PDA

View Full Version : progressive revelation?



Nihil Obstat
Feb 12th 2011, 06:56 PM
I think I'm opposed to the thought that God progressively revealed / reveals His plan of redemption. Granted, that this redemption would come through Jesus was kept a mystery until His manifestation, but other than that, I think I'm against it. Rather, I'm thinking that what progressed was culture and history and whatnot. Even the author / compiler of the Pentateuch seems to view pre-Sinai history as if the Torah was already known. God's plan of redemption was interpreted and re-thought as history progressed, but the plan was never mysterious: sacrifice and offering was always practiced by God's people, and the promises did not become clearer as time went on. The promises always remained the same, but were understood afresh as generations came and went, recorded using speech contemporary to their time. (Hopefully I'm making sense here.) What're your thoughts on "progressive revelation"?

Nihil Obstat
Feb 12th 2011, 07:07 PM
To further clarify, I just feel that "progressive revelation" does something funny with God's eternal covenants, as if there were / are as-yet-undisclosed paragraphs or clauses that for the first time ever are read and revealed only by God's prophets. (Does that better explain my hesitation with this belief?)

divaD
Feb 12th 2011, 07:54 PM
To be honest, I'm not quite sure as of yet, where you're trying to go with this thread. Things go over my head quite a bit these days. So I'll throw this in here. Not sure if it's even related to what you're wanting to discuss.

Revelation 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

Not only does this verse not say day, but days instead, it also says when he shall begin to sound, the keywords being days and begin, then links this to when the mystery of God should be finished. So how should the mystery of God be understood? Aren't revelations revealed mysteries, more or less? So, would the above verse have anything to do with the topic at hand?

Nihil Obstat
Feb 12th 2011, 08:24 PM
To be honest, I'm not quite sure as of yet, where you're trying to go with this thread. Things go over my head quite a bit these days. So I'll throw this in here. Not sure if it's even related to what you're wanting to discuss.

Revelation 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

Not only does this verse not say day, but days instead, it also says when he shall begin to sound, the keywords being days and begin, then links this to when the mystery of God should be finished. So how should the mystery of God be understood? Aren't revelations revealed mysteries, more or less? So, would the above verse have anything to do with the topic at hand?

The above verse is about the unity of Jew and Gentile within Christ, who together make up the one seed (family) of Abraham. The angel standing on the sea (the Gentiles) and the land (the Jews) is embodying that message. He is saying that the seventh trumpet is when Christ's message is vindicated by God in the sight of all the nations. I believe the book of Revelation as a whole to be speaking of the events surrounding 70 AD.

I guess I was wondering about people's thoughts on the nature of prophecy. Were the prophets / apostles only given understanding incrementally? I don't think so, but I was wondering what others thought, and why. Instead I think that they understood God's covenant in whole, but spoke it in new ways using familiar language and thought patterns of the culture of their day.

As an example, I don't know that Ezekiel's temple was a brand new promise unknown or unthought of by his people in exile. What the prophecy was about, and the promises that it contained, were what the Torah itself promised. Even Jeremiah's new covenant has its roots in Deut. 27-30. In other words, they were prophesying according to the covenant, not things previously kept secret.

Is this helpful?

Neanias
Feb 12th 2011, 08:57 PM
Is God not a just God?

If there is revelation that is not yet given to men, God does not hold men responsible for it. Today, we should not as Christians have more than one wife, after all it says to be 'husband of one wife', and yet Jacob (and others!) had more than one wife and it was not counted against them.

1Co 14:6 Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?

1Co 14:26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.

New revelation is only scary if you don't trust God to be a fair judge or if you want to protect what you already have, in which case you will most likely lose it.

If we resist the revelation of God that comes today, we are just like the Pharisees, who accepted the past revelation but rejected it's fulfilling on basis of the old!

Neanias
Feb 12th 2011, 08:59 PM
Sorry, double post!

<><

markedward
Feb 12th 2011, 10:34 PM
I guess I was wondering about people's thoughts on the nature of prophecy. Were the prophets / apostles only given understanding incrementally?I would say no. If, for example, we go to read the Law... a lot of it was already understood, or at least people carried out a good deal of its practices, before it was formally given following the Exodus. (Just read Genesis; we find several of the "Laws" already in practice at the time of the Patriarchs.) When we read the prophets, they didn't reveal anything new, in terms of theology... there was nothing suddenly different in what they said. As an example, read through Isaiah and compare what he says back to the conditions of the Law (particularly Leviticus and Deuteronomy). He constantly repeats or alludes to passages in the Torah. Same with the other prophets. And likewise when we get to Jesus and his Apostles; they repeat things the Prophets had said (who in turn were repeating the Law). Just because they said these things in a new way, or because they elaborated and explained what was already around, doesn't mean they were getting new theology. (Another reason why I see That Doctrine as standing in blatant-contrast to Biblical teaching, but I don't mean to deviate the thread.)

When the NT authors spoke of something being a "mystery", it never meant a secret theology being finally unveiled, but that the method had finally come to be understood, or that the timing had finally come to consummation. Case in point, Paul calls it a "mystery" that the Jews and Gentiles would be united under God and his Christ [Ephesians 1.0-10; 3.3-6]... but we already knew this. The union of Jew and Gentile under God wasn't a secret theology that had the curtain pulled off by Jesus or Paul, it was a teaching stated over and over in the Old Testament, as far back as Genesis. The "mystery" is that the time for that union of Jew and Gentile under God had come to completion at the Apostles' present time. (What I say here agrees with astro's explanation of Revelation 10 above.)

Neanias
Feb 13th 2011, 02:27 PM
I'm very sorry if anyone misunderstood what I meant. I see I did say it in a way that can be misunderstood.

I'm not talking about receiving new revelation, something no one knows. Rather that what has been made available might be revealed to us personally that we might walk in the power of Christ.

Here's an example of it...

Act 8:5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.
Act 8:6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.

Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

See, the people of Samaria "received the word of God", and yet it wasn't over. They had been baptized in the name of Jesus, but they hadn't yet been baptized in the Holy Spirit. We have the same need today. We need to be filled with the Spirit, that we may walk as he walked.

In short, I'm talking about God revealing what others might already know to us so that we can walk as he walked.

BroRog
Feb 13th 2011, 06:22 PM
To further clarify, I just feel that "progressive revelation" does something funny with God's eternal covenants, as if there were / are as-yet-undisclosed paragraphs or clauses that for the first time ever are read and revealed only by God's prophets. (Does that better explain my hesitation with this belief?)

Yes, but on the other hand, why does God most often use historical narrative to teach morality rather than simply giving us a rule book? Why, for instance, is the book of Genesis laid out such that God's plans for mankind begin with an overall view and continually narrow the focus down to a single man: Abraham?