New revelations????

[Guest shiloh357]

I have friends on Facebook testifying of God revealing Himself to them through their circumstances. How is that different?

Are they claiming that God is revealing stuff about Himself that is not contained in Scripture? If so, that is a major red flag, there.

When you read Revelation, don't you get a sense of finality?

No.

When you see that God's plan is come to fruition and is complete, there is no sense of finality in that?

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

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.

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.

The NT "Canon" was based on agrement 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?

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.

[Guest shiloh357]

I would say that God isnpired the respective council of Believers to determine what was His Word and what wasn't.

The word of God is what everything must line up to.

SO,

If the Bible (GOD) doesn't say the canon is closed,

If the Bible (GOD) doesn't say no more new revelation.

If the Bible is not the source of this belief, then what is the source?

In a 'round about way, the Bible IS the source of this belief. The nature of the texts, their inerrancy, their level of inspiration, their ability to accurately predict things that could not have been known and to predict those events with amazing and intricate details that only an omniscient author could have known, the complexity of layred and interlocking themes, doctrines and information about God that no one had a point of reference for and could not have made up if they tried, all of that plays a very heavy role in demonstrating that the canon we have is so entirely unique that nothing comparable could be added to it.

What passes for "revelation" today is not near the quality of what we have in Scripture.

[firestormx]

In a 'round about way, the Bible IS the source of this belief. The nature of the texts, their inerrancy, their level of inspiration, their ability to accurately predict things that could not have been known and to predict those events with amazing and intricate details that only an omniscient author could have known, the complexity of layred and interlocking themes, doctrines and information about God that no one had a point of reference for and could not have made up if they tried, all of that plays a very heavy role in demonstrating that the canon we have is so entirely unique that nothing comparable could be added to it.

What passes for "revelation" today is not near the quality of what we have in Scripture.

Your answer to me sounds more like someone's understanding of the word, and not what the word says. there is a difference.

But none of that states it's closed. That the God who revealed all of scripture couldn't reveal something else. None of that says the canon is closed. I ask again. If the bible is not the source, what is? I am really beginning to think the source of this is nothing more than man's traditions and man leaning to his own understanding. But cause if it's not in the word, what else could be the source?

[allofgrace]

SO,

If the Bible (GOD) doesn't say the canon is closed,

If the Bible (GOD) doesn't say no more new revelation.

If the Bible is not the source of this belief, then what is the source?

Many have tried to show you that the scriptures do verify that the word of God is the last new revelations from God. It looks like the ball is in your court, the bible doesn't day it is open, if so, where? But the proof is in the pudding, why don't you list only one new revelation that has occurred since the Apostles died and that will be a start to prove your point.

Edited December 12, 2012 by allofgrace

[Guest shiloh357]

In a 'round about way, the Bible IS the source of this belief. The nature of the texts, their inerrancy, their level of inspiration, their ability to accurately predict things that could not have been known and to predict those events with amazing and intricate details that only an omniscient author could have known, the complexity of layred and interlocking themes, doctrines and information about God that no one had a point of reference for and could not have made up if they tried, all of that plays a very heavy role in demonstrating that the canon we have is so entirely unique that nothing comparable could be added to it.

What passes for "revelation" today is not near the quality of what we have in Scripture.

Your answer to me sounds more like someone's understanding of the word, and not what the word says. there is a difference.

But none of that states it's closed. That the God who revealed all of scripture couldn't reveal something else. None of that says the canon is closed. I ask again. If the bible is not the source, what is? I am really beginning to think the source of this is nothing more than man's traditions and man leaning to his own understanding. But cause if it's not in the word, what else could be the source?

Yeah it is based on an undersanding of the word of God and how it works. That is the problem, you simply don't understand the nature of the canon.

I find it interesting that you would reject sound answers as "man's traditions," but if someone comes up with "revelation" that they cannot verify from Scripture, you are willing to take their word that they are anointed and inspired by God. That is rather naive, and internally inconsistent to be honest.

What new revelation about God has come forth in the last 2,000 years to prompt any consideration that the canon is not complete?

[firestormx]

SO,

If the Bible (GOD) doesn't say the canon is closed,

If the Bible (GOD) doesn't say no more new revelation.

If the Bible is not the source of this belief, then what is the source?

Many have tried to show you that the scripture do verify that the word of God is the last new revelations from God. It looks like the ball is in your court, the bible doesn't day it is open, if so, where? But the proof is in the pudding, why don't you list only one new revelation that has occurred since the Apostles died and that will be a start to prove your point.

When I asked about the scriptures used, no body responded, and when someone finally did, even though they don't agree with me, they turned around and said everybody had been using them out of context. appling a meaning that isn't there. Those verses never, not one time say GOD can't add to scripture. NOT ONCE.

before I answer your question, what is the deintion of revelation you are using, once I know that, I will answer your question about a new revelation.

[firestormx]

What new revelation about God has come forth in the last 2,000 years to prompt any consideration that the canon is not complete?

So even though the bible don't say the canon is closed, since YOU haven't recieved or heard any new revelation then there can't be any?

I remember when I died. Leagelly dead, and dead long enough my brain was not active. The bible says to be absent from the body is present with the lord. That is very true. Because it's what happen to me. The things I saw were beyond words, and the scripture it's self could not contain God, not even the earth itself. People have told me here that Jesus is the full and final revelation of God to us. But you could also argue he was nothing more than A further illumination on who God is. After what I saw when I died, I know better than to say the bible contains the complete and entire fullness of God, and if he chooses to reveal that than that is his choice.

[firestormx]

I got rather upset after the last posts. I felt like I was basicly told that I have to prove a new revelation or it doesn't exsist. I am recieving comments about there is no new revelations like this , ( the entire and complete revelation of the fulness of God, heaven, hell, and every other peice of knowledge that we will or could ever learn, in this life or the next, is in the bible). Now the bible says the earht itself can't contain the fulness of God, but the bible does? There is nothing more we could ever learn about God...EVER. I don't accept that. There is nothing that says God can't reveal something about himself. Nothing.

Even though I'm pretty sure someone will say this is illumination and not revelation. Here you go. The moment in time when Christ returns is a revelation. No one but the Father at this moment knows this. It is unknown by all inculding Christ but the Father. So when that moment comes, whenever that is. It will be a revelation. The exact moment is not in scripture. Christ doesn't know when he will return by his own words. The moment Christ returns for us will be a revelation because no one knows the day or hour.

[joi]

So even though the bible don't say the canon is closed, since YOU haven't recieved or heard any new revelation then there can't be any?

I remember when I died. Leagelly dead, and dead long enough my brain was not active. The bible says to be absent from the body is present with the lord. That is very true. Because it's what happen to me. The things I saw were beyond words, and the scripture it's self could not contain God, not even the earth itself. People have told me here that Jesus is the full and final revelation of God to us. But you could also argue he was nothing more than A further illumination on who God is. After what I saw when I died, I know better than to say the bible contains the complete and entire fullness of God, and if he chooses to reveal that than that is his choice.

I tend to agree with you!

John 21:25

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

[allofgrace]

SO,

If the Bible (GOD) doesn't say the canon is closed,

If the Bible (GOD) doesn't say no more new revelation.

If the Bible is not the source of this belief, then what is the source?

Many have tried to show you that the scripture do verify that the word of God is the last new revelations from God. It looks like the ball is in your court, the bible doesn't day it is open, if so, where? But the proof is in the pudding, why don't you list only one new revelation that has occurred since the Apostles died and that will be a start to prove your point.

When I asked about the scriptures used, no body responded, and when someone finally did, even though they don't agree with me, they turned around and said everybody had been using them out of context. applying a meaning that isn't there. Those verses never, not one time say GOD can't add to scripture. NOT ONCE.

before I answer your question, what is the definition of revelation you are using, once I know that, I will answer your question about a new revelation.

New revelation is something that has not been shown in scripture before from God. You can post any since the Apostles last wrote. I have personally never heard of one.

I just read your post about Christ coming being a new revelation, you forgot to give the date and time otherwise all you have come up with is what scripture already has recorded. This is my last comment to you on this, I agree to disagree.

Edited December 13, 2012 by allofgrace