| Author | Message | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 22 Registered: 2-2006 |
This phrase twists my gut like a knife and makes me shudder. I run across it, not only in moderate (modern?), 'Evangelalistic' circles of Adventism rhetoric, but in various movemnts of mainsteam Christianity in the past decade; such as 'Rhema', the 'Deliverance Ministries' (one leader said that God wanted 'Deliverance' the main focus now, not the Gospel), etc.. Coming from my experinces in the 'New Age' and my studies (including of channeled spirit's messages, although I did not, personally, channel any), there are little trails of cat feet in the fog here of similarities... It bothers me to no end, when I hear it from SDA's, nowadays. Are they incorporating another philosophy (like they did with the Willowcreek model) from mainstream Christianity, which is just wrong? I do understand the psychology of defensiveness, even in the face of irrefutable fact; defending one's pride becasue of the problem with Ellen (well, as much as anyone can understand the illogic of it). But I am offended on a emotional level at the offense to the Cross and Christ; 'once for all', that we have not been given as much 'revelation' about what he did, as we need, now, in this life. I would love to have all of your thoughts, feelings and comments on this SDA "Progressive Revelation" concept. I do not have enough info on this 'side' of scriptural contemplation. Thanks, Cathy | ||
| Tealeaves Registered user Username: Tealeaves Post Number: 295 Registered: 5-2004 |
I think it is pretty simple and clear in the Bible that Christ's work was done on the cross, and that He is all that is needed for salvation. It is also clear that there is nothing that should or could be added to the Bible (Stated clearly in Revelation), the information in the Bible is complete as is. Progressive revelation, then, can only be termed as complete heresy. There is absolutely no biblical basis for it. -tanya- | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1357 Registered: 3-2005 |
Cathy2 For SDAs progressive revelation meant constantly trying to cover the tracks of EGW's false prophecies. Remember the one about pork being ok, hen not ok, then time to start the Sabbath etc etc. I am interested with your experience in the New Age movement about your views expressed on the above specific movements you mentioned. "Rhema", and the 'Deliverance" movements are obviously way out of the mainstream, but I am interested about your thoughts on the "Willow Creek" model. Was heavy SDA involvement in that movement an example of progressive revelation? And, do you think the New Age movement has affected the Willow Creek movement? Stan | ||
| Windmotion Registered user Username: Windmotion Post Number: 273 Registered: 6-2001  |
Progressive revelation is not necessarily wrong, just adventists have their own brand of it. Imagine looking at a satellite view of say, Seattle. Looking at it from far away you can't really tell what it is, but your program thingy says its Seattle. You zoom in closer and closer, and before long you spot Mt. Rainier. You get even closer and sure enough there is the Space Needle. With the Adventist version of progressive revelation they say you are zooming on on St. Louis, but you dont' see the Mississippi River anywhere. You zoom in looking for the St. Louis Arch, and you see Mt. Rainier! It's Seattle. "Oh," Adventists say. "Now that you get closer, you can see this is really Seattle, not St. Louis." Sounds good, but if you are going to call is "progressive revelation" you need to be looking at Seattle the whole time! Make sense? Analogically, Hannah | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2347 Registered: 3-2004  |
Hannah, I really like your example of progressive revelation. I never heard of progressive revelation until I left the Adventist church. Just one of the facts I learned about it after I decided not to rejoin it. Diana | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 23 Registered: 2-2006 |
Stan, Whew! A lot of thought you are asking of me.  It is getting late (for me, tonight) and I am not sure I would be coherent with all of your questions. Some hit a bit close to home, pulling me out of my detached, intellectual level, into some memories from my youth, where I don't always want to go. (Kind of hits my solar plexas) But I always desire to help others to learn to avoid deceptions (without teaching them too much about the lies--fine lines to walk) or what was it all for? So I will try to answer some things, in the coming days. One question I will address, briefly: "And, do you think the New Age movement has affected the Willow Creek movement?" In a pop psychology way, yes, in that the New Age philosophies have subtly affected psychology, in general, over the past few decades. There may be other things, but I cannot recall them, right now. i have not thought about this in a long time. I may look it up this week. My father and oldest sister (13 years older) are psychologists and I grew up in the 'atmosphere' and philosopy of it, you might say, talking the talk. (Being the baby of the family, analyzed, along WITH the IJ was not fun, trust me! No wonder I ran for my life at age 17!) So, over the years, including my own delvings into psychology, leading small support groups, including the 'Recovery Movement' in Al-Anon and Co-Dependecy (including in a church), I learned and 'bought into' much. Later, I stepped back and thought, "Wait a minute...?" from a Christian, Christ-Gospel-centered paradigm and changed some of my opinions on current psychology and how it is used in Christianity nowadys, including the SDA church. Willow Creek is one of the original 'Church Growth' models. (And I reject CG as a valid Body of Christ paradigm) I went to one of the original churches of this, before Willow Creek, in Portland OR, 'New Hope', and saw many things. My SDA brother (in Portland) went to a Willow Creek, SDA conference, with others (and other denominations) from his church, to learn how to 'do it' like them, bring 'it' home to their Portland church; and they did. Later, my mom's very conservative church, here in Pueblo, Colorado, did the same thing, which shocked me. A 'new thing' in Pueblo?!!!! (It didn't go over very well. They still are not 'celebrating' nor feeling needs 10 years later) By 'mainstream Christianity', I think one differs in semanitcs. Many mean the old denominations as Mainstream (Lutheran, Presbyterain, Catholic, Methodist, Beptist, etc.), but they are not seen that way by a great majority of Christians, nowadays. When I speak of mainstream, I generally mean, the people, who follow what is most popular. And that is going to be Church Growth, Charismatics, Benny Hinn, T.D. Jakes, extreme Dispensationalism, Rick Warren, Latter Rain (and offshoots), Pat Robertson (Who is in Dominion theology, BTW, not orthodox Christianity or even plain old Baptist Dispensationalism), a growing Home-Church Movement(against organized religion), bla, bla, bla... My brain is tired. I'll post more, later. Email me, too, if you like (anyone). Some things, I'd rather not discuss on a public forum or I can write about better/easier in email. In Christ, always, Cathy choosier1@msn.com | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 220 Registered: 3-2005 |
I always understood progressive revelation to mean that God revealed 'more' to us as He saw fit. Looking back, I realize, as Hannah so deftly pointed out, that the idea may have a kernel of truth...let me expound. It seems that in very, VERY loose terms, progressive revelation could mean the removal of the veil. And, not to sound bitter, but as usual, the kernel of truth got twisted around and changed and morphed until it fit what it needed to to make EGW look somewhat reliable...sort of. :0) (I feel it is verrrrrrry important to figure out where the kernel of truth is so that we can better get to the bottom of the cycle of dishonesty that is occuring within SDAism.) Progressive revelation CANNOT mean that Jesus hasn't finished the work of salvation or that He will make us believe a lie to lead us to Truth. Patria | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1360 Registered: 3-2005 |
Patria, I really like your last paragraph about what progressive revelation cannot mean. Cathy2, Thanks for your candid assessment of so much out there that seems so phony. If a ministry is not teaching the Bible in a systematic way, then, automatically the red flags should go up. I saw a post tonight on a blog, where a conservative presbyterian pastor who believes in the great doctrines of Paul and the Reformed faith, went into Las Vegas, and decided to see if just good old traditional grace based teaching of God's Word would reap what God promised. Guess what--God is faithful to His Word! Apparently, God brought in showgirls from the famous shows, as well as other highly questionable types. They became mature Christians who rejoiced in the study of God's Word. God is faithful. He doesn't need flashy entertainment to bring His sheep to His fold. Sola Gratia, Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3461 Registered: 12-2003  |
Progressive revelation is actually a well-known Christian conceptóit just isn't what we learned it was! I've heard it explained, for example, as the increasing revelation of God through special revelation. The Mosaic covenant, for instance, revealed more of God's eternal plan to redeem mankind by a substitutionary death of a Redeemer than the world had previously known. Along came Isaiah and Jeremiah, the Psalms, et al, and the world received even more revelation of Jesus and His purposes for His people. Then Jesus cameóthe final revelation of the Father. Each stage of new reelation is part of the phenomenon called "progressive revelation" [PR]. PR, however, never begins in error and progresses to truth. It always is truthójust increasing amounts of it! Speaking of the "seeker sensitive" model of church, I thought of the many discussions here re: the church growth movement of recent years on Sunday. Gary was preaching on 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. He was exploring what it meant to live a life with a ministry mindset. He summarized his sermon with 6 points: 1. We live under the lordship fo Christ, not of culture and tradition. 2. The gospel is changeless; our methods cannot be. 3. People don't need to become like us to hear the gospelówe must reach them where they are. 4. What flows through the channel of culture has a greater impact than something stuck in time 5. We must be determined not just to speak but to be heard 6. Evangelism is primarily about personal engagement, NOT CONGREGATIONAL INVOLVEMENT. Gary explained each of the above, but #6 really caught my attention. He said that introducing people to Jesus happens best in personal interactions between individuals. Bringing unbelievers to church to evangelize them is not the purpose of church. Church, he said, is where believers come to worship and be fed and to experience life in the body. We bring unbelievers to church to observe how Christians live, not to evangelize them. Don't misunderstand; he's not saying unbelievers can't or shouldn't meet Jesus in church. He was saying church should not be primarily to introduce unbelievers to the gospel. If it is, the believers won't be challenged and fed. I thought that was a powerful and valid insight. It's in the same vein as the principle of a parent donning the oxygen mask in case of in-flight emergency before putting the masks on the children, because if the parent passes out, the child will surely die. If the parent survives the child has a much better chance of survival. Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1361 Registered: 3-2005 |
Colleen. I agree with what pastor Gary said, especially that last insight number 6. The weekly church service is to feed the sheep, and to equip the saints, and not to amuse the goats (as Charles Spurgeon put it so well). Then, saints who are equipped with God's Word, can share on an individual basis. That seems to be the Biblical model. You are very fortunate to be associated with such a great church. I am sure many of us who attended last weekend would attest to that. Stan | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 440 Registered: 7-2004  |
Colleen, I think you have pointed to the other key element here. Jesus is the final and complete revelation of God. I also think that we need to distinguish between our gaining more understanding of His Word. And new revelation after His Word, particularly that adds new truths not taught in the Word. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3466 Registered: 12-2003 |
Good point, Rick. The NT gift of prophecy is for the building up of the body of Christ, not for revealing new truths about Jesus and salvation and God. NT prophets can give inisght into the meaning of the word of God. Also, the book of Acts records Agabus prophesying a famine and the fact that Paul would be killed in Jerusalem. I believe that sometimes NT prophets are given special insight by God for people. We have to be careful, though, that we personally go to God with whatever "messages" we might hear from supposed prophets. I don't mean to diminish the significance of NT prophets. I just mean that often people tout themsleves (or others they admire) as having "the gift of prophecy", and I just want to say, I have to see the fruit before I automatically believe. I have had insights from people (one or two people in particular that I can think of) from whom I do believe I received prophetic insight. In every instance I can think of, however, the insight was something that made me aware of an area in my life that I wasn't submitting to God. The observations shined the light of truth on an area of my rationalizing that I needed to surrender to Jesus and for which I needed to trust His will for me. These insights were not particularly obviousóbut they had the ring of truth, and they contributed to my changing in some way. So yes, there is a NT gift of prophecy, but that gift is primarily for understanding the Bible and for being able to speak for God in ways that expose Biblical truth and its applications. It's not for revealing new "truths" the Bible doesn't contain. Colleen | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 221 Registered: 3-2005 |
Thanks for the clarity! Patria |
