The Narrow Path Ministries

mattrose, that makes perfect sense, and I probably would have agreed with your view a few years ago when I was more in alignment with guys like Oord, Cavey, and Zahnd.

I believe in progressive revelation as well, I just see no need to set 'God is love' over 'God is holy' or vise versa.
Like we have to determine which one flows from the other? I think that is a false dilemma.

You have Jesus in Revelation demonstrating, among other things, that holiness does not fade into the shadows because of Jesus, but we do have the wrath of the Lamb and the severe warnings of Christ to the churches.
You have the fear of God as prominent in the OT but just as prominent in the NT, hey even Jesus feared God and taught his disciples to do so as well.

21centpilgrim, I like your comment. I'm not sure if I believe in progressive revelation or not (although I used to). I guess you could say Jesus revealed things about God that previous prophets hadn't, but I think you could say that of every prophet. So I suppose I see revelation as more cumulative than progressive. I guess if I were going to argue progressive revelation, I'd point to the book of Revelation since in this book it seems we learn more of God's plan than through any other revelation.

I know the 'Which comes first, holiness or love?' seems a bit academic, but in this thread, I think it's worth considering if God's essence supports the doctrine of the trinity.

But I agree that the fear of God was still a strong feature of first-century Judaism. (Perhaps not as strong as OT, but still strong.)

Probably good to remind ourselves that nobody in this thread (it seems to me) is questioning either the holiness or love of God.

Further, emphasis on love doesn't militate against a thoroughgoing view of wrath. I understand wrath in the context of love. Wrath is what one experiences when one rejects divine love. I wrote an article on this that can be found here http://www.foundrypulpit.com/blog/wrath-redefined

My final comment... I think progressive revelation (and especially the culmination of revelation in Jesus) is undeniable.

mattrose, what do you mean when you say, "I think progressive revelation (and especially the culmination of revelation in Jesus) is undeniable"?

You already know I'm not convinced of the doctrine of progressive revelation but what I'm asking about is "the culmination of revelation in Jesus." What does this phrase mean with respect to the book of Revelation?

I know this is way off topic so feel free to start a new thread or perhaps direct me to an existing thread that deals with this topic. Thanks!

psimmond wrote:mattrose, what do you mean when you say, "I think progressive revelation (and especially the culmination of revelation in Jesus) is undeniable"?

You already know I'm not convinced of the doctrine of progressive revelation but what I'm asking about is "the culmination of revelation in Jesus." What does this phrase mean with respect to the book of Revelation?

I know this is way off topic so feel free to start a new thread or perhaps direct me to an existing thread that deals with this topic. Thanks!

I think it is undeniable, biblically speaking, that Jesus is the culmination of the revelation of God.

It sounds like you'd like me to defend that statement and, additionally, discuss what I mean by that in relation to the book of Revelation (it being the last and latest 'revelation' in the Bible).

As for Jesus being the undeniable culmination of the revelation of God, I wonder if we are talking about the word 'revelation' in a slightly different way. Are you thinking of the revelation of doctrinal truth in general? Or the revelation of God in particular? If the former, I could see how one might question whether Jesus was the 'culmination' of revelation. Jesus Himself said the Spirit would lead the Apostles into all truth, so plenty of 'revelation' came after Jesus' ascension. I recognize that (indeed, that is part of the truth of 'progressive revelation).

But when I added the bit about revelation culminating in Jesus, I was talking about the latter. And I'm sure you're not denying that Jesus is the definitive revelation of God (after all, Jesus is the image of the invisible God... If you've seen Him you've seen the Father... He's the exact representation of His being!).

Now concerning the book of Revelation, it is (of course, as you know) the revelation of Jesus Christ. I read it as a book showing that Jesus' Kingdom triumphs over worldly Empire... a book showing that the beastly governments of this world will ultimately lose... not to a ferocious lion... but to a sacrificial lamb. In other words, the Jesus-way wins out. Jesus is the beginning and the end.

In Matt's post he wrote:

Jesus Himself said the Spirit would lead the Apostles into all truth, so plenty of 'revelation' came after Jesus' ascension.

Now if this is true, and I believe it is, could someone who does not believe the Holy Spirit is a part of the Trinity, but is rather a force, power, or extension of personality (whatever that might mean), explain how this thing (whatever they conceive it to be) could impart truth to the Apostles? All truth we know of has been revealed to man in verbal form. Is this imagined spirit able to communicate in words?

Homer wrote:In Matt's post he wrote:

Jesus Himself said the Spirit would lead the Apostles into all truth, so plenty of 'revelation' came after Jesus' ascension.

Now if this is true, and I believe it is, could someone who does not believe the Holy Spirit is a part of the Trinity, but is rather a force, power, or extension of personality (whatever that might mean), explain how this thing (whatever they conceive it to be) could impart truth to the Apostles? All truth we know of has been revealed to man in verbal form. Is this imagined spirit able to communicate in words?

Homer, do you have a Spirit?

Hi Darin,

You wrote:

Homer, do you have a Spirit?

I believe all persons have a spirit. I am not sure I would equate that to God's Spirit. Was your capitalization of spirit in your question inadvertent? If all people have a spirit and some are also indwelt by the Holy Spirit would you say they have two spirits of differing nature?

Why did Paul not say that God spoke through Isaiah?

Acts 28:25 (NASB)
25. And when they did not agree with one another, they began leaving after Paul had spoken one parting word, “The Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers,

Jesus Himself said the Spirit would lead the Apostles into all truth, so plenty of 'revelation' came after Jesus' ascension.


Now if this is true, and I believe it is, could someone who does not believe the Holy Spirit is a part of the Trinity, but is rather a force, power, or extension of personality (whatever that might mean), explain how this thing (whatever they conceive it to be) could impart truth to the Apostles? All truth we know of has been revealed to man in verbal form. Is this imagined spirit able to communicate in words?





I think it's Rom 8 where it says the Holy Spirit speaks to our spirit so clearly it's not in words but by some other method. Maybe i'm dense but i don't get why the Holy Spirit would have to be an independent entity to be able to communicate with our spirit?