No More Revelation/Scripture?

[Jason_J]

One thing that I have never understood is the traditional Christian belief that there is to be no more revelation or scripture. Some may believe that revelation/scripture ended with the death of the last apostle, while some may believe that revelation ended with Jesus Christ (usually referring to Hebrews 1:1-2).

At least from the Catholic perspective, there is a division of the definition of "Revelation" into Public Revelation and Private Revelation. For Catholics, Public Revelation is what ended with the death of the last apostle. Private Revelations, such as the various Marian apparitions, continue, however they are not required for belief. Public Revelation is contained in scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition. Other traditional Christians may believe that revelation is only contained in the Bible.

My question is, where did the belief that public revelation and scripture ended with the death of the last apostle come from?

[prisonchaplain]

On the Protestant side, Dispensationalism--the idea that God works differently in different time periods (dispensations) included the argument that most of the miracles and spiritual gifts of the New Testament era (especially Acts, and 1 Corinthians) were only for the "Apostolic age." We are now said to be in the church age. Since we now have the completed revelation from God we no longer need to rely on miracles, healings or live prophesies to draw people to Jesus.

Such beliefs are relegated to a relatively small section of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians. Quite frankly, the whole system of teaching seems to have started, at least in part, as a means of discrediting the early pentecostal revivals.

Prof Craig Blomberg, who co-authored an evangelical/LDS book dilineating our different perspectives on core doctrines, suggests that the belief that the biblical canon is closed comes largely from the reality that for so many centuries nothing was added. In other words, since God did not choose to reveal new scriptures to anyone in a convincing manner, we more or less figured he was done. Sounds simple and tentative, but most Protestants, and all Catholics concur.

[rameumptom]

Professor Bart Ehrman, scholar in New Testament studies, states that the reason for the closed canon/Bible is because the proto-orthodox Christians of the 2nd-4th centuries AD were combating a flurry of claimed revelations from various Christian groups, and were attempting to stop it. Many of these revelations supported the beliefs of Christian sects, but were anathema to the proto-orthodoxy.

For a couple centuries, they fought the heretics by arguing doctrine with them. Finally, bishops like St Jerome sought to solidify the scriptures into "sola scritura", a closed and complete canon that could not be updated nor changed by anyone. For over a century, the list of approved books in the Bible changed, but the final list was that submitted by Jerome. He tossed out the book of Enoch, which is quoted 39 times in the NT, because it did not fit the proto-orthodoxy. However, he kept Hebrews and Revelation, not because he believed they were authentic, but because the western Church insisted on their inclusion if they were to accept his canon. So, politics were involved in the choosing of the books.

With the sealing of the canon came the closing of the days of revelation for the church. Then, after many centuries of no public revelations, it was assumed that the day of the apostolic miracles and revelations ended with the death of the apostles.

So, in order to save proto-orthodoxy from the chaos of many proclaimed revelators and "inspired" documents, the heavens were sealed by those who sought to retain and defend the very gospel they promoted.

[Jason_J]

On the Protestant side, Dispensationalism--the idea that God works differently in different time periods (dispensations) included the argument that most of the miracles and spiritual gifts of the New Testament era (especially Acts, and 1 Corinthians) were only for the "Apostolic age." We are now said to be in the church age. Since we now have the completed revelation from God we no longer need to rely on miracles, healings or live prophesies to draw people to Jesus.

Such beliefs are relegated to a relatively small section of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians. Quite frankly, the whole system of teaching seems to have started, at least in part, as a means of discrediting the early pentecostal revivals.

That's interesting. Do they believe that there is a Biblical basis for this belief that miracles and spiritual gifts were only for the "Apostolic age"? I guess you're right when you say that it's only a relatively small section of fundamentalists and evangelicals that believe this, since, from what I've read, most churches believe in the continuation of miracles, healings, etc.

Prof Craig Blomberg, who co-authored an evangelical/LDS book dilineating our different perspectives on core doctrines, suggests that the belief that the biblical canon is closed comes largely from the reality that for so many centuries nothing was added. In other words, since God did not choose to reveal new scriptures to anyone in a convincing manner, we more or less figured he was done. Sounds simple and tentative, but most Protestants, and all Catholics concur.

This seems to leave open the possibility that more scripture could be added if God "chose to reveal new scriptures" in a convincing manner, right? However, at least from the Catholic perspective, there is simply no more [public] Revelation, until the Second Coming.

[prisonchaplain]

That's interesting. Do they believe that there is a Biblical basis for this belief that miracles and spiritual gifts were only for the "Apostolic age"? I guess you're right when you say that it's only a relatively small section of fundamentalists and evangelicals that believe this, since, from what I've read, most churches believe in the continuation of miracles, healings, etc.

Google "Cessationism" and you will find a few sites dedicated to this approach. Yes, they believe they have Bible verses supporting their view. Ironically, the key passage comes from the Love Chapter (1 Corinthians 13). "Whether there be tongues, they shall cease," . . . And, yes, those who hold to this are relatively small in number, and most are fundamentalist. And, again, I cannot help but discern that the driving purpose is to oppose pentecostalism and the Charismatic Renewal. Southern Baptists in particular, have a large faction that believe this way. They have driven out more than a few "closet charismatics" from their missionary service, and their professor ranks.

This seems to leave open the possibility that more scripture could be added if God "chose to reveal new scriptures" in a convincing manner, right? However, at least from the Catholic perspective, there is simply no more [public] Revelation, until the Second Coming.

You are spot on. Prof. Blomberg offers that it is conceivable that God could offer more written revelation. It's just that at this point nobody is really expecting that.

[xenic101]

You are spot on. Prof. Blomberg offers that it is conceivable that God could offer more written revelation. It's just that at this point nobody is really expecting that.

I am.

[prisonchaplain]

Xenic...well, sure. However, put yourself in our shoes. Without Joseph Smith, there would be no written revelation for 1900 years. And yet, God has revealed in other ways. The 2nd largest Christian movement is the Pentecostal/Charismatic renewal. We hear revelations from God regularly, through the gifts of the Spirit. So...again, from our perspective, at this point why would we EXPECT God to suddenly add new scriptures. He could...but it's just not something we've been led to expect.

[rameumptom]

I know the Church of Christ, established by Alexander Campbell, does not believe in the gifts of the Spirit nor revelation. This includes private or public revelation. I've had interesting dialogues with them over the years.

It is exactly the issue of modern, living prophets that drew me into the Church. I'd visited and discussed the Bible with several churches, and all basically told me the same stuff. None could answer some key questions for me, as those were the "mysteries of god" (as one explained to me).

I have found those answers through modern prophets.

[beefche]

So...again, from our perspective, at this point why would we EXPECT God to suddenly add new scriptures. He could...but it's just not something we've been led to expect.

PC, if God were to reveal new scriptures, how would He do that? I know you aren't expecting him too, but we know that with God all things are possible. I'm trying to understand how other churches can accept the possibility of new scriptures without expectations--how would they know additional scriptures?

My understanding was that other churches don't think it's possible to have new scriptures. I can concede that I may be wrong on that. It just baffled me that if God is all-powerful and wanted new scriptures, why would they think He wouldn't/couldn't? And if He did, how would they know?

[prisonchaplain]

Beef...good question. All I can do is conjecture that new writings would be offered by someone, and there would develop a ground swell of spiritual confirmations that they were a continuation of NT scripture. Churches would begin to endorse them, and a super-majority consensus would develop that the new works were indeed revelation from God.

It's hard to imagine this thoughj--especially given my belief about the end times. Christ is returning soon, the church will be raptured...so it seems kind of late in the panaroma of human history to add new written revelation. Instead, I would expect increased signs and wonders. Not that I am looking for or need such...but they are what I would expect.

[Maureen]

...It's hard to imagine this thoughj--especially given my belief about the end times. Christ is returning soon, the church will be raptured....

PC, can you define "soon"? The next 100 to 500 years, or sooner?

M.

[prisonchaplain]

PC, can you define "soon"? The next 100 to 500 years, or sooner?

M.

No, I can't. I don't know. Scripture says soon, and to be prepared. "Imminent" is the underlying message. So, I still have my retirement planning, still hope to send my young-ins to college, and see them married. On the other hand, I shall not be surprised when the trump sounds.

[rayhale]

At least from the Catholic perspective, there is a division of the definition of "Revelation" into Public Revelation and Private Revelation. For Catholics, Public Revelation is what ended with the death of the last apostle. Private Revelations, such as the various Marian apparitions, continue, however they are not required for belief. Public Revelation is contained in scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition. Other traditional Christians may believe that revelation is only contained in the Bible.

My question is, where did the belief that public revelation and scripture ended with the death of the last apostle come from?

From a non-Catholic perspective, wouldn’t any revelation from the Pope to the Church, and to the world, be considered Public Revelation?

[Guest]

From Roman Catholic doctrine: (all that is written below refers to Roman Catholic and not any other form of Catholicism)

The gospel was fulfilled by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ and his resurrection. The gospel is complete and do not require further "divine revelation" (scare quotes for the benefit of LDS readers of this post).

BUT, this is different from sola scriptura in such that the Holy Bible is NOT the only infallible source of Catholic doctrine. Catholics also believe in the Episcopacy as well as Holy Tradition (or Sacred Tradition). Therefore, the letters of Paul, although written after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ by somebody who was not one of the 12 apostles is accepted as part of canon.

The beatification of Saints is part of Holy Tradition - where the teachings of scripture is handed down through the examples of people who have lived it fully.

The teachings of the Pope is doctrine as a part of Episcopacy where authority is handed down through Apostolic Succession by the power of the Holy Ghost handed to the apostles by Jesus at the Pentecost.

Note that Catholics do not refer to Holy Tradition and Episcopacy as "revelations" (scare quotes for the benefit of the Catholics). The word Revelation has a different meaning in Catholic lingo - it refers to Divine Revelation which was completed at the atonement.

[Gramajane]

Humm- I forget who said it-- up in the posts above,

but it was something about (I'm paraphrasing-- I wish I had more time!)

that nobody believed that God had given any revelations after the N.T. ??

Well- that does not match with history does it?

What about Joan of Arc? -- and look what they did to her AFTER her visions helped her to save the French! They turned her over to the English who tortured and killed her!

--- Also, as I have studied quite a few other religions, Sung Mung Moon (Moonies) claims visions and wrote a book that I got to borrow from a member-- I believe it was called "The Divine Principle??) but it sure has no spirit like I get from reading the Bible and LDS scriptures! (they also believe "the end justifies the means").

Anyway- my point is that like (I am not sure if this story is true- but it shows my point)

I understand about live crabs in a pot put on a stove to boil, that if one starts to climb out, the others pull him back in!

Also it used to be that anyone who said they had had a vision, could get put in the nut house!

Look what happened to Joseph Smith! His life was in danger again and again till they finally killed him!

and this was in USA where it is supposed to be "freedom of religion"!

I have read that God had to make a new country and help the founding fathers for that freedom, as even those who came here for THEIR freedom of religion- that most denied any not members of their particular faith, in their colonies etc!

Still, the restored church had to flee to the desert and mountains OUT of the USA to survive and even then the US sent an army to "put them down"!

Also, I am glad no one here has used the old -cursed be any who add to this book- claim for the Bible, as the books in the Bible were not written in the order that they are printed in our Bible, and way back in the O.T. also

(I forget where- my mind has challenges with references, and I'm still on my hubbies computer but he should be back tonight or tomorrow! and get mine going again:)

it also speaks of not adding to the prophesies (but both those mean MEN are not to add- to them and not God, and in the book of Rev. it is to THAT book.

Anyway- another thought came to me, that ALL the apostles have not died!!!

John the Beloved was given the gift he asked for to REMAIN till Jesus second coming! :)

Though I don't personally know anyone who claims to have met up with him, there are stories...

Anyway-- just my quick thoughts. Got to log off now and get to work! have a great day. Gramajane

[SteveVH]

From Roman Catholic doctrine: (all that is written below refers to Roman Catholic and not any other form of Catholicism)

The gospel was fulfilled by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ and his resurrection. The gospel is complete and do not require further "divine revelation" (scare quotes for the benefit of LDS readers of this post).

BUT, this is different from sola scriptura in such that the Holy Bible is NOT the only infallible source of Catholic doctrine. Catholics also believe in the Episcopacy as well as Holy Tradition (or Sacred Tradition). Therefore, the letters of Paul, although written after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ by somebody who was not one of the 12 apostles is accepted as part of canon.

The beatification of Saints is part of Holy Tradition - where the teachings of scripture is handed down through the examples of people who have lived it fully.

The teachings of the Pope is doctrine as a part of Episcopacy where authority is handed down through Apostolic Succession by the power of the Holy Ghost handed to the apostles by Jesus at the Pentecost.

Note that Catholics do not refer to Holy Tradition and Episcopacy as "revelations" (scare quotes for the benefit of the Catholics). The word Revelation has a different meaning in Catholic lingo - it refers to Divine Revelation which was completed at the atonement.

Anatess, you are mostly correct in your take on the Catholic position, but I would like to add some comments that may shed more light on this subject.

All of salvation history surrounds the drama that unfolded beginning with the fall from grace of Adam and Eve. Since that moment, the entire world had been waiting for the Savior, the Messiah. Heaven was closed. The Gospel, or "Good News" was fulfilled when Jesus, the Messiah, finally came to save all of mankind. He revealed the true nature of God, whom we had only known partially, in a cloud, a burning bush, etc. Here He was, in the flesh. Even more importantly, He had risen from the dead. Heaven was once again opened. The story was now complete. The kingdom of God was at hand. This is why we say that all revelation was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The waiting is over, the story of our redemption is complete in Him. We await no one else.

All revelation that came to the Apostles was centered on the person of Jesus Christ. He is the revelation. Any further revelation is only given that we might acquire a deeper understanding of the one revelation found in Christ. It is not that we believe that God is silent and no longer speaks to us. As you have pointed out, we have had revelation given to our Church on almost a constant basis throughout the centuries and continue to receive revelation today. But, again, it all centers on the one revelation found only in Jesus Christ. That is where we draw the distinction between Public and Private revelation. Any revelation which would change what we have received from Jesus through the Apostles as set forth in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture (which is only part of Sacred Tradition commited to writing) would be considered false prophecy. In Jesus, our salvation, the story, is complete.

[Jason_J]

As you have pointed out, we have had revelation given to our Church on almost a constant basis throughout the centuries and continue to receive revelation today.

What do you mean by "revelation given to [the Catholic] Church"? Is revelation given to the Catholic Church therefore binding on all Catholics, since it is God giving revelation to "The Church"? This would thus fall into public revelation, wouldn't it? Revelations such as the Marian apparitions are private revelation, and Catholics are free to accept or reject them, so I wouldn't necessarily call such events "revelation given to our Church", but revelations given to individuals which other individuals are free to believe or not. Unless you were thinking of something else?

[SteveVH]

What do you mean by "revelation given to [the Catholic] Church"? Is revelation given to the Catholic Church therefore binding on all Catholics, since it is God giving revelation to "The Church"? This would thus fall into public revelation, wouldn't it? Revelations such as the Marian apparitions are private revelation, and Catholics are free to accept or reject them, so I wouldn't necessarily call such events "revelation given to our Church", but revelations given to individuals which other individuals are free to believe or not. Unless you were thinking of something else?

Jason, I would put it this way. There is no further revelation that we will receive concerning our salvation. That was completed in Jesus Christ. So there is nothing further that would need to be binding. That does not mean that there is nothing further to be revealed, knowledge to help us better understand the mystery of Christ. The numrous Saints proclaimed by the Catholic Church have revealed much, and thus uncovered much, which increases our understanding. The Marion apparitions are very important, but always point us to Christ.