Progressive Revelation

[NewCreation435]

Progressive revelation is the teaching that God has revealed Himself and His will through the Scriptures with an increasing clarity as more and more of the Scriptures were written. In other words, the later the writing the more information is given. Therefore, God reveals knowledge in a progressive and increasing manner throughout the Bible from the earliest time to later time. This makes perfect sense since we know that not everything God revealed to us was revealed right away.

This does not mean that earlier sections of Scripture are of inferior quality or are not as inspired as latter revelations. If this were the case, it would mean that the Old Testament is not as valuable and inspired as the New Testament. All Scripture is equally inspired (2 Timothy 3:16), but God has revealed his will with increasing clarity as more Scripture was written

see entire article here
https://carm.org/what-is-progressive-revelation-and-is-it-scriptural

 

[MennoSota]

Progressive revelation is also the argument used by both Muslims and Mormons to claim their books as shedding more light on the nature of God.
How then should we respond?

 

[NewCreation435]

Progressive revelation is also the argument used by both Muslims and Mormons to claim their books as shedding more light on the nature of God.
How then should we respond?

Progressive revelation makes a lot of sense to me in one sense, that your going to know a lot more about a subject at the end of the book that you would on the first page.

 

[Josiah]

I've never heard this term used outside of the LDS.....

I'm okay with how the OP puts this.... I DO think there is an increasing clarity about the Gospel as time progressed toward the arrival of the Messiah.... Where I'd want to strongly state is that this is within Scripture. While I do not deny that the issue of Revelation is larger than Scripture, only Scripture is the norma normans for doctrine.

 

[MennoSota]

Progressive revelation makes a lot of sense to me in one sense, that your going to know a lot more about a subject at the end of the book that you would on the first page.

It seems progressive to us because we live on a timeline. There is no progressive concept as far as God is concerned.
In many ways I look at scripture as restatements of the same message of grace via God's redemption. We simply see that grace functioning in different circumstances on the timeline.
I think we have to be careful, as noted in the OP, that progressive revelation does not diminish or supercede previous scripture. The religions/cults I mentioned view progressive revelation as a superceding of the older revelation, which I reject because it allows heresy to take precedence over truth.

 

[Lamb]

It seems progressive to us because we live on a timeline. There is no progressive concept as far as God is concerned.
In many ways I look at scripture as restatements of the same message of grace via God's redemption. We simply see that grace functioning in different circumstances on the timeline.
I think we have to be careful, as noted in the OP, that progressive revelation does not diminish or supercede previous scripture. The religions/cults I mentioned view progressive revelation as a superceding of the older revelation, which I reject because it allows heresy to take precedence over truth.

I was going to write something similar...reps to you!

 

[NewCreation435]

I've never heard this term used outside of the LDS.....

I'm okay with how the OP puts this.... I DO think there is an increasing clarity about the Gospel as time progressed toward the arrival of the Messiah.... Where I'd want to strongly state is that this is within Scripture. While I do not deny that the issue of Revelation is larger than Scripture, only Scripture is the norma normans for doctrine.

yes, of course

 

[atpollard]

I think the increased revelation of scripture is self-evident.
Start with just Genesis and see what can be known about God from only his first book.

What do we know about Christ? A vague promise about a seed of the woman, a bruised heel and a crushed head.
What do we know about the Holiness of God? Not nearly as much as we know after he presents us with the next 4 books and the Law.
What do you know about life and death and eternal destiny from just the Pentateuch?

How much more do we learn about God from the Histories and the Psalms and Proverbs and the Prophets?

Then comes the staggering revelations contained in the Gospels.

Yet can anyone say that the NT Letters add nothing to our understanding of God beyond what we learned from the Gospels?

The secret is that each new revelation expands the old knowledge by building upon it without contradicting it. This had always been an important litmus test for true inspiration. Each time God wishes to change his message significantly, God provides an ever more impressive confirmation. When God decided to introduce the Covenant of Moses to replace the Covenant of Abraham, God appeared as a pillar of smoke/fire to verify for all to see that this message was from God. When God wanted to replace the law of Moses with the Covenant of Grace of Jesus Christ, God performed many miracles culminating in raising Jesus from the dead for all to see.

If someone really wants to claim a 'New Covenant' to replace that of Jesus ... they should provide a proof from God greater than those provided by Christ himself. That is a pretty high bar to surpass. And it should still expand our understanding without contradicting what came before.

 

[MennoSota]

When God decided to introduce the Covenant of Moses to replace the Covenant of Abraham,

I agreed overall, but cringe a bit at the above wording.
I don't consider the Mosaic covenant as a replacement of the Abrahamic covenant. If it were so, Paul could not justify his argument of Abraham's faith being greater than the law.
Instead, I recognize the Mosaic covenant as an addendum that reveals why God is just in condemning sin.

 

[psalms 91]

I agreed overall, but cringe a bit at the above wording.
I don't consider the Mosaic covenant as a replacement of the Abrahamic covenant. If it were so, Paul could not justify his argument of Abraham's faith being greater than the law.
Instead, I recognize the Mosaic covenant as an addendum that reveals why God is just in condemning sin.

The covenants are progressive and do not do away with but rather add to

 

[MennoSota]

The covenants are progressive and do not do away with but rather add to

The Mosaic covenant is no longer applicable as God implemented the New covenant in its place, so I am not entirely in agreement. However, I acknowledge that there are connections with other covenants.

 

[Pedrito]

double post

 

[NewCreation435]

Staff Notice

[MENTION=142]Pedrito[/MENTION] please don't try to mix threads on this forum. This is disruptive to the forum.

 

[Pedrito]

jsimms in Post #13:

@Pedrito please don't try to mix threads on this forum. This is disruptive to the forum.

It had not been my intention to mix threads as such.

I was simply unsure in which thread the “dozens of scriptures” and “forest of verses” and “every NT verse that teaches the life of the soul after physical death” were to be tabled. (Continuing life of the soul after physical death, was said to be one area that demonstrates Progressive Revelation.)

So I was simply making it easy for the people who mentioned those collections of verses, to choose which of the two threads seemed the more appropriate in which to present them.

I will now turn my attention to the “Thoughts on the 'annihilationism' Thread” in the “World Religion & Speculative Theology” section, in that context.

 

[Pedrito]

I might have missed it.

But I don’t think that the “dozens of scriptures” and the “forest of verses” and “every NT verse that teaches the life of the soul after physical death” have been tabled in the “Thoughts on the 'annihilationism' Thread” thread in the “World Religion & Speculative Theology” section.

The existence of that implied multiplicity of scriptures, expressed in three distinct ways, was presented as forming the basis of, and offering proof of, the concept of a continuing conscious life of a soul after a person’s physical death.

==============================================================================================

Consider:
- Those verse lists have yet to be posted in the “Thoughts on the 'annihilationism' Thread” thread (which was a logical one, since they were first mentioned in the related “annihilationism” thread);
- It was indicated that the concept of continuing life of the soul after physical death (as supported by those verses) was an example of progressive revelation;
- Therefore, can it be deemed inappropriate for me to request that those “dozens of scriptures” and “forest of verses” and “every NT verse that teaches the life of the soul after physical death”, be tabled in this thread?

Indeed not. It is indeed highly appropriate.

Therefore I so request, of jsimms435, MennoSota, and Albion, respectively.

==============================================================================================

Doubt was previously cast by another Poster elsewhere on the existence of the scriptures alluded to in one of those statements (the “dozens of scriptures”). Could that doubt actually have some substance? What about the “forest of verses”? And the “every NT verse that teaches the life of the soul after physical death”?

There is one way to clear the air – one way to find out for sure.

Post the verse lists.

I will give proper attention to each individual verse presented, even if there are indeed dozens of them (or a “forest”) – “every NT verse” that is relevant. I will put the time aside to address every one of the “dozens”, the “forest” and the “every NT verse that teaches the life of the soul after physical death”.


The three lists should be presented independently, so that nothing will be overlooked. I would hate to think that some pertinent evidence could be missed.

I offer thanks in advance to those who presented the original allusions, for their placing flesh on the bones, so to speak.

 

[Arsenios]

Progressive revelation is the teaching that God has revealed Himself and His will through the Scriptures with an increasing clarity as more and more of the Scriptures were written. In other words, the later the writing the more information is given. Therefore, God reveals knowledge in a progressive and increasing manner throughout the Bible from the earliest time to later time. This makes perfect sense since we know that not everything God revealed to us was revealed right away.

This does not mean that earlier sections of Scripture are of inferior quality or are not as inspired as latter revelations. If this were the case, it would mean that the Old Testament is not as valuable and inspired as the New Testament. All Scripture is equally inspired (2 Timothy 3:16), but God has revealed his will with increasing clarity as more Scripture was written

see entire article here
https://carm.org/what-is-progressive-revelation-and-is-it-scriptural

The issue would perhaps become more clear if we said: "God's Revelation of Himself is progressive..." WHO IS God? That is the question... Christ asked it of His Disciples: "Who do people say I am? ... Who do YOU think I am?" And the fact is that the full revelation of God is Christ-God-Incatnate, born of a Virgin, crucified, buried, and Arisen... God Himself is the Revelation of God Himself... The written leads to Christ Himself... For us who approach Him, we have His Holy Body, the Ekklesia of Christ, even now to this day on earth discipling the nations and bringing Salvation to the world... And He will come again!

Progressive Revelation sounds a lot like Development of Doctrine...

Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

This is an issue ripe for misuse.
Evolutionary Theology, meaning God is evolving over time, would promote a progressive revelation. Also, Open Theism will rely upon a progressive revelation.
We have the 66 books of the Bible and we have creation which is enough. When Messiah returns or we go to meet God we can then see Him face-to-face rather than in a mirror, dimly.

 

[Arsenios]

This is an issue ripe for misuse.
Evolutionary Theology, meaning God is evolving over time, would promote a progressive revelation. Also, Open Theism will rely upon a progressive revelation.
We have the 66 books of the Bible and we have creation which is enough. When Messiah returns or we go to meet God we can then see Him face-to-face rather than in a mirror, dimly.

Exactly so...

The full Revelation of God is the God-man Jesus Christ...
"If you have seen Me, you have seen My Father..."
There is no more progress in the Revelation of God after Christ until He comes again.

Arsenios

 

[psalms 91]

I beg to differ as I know that Daniel was not truly understood till the late 1800's so I am saying that there is still revelation

 

[Arsenios]

I beg to differ as I know that Daniel was not truly understood till the late 1800's so I am saying that there is still revelation

There exist prophetic Gifts to this day and hour and minute, some understood and some not, and some to be understood later, if at all... But the Revelation of God to man on earth of Himself as man was completed on the Cross of Christ through His Resurrection and Ascension and Pentecost...

And there are many who have "not truly understood" that either... I sure haven't... I have infinitely more to understand, far beyond my capacity as a fallen human being to know... Guaranteed...

Have you read the early Eastern Fathers on Daniel? Is it possible that the late 1800's or so were mistaken? And if not, if others (whom you may not know about) understood what they received?

You are right that there is a great deal of "further revelation" occuring in the world to men and women, at least those through the prophetic Gifts... But I would question your basic idea that because men do not understand what has been revealed about Christ that Christ is still revealing Himself beyond what He revealed in His Life on earth...

He revealed Himself, for instance, to Saul on the Road to Damascus, but this was to enroll Saul in the furtherance of His Work established by His Incarnation...

So back at you, my Brother...

I think we may be speaking of two different kinds of revelation...

Maybe I am off topic?

Arsenios