Successive Revelation...

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by rjprince, Sep 6, 2007.

  1. rjprince

    rjprince
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hopefully, most of us are familiar with the term "progressive revelation". To keep it simple I offer the following definition for the purpose of discussion on this particular thread...

    DEFINITION: Progressive revelation is a recognition that God did not give ALL truth at once, rather He has built line upon line and precept upon precept. By way of analogy, first graders are not taught to recognize and identify "iambic pentameter" nor are they expected to be calculate a trigonometric function to identify the length of the hypotenuse. They first learn to say and then to recognize their alphabet; then they learn to write their letters; then they learn to put them together to form words, etc, etc. They first learn to count; then they learn that there are written numbers that represent the value of a group of objects; then they learn to add, subtract, multiply, and divide, etc, etc.

    I do not know if there is such a term as "successive revelation" or not. But let me offer a definition and a distinction.

    PROPOSED DEFINITION: Successive revelation suggests that not only does God reveal His truth progressively, but that His truth is successive in that it must build sequentially and logically (to the degree that we can understand both Him and His revelation) on the previous steps of truth. (This may be assumed in progressive revelation, but I cannot recall ever having seen it so stated.)

    The DISTINCTION is this, successive revelation demands that for a full and proper understanding of the revelation that comes at say, stage 6 (whatever that may be), there must be a proper understanding of the revelation that came in stages 1-5. FURTHER, it demands that the revelation at stage six must be consistent with what has been revealed in stages 1-5.

    Admittedly, the distinction between progressive and successive may not be very sharp as I am only in the process of verbalizing these musings. Admittedly, this assumption may be implicit in the idea of progressive revelation, but again, I cannot recall ever having seen it stated in an explicit manner.

    WHAT IS THE POINT? Namely this, higher level mathematics does not reverse or turn on its head the basic foundational principles of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Granted, college trig has been over 33 years ago for me, but that is my recollection. Two plus two was still four, assuming a base 10 counting system. Four minus two was still two. Added truth does not reverse previous truth, it builds upon it, and it must be consistent with previous truth.

    WHY THE POINT? If God promised Israel that they would one day receive the land and then possess it forever, how can a statement like "My kingdom is not of this world" undo all of that???


    What think ye? Do the very literal promises to Israel mean anything or not? And if not, how can a different position not reverse and deny some of the foundational premises and promises of our faith?
     
    #1 rjprince, Sep 6, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 6, 2007
  2. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. If you mean within the pages of Scripture there is Progressive Revelation, then I concur. But outside of the Canon, I do not believe in Progressive Revelation.

    2. What you said about Successive Revelation is what I would call Systematizing at some levels, which we all must do.

    3. As to how this all applies to Israel, it comes down to a systematizing of the scriptural data, esp. in the area of eschatology.

    Encouraging thread, BTW.
     
  3. rjprince

    rjprince
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Should probably have limited the topic to Scripture. General revelation through creation, conscience, etc is not specific enough to fall within the bounds of this discussion...

    My point is that our systematization must build on truth in the order in which it was revealed and not reverse or refute previous revelation.

    The systematization of data regarding Israel cannot abrogate the clear and specific promises that have been given without making God an "indian giver" who rejects His chosen nation on the basis of poor performance. THIS all relates to the meaning of ELECTION. If God's promises to His chosen nation are not sure, how can we as elect saints have any measure of security except it be related to and dependent on our faithful performance?
     
  4. Dan V.

    Dan V.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    It might be helpful to think of Israel as the OT church. God's chosen people in the current age (the last days) is the NT church - no distinction between Jew or Gentile.

    Sincerely,

    Dan V.
     
  5. Linda64

    Linda64
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    I went into the Archives and retrieved information from the News of the Day.

    And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)

    Jesus of Nazareth, reporting from Caesarea Philippi.

    (Whose report are you going to believe? Man's or Christ's?)

    Church began in the N. T., according to the words of the LORD Jesus Christ. There is NO O.T church. Israel is NOT the O. T. church and neither is the N.T. Church, Israel. Israel is Israel, and the N. T. Church is the N. T. Church--separate and distinct from each other.
     
    #5 Linda64, Sep 7, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2007
  6. rjprince

    rjprince
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just gotta go with Linda on this one. I have read Keith Mathison, Sproul, the Tyler group, Mauro and a host of others on this. Just cannot make this view fit the word of God.

    See the thread I just started on "The Church is NOT EQUAL to Israel!"

    RJP
     

Share This Page

Loading...