New revelations????

[Guest shiloh357]

Maybe I missed it -

But was it ever posted exactly which Scripture(s) show us that there is nothing more of God to be revealed to us? Or that "the Canon" is closed?

No one said that there as nothing more of to be revealed to us. Just that it won't be revealed on this side of eternity. That the canon is closed is strongly evidenced by the fact that no new "revelation" of God has come to us in the last 2,000 years.

What would be the criterion for how any further revelation would be judged?

[nebula]

But if John wrote his Gospel after Revelation, then all your argument shows is literary manipulation of ordering the books - not a completion of God revealing Himself.

There is no claim to inspiration or divine direction as far as the order the books of Scripture appear. Paul's epistles are ordered from longest to shortest. They are followed by Hebrews and the general epsitles and finally by Revelation. They are not presented in the order that they were written. In fact, the order in which they are written is not even relevant to the issue of whether or not there is continued revelation

I thought you said Revelation was the finality of all that God has to reveal to us about Himself? If so, how could something within Scripture be written after that finality?

Here's the thing. The Bible, from Genesis to Revelation is a system of progressive revelation. What is revealed about God in Exodus is built upon the foundation laid in Genesis, then Leviticus and so on, through the prophets and then to the apostles. There is a forwards and backwards corroboration between them and an interlocking and cross fertilization of themes and topics. It is a layered progression, but also an interlocking web revelation about God, His nature and operations. It is both a looking forward and looking back. It is actually very complicated and sophisticated and speaks to the divine origin of the text.

Two non-related thoughts come to my mind:

1. How does this not contradict what you said above: "There is no claim to inspiration or divine direction as far as the order the books of Scripture appear." (Shiloh, you are confusing me! )

2. Really? When you have time, do you suppose you could do a study that demonstrates or outlines this progressive revelation from book to book? That sound like it would be fascinating.

So, when someone claims to have "revelation" from God that is not in the Bible, cannot be corroborated with how Scripture depicts God's nature and operations, it is not revelation from the Holy Spirit. From that perspective it is not even illumination.

Ok, but where did the "cannot be corroborated with how Scripture depicts God's nature and operations" addition come into the picture? What if someone presents something about God that completely makes sense when compared with what is written in Scripture?

The NT "Canon" was based on agreement with the Jewish Scriptures (Torah, Tanuk(?), etc.) and then to each other.

But that doesn't answer the question. If someone claims to have revelation directly from God that cannot be found in Scripture, what standard would you use to determine its authenticity?? I mean if there is nothing in either the old or new testaments to support it, but someone claims it is from God, how do you test it?

The same way any other book of the NT was determined it fits?

So what disqualifies men under the anointing of the Holy Spirit penning words from being considered revelatory words of the Lord, same as when the prophets wrote and the Apostles wrote?

I think I answered that one in dealing with the layred and interlocking nature of the revelation of Scripture. It is not enough to merely make the claim that one is writing under the inspiration of scripture. There are extensive tests in place to challenge the authenticity of such a claim.

For one thing there is the inerrancy issue. The Lord does not inspire error. So at the very start, if any error is found in the substance and theology, then it would have to be discarded out of hand. That is a big one.

But what if you could not find error? What if everything about it makes sense in comparison with the rest of Scripture?

[nebula]

Maybe I missed it -

But was it ever posted exactly which Scripture(s) show us that there is nothing more of God to be revealed to us? Or that "the Canon" is closed?

No one said that there as nothing more of to be revealed to us. Just that it won't be revealed on this side of eternity.

So there is no Scripture to back this claim that is being treated as if the Lord said He would cease revealing Himself to us?

That the canon is closed is strongly evidenced by the fact that no new "revelation" of God has come to us in the last 2,000 years.

I asked this already but is "the Canon" a Scriptural concept on Scripture?

~~~

At a prayer group meeting, one man shared about a previous time of prayer, he asked the Lord something like: Is there something about You that we don't know?

The answer he got was something like (I say that because I'm not that great with direct quotes): "I have made sin to be wings that take you to Me." At first, I know that sounds all wrong, but what it means is that when we sin, if we take it to God (rather than hiding from Him or covering it up), we will draw closer to Him.

As I considered what it is like when I kneel before God with my sin and leave myself to His mercy, it is as if He puts His arm around me and holds me close, and I feel His love in a way I don't when I'm not broken.

Hearing that word helped encourage me to not be afraid of God with my habitual sin that is so hard to overcome.

What would be the criterion for how any further revelation would be judged?

The fruit.

Is it in harmony with the rest of Scripture?

Stuff like that.

[Guest shiloh357]

Anytime someone shares something new about God's love, I take this as a revelation. Why? Because with all the words written in Scripture, we are still so clueless about it.

I understand that. But that's not "revelation." It might "revelation in a purely subjective and personal sense as that is a valid use of the term, but biblical terms, it is not revelation. You are gainging illumination, the eyes of your heart are being englightened.

The evidence is in how we Christians treat each other and how we do or do not relate to God. As many times as I've read and studied the Bible, I still struggle with depression. If "the Canon" is enough, that shouldn't happen. Goodness, it was revealed/enlightened/whatever-word-you-want-to-call-it to me that the image/perception of God we in our society have looks more like Zeus than the LORD through one or two members of this Board. (That may not be revelation to you, but it was to me - in fact, I would consider "revelation" anything that helps me see and understand what my "image" of God is supposed to look like. Obviously, by just reading the Scriptures, I am not getting it.)

Revelation in a personal sense is one thing. I am using a more objective application of the term as it is demonstrated in Scripture pertaining to the knowledge of God. revealed to corporate humanity.

Seeing the end of God's plan is not seeing the finality of God's character.

I didn't say it was. I was simply showing why placing it at the end of the order of books makes sense.

I thought you said Revelation was the finality of all that God has to reveal to us about Himself?

No, I said that Jesus is the full and final revelation of God in terms of God's personage, his attributes, nature and operations. I simply asked you if you got any sense of finality in the book of revelation. That comment was tied to the issue of the canon, not the issue of God's revelation of Himself.

How does this not contradict what you said above: "There is no claim to inspiration or divine direction as far as the order the books of Scripture appear." (Shiloh, you are confusing me! )

Progressive revelation has nothing directly to do with the chronological order of the books. Rather it is like this: Moses had more light than Adam or Noah or Abraham, the prophets had more light revealed to them than did Moses, or David; The apostles had more light revealed to them than did the prophets. Generally, the writings of Scripture in both Old and New Testaments are not in chronological order but they in the overal order of when they were penned. The order in which the books are placed is not "inspired." Neither are the chapter and verse divisions.

Really? When you have time, do you suppose you could do a study that demonstrates or outlines this progressive revelation from book to book? That sound like it would be fascinating.

Sure!

Ok, but where did the "cannot be corroborated with how Scripture depicts God's nature and operations" addition come into the picture? What if someone presents something about God that completely makes sense when compared with what is written in Scripture?

If someone is claiming to have "revelation" about God, they have opened themselves up to some pretty heavy scrutiny. Revelation comes from God, and as such is not merely spiritual insight. They are claiming that this information comes directly from God to them through no intermediary source. So they are erecting a claim that this information is of divine origin. That also opens such a person up to having to demonstrate the inerrancy of their "revelation" since they are claiming it to be of divine origin. Honestly, that opens up a whole can of worms. More than one person has been led astray by someone claiming to have direct revelation from God. I would be VERY leary of anyone who makes such claims.

The same way any other book of the NT was determined it fits?

Have you studied that process??

But what if you could not find error? What if everything about it makes sense in comparison with the rest of Scripture?

According to who? What if it makes perfect sense to a Baptist and how they look at Scripture, but goes agaisnt how a Pentacostal or Methodist looks at Scripture? Simply "making sense" is not a reliable method for determining inerrancy.

[Guest shiloh357]

So there is no Scripture to back this claim that is being treated as if the Lord said He would cease revealing Himself to us?

No, but such can be demonstrated.

That the canon is closed is strongly evidenced by the fact that no new "revelation" of God has come to us in the last 2,000 years.

I asked this already but is "the Canon" a Scriptural concept on Scripture?

When Jesus referred to the Old Testament, he referred to the Law the Prophets and the Writings. There were other "books of the Bible" like he Pseudopigrapha and Apocryphal writings already in existence, but Jesus limited what He called Scripture to the 39 books of the Old Testament. The concept of a scriptural "canon" was already in use in Jesus' day and He seemed not to have a problem with it.

Not only that, but the books that are canonical show evidence of inspriation no other document in history can show.

~~~

At a prayer group meeting, one man shared about a previous time of prayer, he asked the Lord something like: Is there something about You that we don't know?

The answer he got was something like (I say that because I'm not that great with direct quotes): "I have made sin to be wings that take you to Me." At first, I know that sounds all wrong, but what it means is that when we sin, if we take it to God (rather than hiding from Him or covering it up), we will draw closer to Him.

As I considered what it is like when I kneel before God with my sin and leave myself to His mercy, it is as if He puts His arm around me and holds me close, and I feel His love in a way I don't when I'm not broken.

Hearing that word helped encourage me to not be afraid of God with my habitual sin that is so hard to overcome.

That's great, but it is not "revelation" in the sense that we are talking about here. There is much to learn about God in what He as already revealed and we are still mining that information. What is personally revelatory to you is one thing, but that is not the objective theological concept of revelation that I am addressig.

What would be the criterion for how any further revelation would be judged?

The fruit.

Is it in harmony with the rest of Scripture?

Stuff like that.

I am not sure you understand just how complex Scripure is. Just because it sounds like Scripture and seems to harmonize with it doesn't make it inspired or revelation. The complexity of biblical revelation and theology is both layred and interlocking and anything one claims as revelation has fit in that and that requires a complexity that modern "revelation" can't match.

[GoldenEagle]

I'm not sure about the intent (motivation) of those on the thread but I'd like to remind us all of a few things.

The first thing is Worthy is first a ministry that just happens to have a discussion forum. The second is that disrespect towards God's Word will not be allowed.

From the Worthy SoF (Statement of Faith)

We believe that the 66 books of the Canon, from Genesis to Revelation are the exhaustive, inerrant and inspired word of God.

From the WCF ToS (Terms of Service)

You may not post any material that is disrespectful of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the Bible.

Please proceed with caution.

God bless,

GE

[OneLight]

This thread is a concern to me. First, if the argument is about the scripture still being open, than what do you all believe is worthy to be called His words besides scripture? Many writings have already been rejected. They were rejected because the writings did not line up with scripture. Is there something that you believe lines up with scripture written today?

If nothing written by any Christian lines up with Scripture, what are we listening to and reading works by theologians, pastors, and teachers for?

One thing for sure, they are not scripture. They are their words of what they feel scripture means. Some people spend far too much time reading other mans understand and not enough time in scripture. They place mans teachings on the same par as scripture, if not above scripture. This is when false doctrine appears and are defended.

[OneLight]

As I read through this thread, I have to agree with both sides. Before I am tared and feathered, let me explain.

To the new in Christ, He is revealed to them, therefore, the word revelation is used in scripture. To those who already know Him and His words, there is no new revelation, but illumination of what we already have, His words.

Dreams and Visions never go against what is already revealed in scripture, or it would not be of God. These may need illumination from scripture, what had already been revealed to us, but this would not be a new revelation.

Some gifts are used to reveal a persons life to them, not a new scripture.

The words reveal and illuminate are exchangeable in some instances, and we need to be careful which we use so confusion does not take hold.

[Sevenseas]

I was thinking about this thread last night and I thought of Jesus asking Peter who Peter thought He was...

Happened like this (from Matthew 16)

Peter’s Confession of Christ

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ,^b the Son of the living God.”

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,^c and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades^d will not overcome it.^e 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be^f bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be^g loosed in heaven.” 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

I understand Peter's response to be a 'revelation' of WHO Jesus really is (was in the historical context of the script) and Jesus' response,

telling Peter that flesh and blood had not revealed this TRUTH to him, but rather by God (via His Holy Spirit since God obviously

was not there or I guess the scripture would say so )

So, we have a revelation BUT that truth was illumined by the Holy Spirit

In the vernacular: Peter had an AHA moment brought to him by the Holy Spirit...we have a revelation and an illumination

Yes? No? Well I thought so anyway

ps...let's not get into the keys of heaven in this thread, K?

[Sevenseas]

Some things I agree with posted on this particular page of the thread:

From the Worthy SoF (Statement of Faith)

We believe that the 66 books of the Canon, from Genesis to Revelation are the exhaustive, inerrant and inspired word of God.

Dreams and Visions never go against what is already revealed in scripture, or it would not be of God. These may need illumination from scripture, what had already been revealed to us, but this would not be a new revelation.

Some gifts are used to reveal a persons life to them, not a new scripture.

The words reveal and illuminate are exchangeable in some instances, and we need to be careful which we use so confusion does not take hold.

Dreams, Visions, Prophecy will never take place of the Written Word, will never ADD to the Written Word as new Doctrine or things to follow.