Did God Stop "Dictating" His Word After The Book Of Revelation??.......

1Em1Esseswife

Active Member
May 22, 2012
218
24
✟495.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
the answer would be no, it does not stop with Revelation because 1 John was written afterwards, :p a little jesting.

Another good one.
Several of Paul's letters were also written after.
We know by reading Galations that Paul went up to Jerusalem about 5 years after Christ's resurection.John was not there.

GALATIONS 1
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

That makes me wonder where John was.
We know that around that time Herod killed James, John's brother.
I'm bettin' that,even as much as the jews hated christians, Herod could not get away with killin' John also and extinguishing an Israelites bloodline.
Therefore this is most likely the time John was banished to Patmos.

Not sure why all the so called scholars missed this, but it makes the most sense.

Food for thought hunh? :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,263
4,084
The South
✟114,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Originally Posted by Fireinfolding

Good one Fire, looks like He's still writing to me.
HEBREWS 10
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool .

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified .

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before ,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord,

I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. 19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say , his flesh; 21 And having an high priest over the house of God;

22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

:thumbsup:

In hearts, being made an epistle of Christ:thumbsup:


2Cr 3:3 [Forasmuch as ye are] manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.


Like, dont add to the book, but by the Spirit adding to the Church (His body) by the ministration of the Spirit.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
OzSpen: Maybe I can comment here; Listen you have to know that a synergistic view of Salvation is not even Biblically Christian. It was judged a heresy at the synod of Dordt and it is a heresy today. You place yourself in Gal 1:6-9 Arminianism is another gospel which is NO gospel= no salvation
Do you see what you do? You make assertions about an Arminian approach to salvation. You provide no proof of your statements. Citing Gal 1:6-9 is no proof.

Norman Geisler, an eminent theologian, apologist and exegete, has refuted your opposition to synergism and salvation in his book, Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election (Bethany House Publishers 1999).

This is not the thread in which to discuss this issue. In the Soteriology directory, why don't you start a new thread with a title such as "There is no such thing as free will in salvation" and begin with your refutation of a couple of points of an Arminian view?

If you choose to do this, please let me know in a PM as I don't often go to Soteriology.

Since you say that "a synergistic view of Salvation is not even Biblically Christian", are you assigning synergistic Christians to damnation? That seems to be a statement from one of your previous posts. If that is the case, you have assigned to damnation these Christian church fathers: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras of Athens, Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian of Syria, Bardaisan of Syria, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Novatian of Rome, Origen, Methodius, Archellaus, Arnobius of Sicca, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, John Chrysostom, early St. Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas.

Sincerely, Oz
 
Upvote 0

ZaidaBoBaida

When do I stop being a Newbie?
Jul 17, 2012
1,962
631
Right Here
✟50,680.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
In Quaker tradition Jesus is the word of God (John 1) and the scriptures are true. We believe that the Holy Spirit continues to speak to us today just as he did in past times, but that if we receive any revelation that contradicts the scripture then it should be disregarded.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,785
Pacific Northwest
✟728,115.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I'm a monergist, however the Synod of Dordt is no ecumenical council and no more gets to define orthodoxy/heresy for the whole Christian Church than the Councils of Florence or Trent.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I'm a monergist, however the Synod of Dordt is no ecumenical council and no more gets to define orthodoxy/heresy for the whole Christian Church than the Councils of Florence or Trent.

-CryptoLutheran
The Synod of Dordt was organised by the Dutch Reformed Church in Holland. Others of Reformed persuasion from outside of Holland were invited, but it was a Calvinistic Synod designed to address the rising influence/threat of Arminianism that was in Holland and with influence outside of Holland.

It can by no means be seen as a representative Council to discuss this matter of salvation that resulted in the Calvinistic TULIP formulation re salvation. It was no place for monergism vs synergism (modern terminology) to get a balanced hearing.

You say that you are a monergist. Do you agree with the other poster (whose post has now been removed from this thread along with my response) that there is no eternal salvation for those who believe in a synergistic view of salvation through Christ?

Oz
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tzaousios

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός
Dec 4, 2008
8,504
609
Comitatus in praesenti
Visit site
✟19,229.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Since you say that "a synergistic view of Salvation is not even Biblically Christian", are you assigning synergistic Christians to damnation? That seems to be a statement from one of your previous posts. If that is the case, you have assigned to damnation these Christian church fathers: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras of Athens, Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian of Syria, Bardaisan of Syria, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Novatian of Rome, Origen, Methodius, Archellaus, Arnobius of Sicca, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, John Chrysostom, early St. Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas.

I do not understand why you are trumpeting the contributions of Augustine and Anselm now when you yourself have come very close in discussions in Soteriology to condemning them.

I recall very clearly instances where you asserted that Augustine was corrupted by Manicheanism and pagan philosophy to the point that he argued for a seemingly monergistic view of predestination and limited human will. You made the association from those negative things to whatever you perceive to be the driving force behind Calvinism.

Are these two eminent Church Fathers useful for some of your purposes and can be tossed on the rubbish heap when they have outlived their usefulness?
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I do not understand why you are trumpeting the contributions of Augustine and Anselm now when you yourself have come very close in discussions in Soteriology to condemning them.

I recall very clearly instances where you asserted that Augustine was corrupted by Manicheanism and pagan philosophy to the point that he argued for a seemingly monergistic view of predestination and limited human will. You made the association from those negative things to whatever you perceive to be the driving force behind Calvinism.

Are these two eminent Church Fathers useful for some of your purposes and can be tossed on the rubbish heap when they have outlived their usefulness?
Unless you can find the exact quotes that I made, I cannot respond adequately.

Here I wrote of the "early Augustine". There was a change in beliefs between the early Augustine and the later Augustine. The early Augustine had synergistic views, as did Anselm. Do you want me to quote them with references, as I'm not making this up?

However, what's the point that you are trying to make?

Oz
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,785
Pacific Northwest
✟728,115.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
You say that you are a monergist. Do you agree with the other poster (whose post has now been removed from this thread along with my response) that there is no eternal salvation for those who believe in a synergistic view of salvation through Christ?

Oz

Of course not. That would be works-righteousness, placing the onus of salvation in the power and capacity of man. Grace being grace, however, must mean that the onus is on the saving power of Christ, who by His Means creates faith in us--not a mental assent to doctrine, but a saving, justifying faith. Such faith even the unlearned and the infant can have--according to the gracious work of Christ alone.

Making such doctrinal minutia intrinsic to our eternal salvation ignores the whole point of what makes Grace Grace; and further draws focus away from Christ and His Cross toward ourselves and our ability.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Of course not. That would be works-righteousness, placing the onus of salvation in the power and capacity of man. Grace being grace, however, must mean that the onus is on the saving power of Christ, who by His Means creates faith in us--not a mental assent to doctrine, but a saving, justifying faith. Such faith even the unlearned and the infant can have--according to the gracious work of Christ alone.

Making such doctrinal minutia intrinsic to our eternal salvation ignores the whole point of what makes Grace Grace; and further draws focus away from Christ and His Cross toward ourselves and our ability.

-CryptoLutheran
In fact, I'm not sure that this contrast of monergism vs synergism is helpful as it distorts the views of those who promote them. I just came across this interesting article online and I'll give a grab of it here:
Ben Henshaw explains how the terms synergism and monergism get confused in his article, ‘Is Arminian Theology Synergistic?’:

For some, the debate between Arminianism and Calvinism boils down to whether salvation is monergistic or synergistic. I believe the term “synergism” is not always accurately applied to the Arminian position. The word comes from the Greek synergos, which essentially means “working together”. While monergism (to work alone) may be an acceptable label for what Calvinists believe (God does all the work in salvation), synergism does not always rightly portray what Arminians have historically believed.
The word itself, when taken in a grammatically strict sense, is not a very good description of what Arminians believe regarding salvation. Arminians do not believe that both God and man “work” together in salvation. We believe that we are saved “by faith from first to last” (Rom. 1:17). Since faith is antithetical to works (Rom. 3:20-28; 4:2-5; 9:32; 10:5, 6; Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5; Eph. 2:8, 9; Phil. 3:9), it is a misnomer to label Arminian soteriology as synergistic in the strictest sense of the word.

Arminian theology, when rightly understood, teaches that salvation is monergistic. God alone does the saving. God alone regenerates the soul that is dead in sin. God alone forgives and justifies on the merits of Christ’s blood. God alone makes us holy and righteous. In all of these ways salvation is entirely monergistic. The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is whether or not God’s saving work is conditional or unconditional. Arminians believe that God will not save until we meet the God ordained condition of faith. Faith may be understood as synergistic only in the sense that God graciously enables us to believe, but we are the ones who must decide whether or not we will believe.

F. Leroy Forlines put it well when he said,
“I believe that saving faith is a gift of God in the sense that the Holy Spirit gives divine enablement without which faith would be impossible (John 6:44). The difference between the Calvinistic concept of faith and my concept of faith cannot be that theirs is monergistic and mine is synergistic. In both cases it is synergistic. Active participation in faith by the believer means it must be synergistic. Human response cannot be ruled out of faith. Justification and regeneration are monergistic. Each is an act of God, not man. Faith is a human act by divine enablement and therefore cannot be monergistic.” [The Quest For Truth, pg 160, emphasis his]

If faith were monergistic then it would not be the person believing, but God believing for the person. Faith is the genuine human response to God’s call, and the means by which we access His saving grace (Rom. 5:1, 2). It is still God’s grace that saves, but that grace must be received by faith, and the nature of faith is such that it can never be properly called a “work”.

[FONT=&quot]Does this mean that man is the determiner of salvation and not God? Absolutely not. God has determined that those who believe in His Son shall be saved, and that determination is absolute and unchangeable (Jn. 3:16-18, 36). [/FONT]
Is Ben making some valid points about possible misunderstandings that arise from this disjuncture?

Sincerely, Oz
 
Upvote 0

Johnnz

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Aug 3, 2004
14,082
1,002
82
New Zealand
✟74,521.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Dictation never ceased because it was never started. There are records of God speaking in the scriptures, but much of the Bible is not direct prophetic proclamation. Inspiration is a valid concept, but that does not require dictation. The latter is a viewpoint only,
never stated explicitly in the scriptures themselves.

How the Canon came into being and why Revelation is the last book is another story.

John
NZ
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
K

kevin mccue

Guest
OzSpen: A synergistic view of salvation that is two or more agents (in this case the sinner and God) to effect the result of salvation is a false gospel or another gospel as Paul calls it in Gal 1:6-9 faith of this sort is not the "faith of God's elect" Titus 1:1 but rather a self conjured faith in the idol of imagined free-will, producing no salvation but eternal damnation
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
OzSpen: A synergistic view of salvation that is two or more agents (in this case the sinner and God) to effect the result of salvation is a false gospel or another gospel as Paul calls it in Gal 1:6-9 faith of this sort is not the "faith of God's elect" Titus 1:1 but rather a self conjured faith in the idol of imagined free-will, producing no salvation but eternal damnation
You are not reading what I wrote to ViaCrucis.

You are onto the same line towards my perspective that caused your post and mine to be deleted. The gracious response of ViaCrucis is contrary to the direction in which you are going again and I will not be replying to you again as your content is bordering on flaming again. ViaCrucis wrote:
[FONT=&quot]Of course not. That would be works-righteousness, placing the onus of salvation in the power and capacity of man. Grace being grace, however, must mean that the onus is on the saving power of Christ, who by His Means creates faith in us--not a mental assent to doctrine, but a saving, justifying faith. Such faith even the unlearned and the infant can have--according to the gracious work of Christ alone.

Making such doctrinal minutia intrinsic to our eternal salvation ignores the whole point of what makes Grace Grace; and further draws focus away from Christ and His Cross toward ourselves and our ability.[/FONT]
Oz
 
Upvote 0

Godcreatedsteve

Active Member
Apr 11, 2012
252
10
✟458.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
A lot of people believe that God began "dictating" His word to human beings, beginning with the book of Genesis and ending with the book of Revelation....

I have heard it said in so many words, over and over, that, after God finished "writing" the book of Revelation, He closed the book, put His seal of approval on it, and said: "That's all the scripture you're going to get from Me."

But, is that true...or has God continued to dictate His word continuously throught the past 2,000 years, adapting it to each new generation??

When I read the works of men like Charles Spurgeon or C.S. Lewis, as well as many others, I feel their words are right up there with giants like the Apostle Paul, in regard to their depth of insight and spiritual inspiration.

Did God really close the book after Revelation or has He been continually writing it ever since??

Joh 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

Jesus is the living Word: "I am the way, the truth, and the life." If Jesus is in your heart, then you know the way. If he is not really in your heart, if you have become a legalist/fundamentalist instead, then the Bible profits you nothing.

Rabbi Eleazar b. Azariah, a leader of the Jewish diaspora after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, explained why his interpretations of scripture did not always align with previous interpretations. “Just as a plant grows and increases, so the words of Torah grow and increase.” The word of God is not a lifeless document; it’s much more than just words on a page. “The word of God is living, and active.” (Heb 4:12 RV) The word of God grows in pace with our understanding of what is fair and just. Moreover, it is precisely in those areas where we struggle to understand and reconcile scripture that new growth is destined to occur. Issues like women’s rights, slavery, and homosexuality, are not only issues that tend to divide us; they’re fresh opportunities for God to accomplish something new in our hearts and in our churches. Growth is often a painful process, though it’s absolutely necessary if we are to remain faithful to His word and grow together in His love.

The Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking the law by healing on the Sabbath, associating with sinners, and disregarding the laws concerning ritual purity. He often interpreted the scriptures, spoke and behaved in ways that shocked his contemporaries. He answered their objections by comparing the Gospel message to new wine. “No man putteth new wine into old wineskins; else the new wine will burst the skins, and itself will be spilled, and the skins will perish. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins.” (Luk 5:37-38 RV)

The new wine is the message of the Gospel and the wineskins are Christians today. The Gospel is always new because it was intended to bring new hope into our life, and especially to those who are poor or oppressed. (Luk 4:18) The only way that Christians can remain faithful to the Gospel message is through our willingness to grow in our understanding of God’s Word, to expand our help for the poor as well as the rights of those still oppressed, and to increase in our love for one another. However, if - like old wineskins - we’ve become so rigid in our views that we no longer have the same flexibility, the Gospel message is lost because there was no room in our heart or in our life for it to grow, and as Christians we can perish without ever having made a real difference.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,263
4,084
The South
✟114,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here Daniel says this...

Daniel 12:8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

Shows the words are closed up and sealed here

Dan 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

Now here

Jesus speaks to whoso readeth now (He references Daniel who heard but he (Daniel) did not understand) is followed (now) by Jesus to " let him understand" (which is to the reader)

Mark 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

Again here...

Blessed is he that readeth

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Contrary to the words being sealed up (as shown in Daniel)

Rev 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

Then (ofcourse) adding to the prophecy of the book is adressed, so theres a consistency there
 
Upvote 0