The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Is all revelation found in scripture

Hi

I have been doing a study of revelation from God not found in scripture, alluded to in scripture.

Here are some verses for discussion:

1 Samuel 10:10-11
10 And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them.
11 And it came to pass, when all that knew him beforetime saw that, behold, he prophesied among the prophets, then the people said one to another, What is this that is come unto the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?

1 Samuel 19:24 And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?

2 Chronicles 9:29-30
29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?
30 And Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel forty years.

2 Chronicles 18:7
7. And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, by whom we may inquire of the Lord: but I hate him; for he never prophesied good unto me, but always evil: the same is Micaiah the son of Imla. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so.

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.

1 Timothy 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;

2 Corinthians 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Revelation 10:3-4
3 And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices.
4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.



I notice that some people argue that God no longer gives revelation by saying that if there is modern revelation, it must be added to the canon, and the canon is closed. If past revelation was not all included in the canon, why would modern revelation have to be included in it?

My first reaction to your question would be "what kind of modern revelation are you talking about?" What purpose will it serve?

From the beginning God has revealed himself in two ways. Through His creation and through His Word. Now that we have the completed canon of Scripture what else do we need other than the Holy Spirit to teach us from it?

I like the way the Westminster Confession makes a statement which summarizes this topic.

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]

12. II Tim. 3:16-17; Gal. 1:8-9; II Thess. 2:2
13. John 6:45; I Cor. 2:12, 14-15; Eph. 1:18; II Cor. 4:6
14. I Cor. 11:13-14; 14:26, 40


Wes

Wes wrote,
>>From the beginning God has revealed himself in two ways. Through His creation and through His Word. Now that we have the completed canon of Scripture what else do we need other than the Holy Spirit to teach us from it?
<<

Can you show me this teaching in scripture?

What kind of revelations do I have in mind? The word 'revelation' is used in a pretty broad sense in scripture. Christ's identity as the Christ the Son of God was 'revealed' to Peter by the Father. Paul prayed for the Ephesians to have the Spirit of revelation.

Also, there are smaller revelations, things that are not necessarily doctrinal in nature. Agabus predicted a then future famine, for example.

Scripture teaches that prophecy is one of the gifts of the Spirit.

What does it mean exactly by saying that nothing may be added to the Scripture in regards to "new revelations of the Spirit"? Is this saying that if God does speak that we need to make sure He doesn't contradict the Bible before we accept it as His voice even if we know it to be His voice?

I think that the meaning of that section of the WCF is self-evident. Since the subject is the written Word of God, aka: Scripture, the writers were teaching that nothing can be added in anyway to God's inspired written Word.

Secondly, God does NOT "speak" outside of the Scriptures, which the Holy Spirit Himself authored through the instrumentality of specific chosen men. (2Pet 1:19-21) And that written word is complete... totally sufficient as God's revelation to man for all matters of faith and practice. (2Tim 3:16, 17)

For a more thorough dealing with this subject see here: Does God Speak Apart From the Bible?

In His grace,

Thank you <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

We don't really need a quote from Scripture to support the obvious? You don't need the Scriptures to know that creation reveals the handiwork of the Creator The Bible tells us who that Creator is.

Paul tells us in Romans 1:20-21 that the invisible God is revealed through the medium of creation. This revelation is manifest; it is not obscured but clearly seen by all. The unbeliever may reject this but it is none the less how God has revealed himself. In Christian circles this is called the general revelation of God.

The special revelation of God is given to us in the Bible. Without this man would walk in darkness. Here God reveals himself through His Son and through His dealings with His people. The Bible itself teaches its divine origin and authority:

That "No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophets’ own interpretation." 2 Peter 1:20

That all Scripture was written as "Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:21

That "God Spoke . . . through the prophets . . . and by His Son." Hebrews 1:1-2

That "All Scripture is God-breathed." 2 Timothy 3:16

The Word of God, once given and written, is exact in all details down to each letter and stroke of the pen. Matthew 5:18

That "The Scripture cannot be broken." John 10:35

That "The Word of the Lord stands forever." 1 Peter 1:25

The Doctrine of Revelation by John Stevenson



I'm not seeing your point in these statements. Are you trying to prove supernatural revelations are happening independent from Scripture today. What's the purpose?


Wes

Honestly, I do not care that much about the Westminster confession says. I do not consider it to be scripture, and some of it may be 'tradition of men.' If the Westminster confession is not revelation, why should we base doctrine on it?

What I see in scripture is that terms like 'reveal' and 'revelation' seem to be used in a general sense. The understanding that God gave Peter, individually, that Christ was the Son of God was _revealed_ to him. When God brings supernatural understanding of spiritual things, that is revelation. The Father reveals the Son to certain people. No man has seen God and lived, but the Son has revealed Him. Paul prayed for the church to have the Spirit of revelation. From the terminology of scripture, I see 'revelation' as an ongoing thing, something that occurs when people receive grace to believe in Christ.

Pilgrim wrote,
>>Secondly, God does NOT "speak" outside of the Scriptures, which the Holy Spirit Himself authored through the instrumentality of specific chosen men. (2Pet 1:19-21) And that written word is complete... totally sufficient as God's revelation to man for all matters of faith and practice. (2Tim 3:16, 17)<<

Pilgrim, you contradict scripture when you say that God does not speak outside the scriptures. In the Old Testament, God spoke outside the scriptures many times, as evidenced by the scriptures in the initial post. The New Testament shows that God gives gifts like prophecy, the word of knowledge, and the word of prophecy to believers in the church. Furthermore it COMMANDS believers to covet to prophesy. This is the teaching of the New Testament.

II Timothy 3:16-17 does not teach that God only speaks through the scriptures. This should be obvious as scripture was written after this verse was completed. If God had stopped speaking at this point, then many other books of scripture would not be inspired. Paul wrote that scripture was given so that the man of God might be fully equipped to every good work. He did not say that scripture alone equips a man for every good work. This is an important distinction. I could say the US Army gives a soldier a gun 'so that he might be fully equipped' to fight in battle. But that does not mean that the man needs no other equipment, like bullets, a helmet, a jacket, or underpants.

Also, it makes no sense to say that a copy of the scriptures is all a man needs to do every good work. We also need the things the scriptures talk about. What if someone has the scriptures and no grace, or what if he has the scriptures and does not have the Spirit or faith or love? We need not only a copy of the scriptures, but also the things the scriptures speak about.

And if the scriptures were all Timothy needed, why would he have also needed the specific prophecies about his life, so that by them, he might fight a good warfare? Those prophecies were never recorded in the scriptures.

Since the Bible teaches that God speaks outside of scripture, through prophecies, dreams, etc., and does not say that He has stopped, then shouldn't we believe the scriptures on this issue?

The article "DOES GOD SPEAK TODAY APART FROM THE BIBLE?© R. Fowler White" goes off on a rabbit trail and does give any Biblical answers for the question in its title.

White starts off addressing the issue, raising the fact that Charsiamtics believe that God speaks apart from the Bible. But then he goes off on a tangent, arguing against the specific interpretations of Deere and Grundem in regard to whether modern prophecies should be considered infallible and how they are judged. Then, without arguing his case from scripture, he states his own belief that God does not speak apart from the Bible.

The author also writes as if the idea that God speaks outside of the Bible were a new idea. It is clear if we read early church writings that many people in the early church had experience with prophecy and/or believed it continued on into their time. For example, Justin argued in his _Dialogue with Trypho_ that prophecy had left the Jews and was among the Christians. Ireneaus wrote of prophecy, foreknowledge, miracles, healing, and various other supernatural manifestations among the brethren in his own days. (_Against Heresies_ quoted in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History.) Cessationism is the innovative, doctrine in the church that was not held by the earliest Christians.

Wes wrote,
>>Now that we have the completed canon of Scripture what else do we need other than the Holy Spirit to teach us from it?
<<

This is the part, specifically, that I wanted you to show me scripture for. What I see is that the Bible teaches us that the Holy Spirit speaks apart from scripture.

Nobody implied that the Westminster Confession is equal to Scripture. However, the Westminster Confession is nothing apart from Scripture. It focuses on the key truths of Scripture and provides clear focus on what the Scriptures teach. To make a statement that you don't care much what it says is a foolish remark. Every question and answer is drawn from Scripture and the biblical texts are there for you to proof check.

The Westminster Confession is a teaching instrument based on the truths of Scripture.



Link,

It would be better to say that the Holy Spirit opens our minds to the Scriptures rather than say He speaks apart from Scripture. In John 16 Jesus specifically describes this work.

John 16:12-15

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you."

Jesus promises another Helper to His followers (John 14:17). The work of the Spirit is to glorify Jesus Christ by showing His disciples who He is. The Spriit enlightens (Eph. 1:17,18), regenerates (John 3:5-8), sanctifies (Gal. 5:16-18), and transforms (2 Cor. 3;18; Gal. 5:22,23). He gives God's people what they need to serve Him (I Cor. 12:4-11).


Wes

Thanks for making a case against yourself, for indeed, "I do not care that much about what "Link" says. I do not consider him to be an infallible source of truth. Indeed, the fact is that he is nothing more than the tradition of one man, himself, and not divine revelation. Thus why should anyone believe anything he has to say?

If there are new revelations from God apart from the Bible, then they of necessity have to be inerrant and infallible, for when God speaks, He speaks only truth. Secondly, if it were true that God has continued to reveal Himself beyond the Canon of His inspired written Word, then it of necessity, obligates all men to extol it, to hear it and render obedience to it. Thirdly, if one claims to be the mouthpiece of God and speaks a word which is later shown to be contrary to what God has already revealed, then this "prophet" as you would call him/her is a false prophet and should be cast out of the Church for he/she is worthy of death.

Deuteronomy 18:20-22 "But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

Jeremiah 28:15-16 "Then said the prophet Jeremiah unto Hananiah the prophet, Hear now, Hananiah; The LORD hath not sent thee; but thou makest this people to trust in a lie. Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will cast thee from off the face of the earth: this year thou shalt die, because thou hast taught rebellion against the LORD."

Timothy was ordained a preacher/teacher of the written Word of God, not the exclaimer of new revelations. It was by the Scriptures that Timothy was raised and from which he was to preach doctrine. (cf. 2Tim 3:14, 15; 4:2, 3) In fact all those who are ordained to the office of Elder are to teach sound doctrine derived from the Scriptures alone. (cf. Titus 1:9; 2:1) Those who pervert and/or add to or subtract from the divinely inspired inerrant and infallible written Word of God do so to their own destruction. (cf. 2Pet 3:16; 2Jh 1:9, 10; Rev 22:18, 19)

In His grace,

This conversation reminds me of a story I heard about Steve Camp. It goes something like this:

At one of his concerts, a man stood up and yelled, "Hey Steve, God's given me a word for you."

Steve hollers back, "And what verse would that be?"

The guy says, "no, God gave me a word of revelation to give to you."

Steve answers, "OK, well then you better give it to me but let me make one thing clear, if it doesn't completely agree with God's revealed Word, then we're all going to have to take you outside and stone you to death."

To which the guy replied, "Maybe it was just an impression. . ."

That's a good example Kim.<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/applause.gif" alt="" />


Wes

Wes and Pilgrim

It appears I touched a sacred cow when I said I was not concerned with the Westminster confession. It is only valid to the extent it teaches what the scriptures teach. And Pilgrim, if what I say is supported by scripture, then of course you should be concerned with what I say.

I asked a question about an issue in scripture, and got a quote from the Westminster confession, so that is why I said what I did.

I would like to redirect the conversation here. The Bible tells us that Jesus would send forth prophets, and says that the Spirit gives the gift of prophecy to some in the church. The Spirit also gives gifts like working of miracles, healing, words of knowledge, and words of wisdom. This is what I see in the Bible. Why is this not considered valid, if it is in the Bible? Where is the verse of scripture that says that when the canon was completed these things would cease? And why did they continue after Revelation was written in church history? Why do some early church documents refer to these things occuring?

And why didn't the early church believe in cessationism?

Tolle lege, Tolle lege.

It seems clear now that you are embracing the false teachings associated with the Charismatic movement. The manifestation of the gifts you are refering to above were present and active during the New Testament era and were used to demonstrate the authority that was given to the Apostles during the Apostolic age. They were part of the credentials of the Apostles as the authoritative agents of God in founding the church. Their function thus confined them to distinctively the Apostolic Church, and they necessarily passed away with it.

The Cessation of the Charismata

There seems to be a clear connection with miracles and revelation.



Wes