Do Jude 3 and Galatians 1 rule out the Restoration?

Jude tells believers to contend for the faith they received, and verse 4 describes people distorting grace and denying Christ. That supports guarding the apostolic message, but the verse does not itself define the canon or say God will never speak again.

You state what Jude addresses and distinguish preserving the faith from a conclusion about the limits of revelation. A closed-canon argument needs further premises and evidence.

Yes. “Once delivered” means no additional scripture or revelation can ever come.

That conclusion goes beyond Jude’s wording. The immediate concern is intruders who distort grace and deny Christ; explain why that should mean revelation itself ceased.

Paul’s warning applies even to an angel, so the messenger alone cannot validate a message. We still need to identify what Paul calls his gospel and compare the Restoration’s actual teachings with it.

You take the warning seriously while following Paul’s stated test: the message. Galatians 1 also says Paul received his gospel through revelation from Jesus Christ.

Paul was talking only about circumcision, so his warning has nothing to do with the Restoration.

The Galatian dispute matters, but Paul states a broader test in 1:8–9. Do not dismiss the warning; identify the gospel message and test the specific teaching.

That is a substantive question. Let’s compare Paul’s dispute about justification and the law in Galatians 2 and 5 with how 3 Nephi 27 describes Christ’s gospel, grace, repentance, and ordinances. Then we can name the specific teaching we think conflicts.

You neither assume that ordinances displace grace nor claim the disagreement is settled. Compare the texts and state the alleged contradiction precisely.

No, because Latter-day Saints believe in Jesus, so we have the same gospel.

Shared belief in Jesus is important but does not settle disputes about grace, justification, or ordinances. Paul’s warning calls for testing the message in detail.

No. It answers a particular objection; the Restoration’s truth and Joseph Smith’s authority still need positive evidence of their own.

Correct. Showing that an objection does not establish its conclusion is not proof of the competing claim.

Yes. If Paul and Jude do not rule it out, the Restoration must be true.

That confuses possibility with evidence. A separate case is needed for the Restoration’s historical and spiritual claims.