jude, according to the weight of historical evidence, is antilegomena, my personal conviction is that the issue of whether to affirm the epistle of Jude as plenary scripture is a matter of individual Christian liberty.

The arguments 'against' have mostly to do with the quoting of or references to non-biblical sources:

1. The quote on the final cosmic appearance of YHWH from 1 Enoch. There is also a question about whether v. 6 refers to an Enochic view of the fall of wicked angels.
2. The reference to the Assumption of Moses re: God's argument with the devil over the body of Moses.
3. The paraphrase of a quotation from the Greek poet Hesiod. We find essentially the same paraphrase in II Peter.

The arguments 'for' include the following:

1. Jude does not contain the false soteriology that is evident in James 2:14-26.
2. We have early attestation of Jude as scripture from 2nd century authors. This is not true of James, II Peter, and III John. This fact lends support to the AUTHENTICITY of Jude the brother of Christ as the true author, whereas there is genuine doubt as to whether all of the book called James was actually written by James the brother of Christ.
3. Jude is anxious to defend 'the faith once for all entrusted to the saints'. He does quote Paul specifically (v. 17-19).
4. The doxology (vs. 24-25) is reminiscent of and entirely in harmony with Pauline theology. We joyfully affirm its truths and have no trouble reading it in public worship.

It is true that the epistle of Jude is apparently not needed to complete the New Testament revelation of the gospel. Of course, that fact does not automatically discount the book as scripture in and of itself.

[Calvinator]

It is so helpful to me to know that you all exist and that I am not the only one who thinks this way!

I feel the same way, brother.