| Author | Message | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 278 Registered: 3-2009 |
Oops, Publix, here I come. Hec | ||
| Pegg Registered user Username: Pegg Post Number: 134 Registered: 2-2006 |
Thanks Coleen.  Yes, I love this Scripture. It speaks succinctly to how God communicates with His own in the Kingdom Age. I am hesitant to use it in the way you have, however, and let me tell you why... What does this do to the Apostle John in Revelation? Heck! What does it do to the entire New Testament after the Gospels? If this text means that Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit, communicates directly with New Covenant believers, illumining their minds (which I believe it does), it can easily be seen to support the spiritual gift of prophecy. If it means that we are to disregard new revelation about how God works that may come on the scene after Jesus Christ's spoken word, then the author (who may have been Paul) negates Paul along with all of the other NT writers. Perhaps You Can Help Me Out. Pegg | ||
| Pegg Registered user Username: Pegg Post Number: 135 Registered: 2-2006 |
Okay, this makes sense as far as it goes. This weekend I have read most of Grahame Bradford's, More Than A Prophet. This book caused quite a furor when it erupted on the SDA scene in the late 1900s. Being involved with this study of OT prophet vs NT Spiritual Gift of Prophecy, I found the first part of the book rather interesting. Although I have to admit that his treatment of OT prophets disgusts me. In the second half of the book he applies what he has said in the first half to EGW. This is much more disturbing reading. I haven't finished it and so have not reached his final conclusion. However, I do have a few comments... ...In this book I have been surprised to find an SDA agreeing with many of the arguments that us formers have with EGW. (He tends to claim these are misuses of her - by SDA, not by us.)One thing that has surprised me (and this may come as no surprise to anyone but me!) is that he is not denying the Spiritual Gift as defined by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12-14; rather, he is co-opting it and claiming BOTH OT authority and NT flexibility (by this I mean the idea that membership is charged to evaluate the message of a prophet and that neither the message or messenger have authority similar to the OT prophets) for the SDA prophetess. Pegg (Message edited by pegg on June 14, 2009) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2805 Registered: 10-2004  |
Pegg, Regarding Hebrews 1:1-2, the apostles (NT writers) were simply explaining Jesus' teachings. Also see Jude 1:3--the faith had already been handed down once for all in the first century. No "prophet" can come along centuries later with a new "faith" or new "gospel" or new "doctrine." Adventism is simply 1800 years too late! (Not to mention false.) Also, Hebrews 1:1-2 can't be used to support continuing revelation, since it says "has spoken" (past tense). The Son is the final Word. Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on June 14, 2009) | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 504 Registered: 7-2008  |
If you look closely at Heb1:1,2.... Nowhere does the verse disqualify the possibility that in the last days God wouldnt send among us more prophets to speak to us. It just says in these "last days" Christ came to speak to us. There is always the danger of reading into a passage things which arent in there. So be careful not to assume something that isnt clearly stated inthe text itself. ...Animal..let scripture speak for itself !!! | ||
| Pegg Registered user Username: Pegg Post Number: 137 Registered: 2-2006 |
Thanks for your comments Jeremy. You said: Here's what the passage says: In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universeI do think that all of the NT writers were just explaining the teachings of Jesus, but don't you think that some of their explanations required ongoing revelation? We are told that Peter had to have a vision to "get it" about offering the Gospel to Gentiles. Paul makes clear that he received tons of additional revelation. This brings us back to John in Revelation! It would be very, very hard to say that John is just expanding on what we can find in the Gospels. I'm not trying to be argumentative, Jeremy, I'm just one who needs to understand the details before accepting an idea. I like this idea very much, and would love to get rid of what I see as pesky details.
Yes, this passage is clearer: Jude 1:3-4 - Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.Here we have a warning that the Gospel that has been explained up to this time (by Jesus and the apostles) may not be tampered with. To me this appears to be a warning to test the teachers. Never, Never let anyone get away with watering-down the Gospel you have been given. Right! Jude denies the concept of "present truth". I think Jude denies any new gospel. I don't think he denies that persons will be given messages in the sense of 1 Corinthians 12-14, do you?
Do you mean "the Son has spoken the final word"? Did He speak to John on the Isle of Patmos after this? Jeremy, I think I am missing a nuance of what you are saying (or maybe a whole bunch of it!). I apologize for being slow, but would you explain further? Please? - Pegg Animal - Are you talking to me or to Jeremy? - Pegg (Message edited by pegg on June 14, 2009) | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 507 Registered: 7-2008 |
I was just making an observation..wasnt directed to anyone in particular ...Animal, your humble servant | ||
| Pegg Registered user Username: Pegg Post Number: 139 Registered: 2-2006 |
Animal - I'm not sure I get what you're implying. Pegg<confused> | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9994 Registered: 12-2003  |
John the Revelator didn't actually teach anything that wasn't revealed earlier; the difference is that John's revelation ties it all together and expands on it. John's revelation was not primarily a foretelling of the future. It is the "revelation of Jesus Christ". That is the purpose of Revelation. Jesus Himself commissioned and taught the apostles who were given the job of establishing the church and carrying the gospel to the world. The apostles' message was NOT new knowledge of salvation or of God. It was the explanation of how the new covenant worked. Paul says in Ephesians 3:9 that the grace given him by God was to preach the gospel to the gentiles and to make plain to everyone the administration of the mystery {the gospel and the inclusion of the gentiles] which had been hidden for ages past in God The Bible writers were inspired by God; the canon was closed with Revelation. Jesus did indeed speak out the final truth about salvation and God. He fulfilled all that was written about Him in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44). Just as Jesus' incarnation, death, and resurrection were one-time, non-repeatable events, so was the foundation of the church. Never again was their an establishment of the body of Christ. Jesus Himself told Peter that upon the rock of his testimony that Jesus was God, He would build His church, and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. The NT was written by the people God appointed from the foundation of the earth to record the miracle of Jesus and the mystery of the New Covenant. The apostle's work was not "new" information. Everything they wrote had been previously foreshadowed or taught, and Jesus had lived it and taught it. Hebrews 1:1-2 is contrasting Jesus with the OT prophets. Their revelation came from God over a period of years. Jesus IS God, and His revelation came in one lifetime and lasts for all eternity. New covenant prophets will not have new salvation information or information about who God is. Colleen | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 508 Registered: 7-2008 |
Hi Pegg Didnt mean to confuse ya...sorry. All I was trying to say is that some think that after Christ came, GOD wouldnt speak to us thru prophets anymore. But the text doesnt state that at all. If God wants to send another prophet to admonish or encourage His believers, He can do so. The text of Heb 1:1-2 in no way prohibits God from doing so. That text doesnt prohibit God from using prophets. If it is there, please show me. It says that "in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son." And I agree with that. But no where in that text does it say no more prophets. That thought isnt even implied in that text at all. I am not the sharpest tool in the tool box...sigh. But some people read things into that text that just isnt there. That is why we have so many denominations. We just need to take scripture for what it says and not presume what it says. Animal | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 287 Registered: 3-2009 |
Most people here know what they are talking about. The can argue, explain, debate. I cannot do any of those things. I feel like a big stupid. Please don't take me out of the forum for asking so many questions or making comments that seem to differ with the other and sound foolish to you. Colleen says:
Isn't this the argument the Catholics make against the protestants? They could not establish a new body of Christ. Apparently after the "reformation" the Catholic church is not the body of Christ anymore, but the protestants. Wouldn't that be establishing a new body of Christ? Hec | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 623 Registered: 10-2008 |
Hec, You are valued here! And your questions are good. It is by asking questions that everyone grows - either by articulating in word form an answer or by asking more questions. The May/June 2007 Proclamation on "The Tree" is a great visual and illustration of the church and how it has come to be - including the Catholic Church and Protestant Churches. Hopefully, it will be helpful in answering your question above. Keri | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2807 Registered: 10-2004 |
Pegg,
I don't think so either. But I believe that the gift of prophecy in 1 Corinthians does not include "new revelation." As Colleen said, the canon of Scripture is closed. The "prophets" of the 19th century were 1800 years too late. The apostles were eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ and His resurrection in the first century. Even the long gap between the Old and New Testaments was only about 1/4 of the gap between the NT and the 19th century. Ephesians 2:19-20 says that "God's household" was "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone." (NIV.) Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on June 15, 2009) | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 289 Registered: 3-2009 |
Keri, I read the article on Proclamation. It's good. Although it leaves the same questions opened. If Luther could decide that some of the doctrines of the established church were non biblical, why can't others decide the same thing? Hec | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 839 Registered: 7-2007 |
Hec, if you compare the teachings of the Catholic church to the New Testament, you'll find that the Catholic church is pretty much the same as the Seventh-day Adventist church. Both of them completely nix the gospel. So if the SDA church can be considered part of the body of Christ, then I suppose the Catholic church can also. To my mind though, both are just as much the "body of Christ" as are Muslims and Hindus, so therefore they cannot be. Sorry to be so blunt. I was lost as an Adventist, because I simply could not completely accept Jesus' sacrafice for me. Ellen White's words - her adding to the gospel and saying that no-one could say they were saved, prevented me. In those verses in Hebrews 1:1,2 where it says that God has spoken to us by His Son; doesn't Ellen White put herself smack in the place of the Son? I don't remember where her quote is, but doesn't she quote the first verse and then say, "...in these last days has spoken to us by the testimonies..." Anyway something like that. Am I right? Does anyone know where she said that? | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 512 Registered: 7-2008 |
You mean this quote......?? "In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days He speaks to them by the testimonies of His Spirit." Testimonies, Volume 4, page 147 Ask and ye shall recieve..LOL LOL LOL Animal...your humble servant | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 513 Registered: 7-2008 |
By the way.... No fee for my research services !!!! | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 291 Registered: 3-2009 |
Asurprise, No problem with the bluntness. I not only can take it, but I myself am sometimes pretty blunt, so joint the club. My problem is not if the SDA is part of the body of Christ. My question was based on what Colleen said (emphasis mine) The church was built in the first century, then 1500 years later came Luther and company and decided that that church was contaminated and started and "off-shoot". Three centuries later came the SDA and said that that church was contaminated and started another "true off-shoot", and so on. It seems to me that if the canon, revelation, whatever, was closed at the end of the first century and no new revelation would come, then we need to go back to the Catholic church. It's like we are applying something to JW, SDA, LDS, etc that we do not apply to the rest of Christendom. Hec | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 625 Registered: 10-2008 |
So Hec, what are you defining as Church? An organized, structure of people - such as a denomination or religion? Maybe we need to define what church is meant by Christ when He says He will build His church on Peter. After Peter spoke did the people quickly organize themselves into the Catholic Church? I understand they met in homes and broke bread together - representing the broken body of Christ. They searched the scriptures to know Christ ... That was the beginning of the Church ... The Church are those that are born again in Christ. True, the organized church gathered more traditions - like the Catholic Church and had heresies creeping in like in Galatians. Therefore, God in His goodness and faithfulness kept true to His promise and kept bringing people back to By faith alone, through Christ alone, by grace alone (period!). Sorry, Hec, I might have just muddied the waters, but I think (and I could be off base here) that the definition of "church" is hanging us up. Or maybe I've lost your question entirely. Help me out? And it is not to say I have the answer (I probably don't )- I just like your questions! Keri | ||
| Pegg Registered user Username: Pegg Post Number: 140 Registered: 2-2006 |
Okay Jeremy and Coleen. Neither do I. I have to keep wrestling with the Hebrews text. I think one thing I have going on is that I think in terms of "revelation" being a message rather than some sort of "new gospel". This discussion has helped. Now I have to cogitate for awhile. Thank You For Your Patience! Pegg |
