# Private revelation from God?



## steadfast7 (Oct 24, 2011)

Philippians 3:14-15 "I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, *and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you.*

What does Paul mean when he says that God will reveal that also to you?

It seems here he is speaking of those who might be a immature in their thinking. Is he upholding the idea that God might speak through an inward "witness of the spirit" a believer's error?

I don't think he was thinking of canonical scripture when he wrote here of "revelation."

thoughts?


----------



## FenderPriest (Oct 24, 2011)

I think this is along the lines of God being the primary and immediate teacher to all believers:



> All your children shall be taught by the LORD,
> and great shall be the peace of your children.
> (Isaiah 54:13 ESV)





> For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
> (Jeremiah 31:33-34 ESV)





> It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—
> (John 6:45 ESV)





> Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another,
> (1 Thessalonians 4:9 ESV)


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 24, 2011)

It's just that that sounds like something the average evangelical who believes God speaks to individuals personally would say


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 24, 2011)

Do you think the Spirit gives "impressions" or specific callings to specific individuals?


----------



## J. Dean (Oct 24, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> It's just that that sounds like something the average evangelical who believes God speaks to individuals personally would say


The method of revelation is not specific here. This could just as easily refer to revelation through the Scriptures (O.T. of course) or it could be a "gut check" of the Holy Spirit (which is not the same as a "revelation"). 

We need to keep in mind that Paul was writing at a time when the more visible supernatural gifts of the spirit were still in function, so even if Paul is referring to a "revelation" in the sense of a vision or other more readily supernatural format, that doesn't mean such a direct rendering is applicable to us. 

In the Bible study I've been in lately, our pastor has been warning us to be VERY careful about keeping Scripture in context with regard to who the original audience was, as well as the general context of any given passage and the other important hermeneutical matters. I think that, if Paul is thinking of direct revelation, he is speaking to a church occupying that time of direct supernatural activity within the church, and that we need to remember that such a dispensation of the Spirit is no longer with us.

It's interesting, because if you look at the number of miracles and direct interventions by God throughout Biblical history, you'll notice that those times are really few and far between.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 24, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Do you think the Spirit gives "impressions" or specific callings to specific individuals?


 I certainly cannot deny outright the numerous accounts of people hearing God's voice in the present day. So, it's very possible.

When Paul writes, he is writing as someone who himself heard God's voice on a number of occasions. Did he think that he was unique in this because of his call? Did he think that these words from the Lord were going to end with the close of the scriptures. I can't say for sure. I really don't think he is speaking of scripture here. The scriptures were not even accessible to the average person like it is for us.


----------



## MW (Oct 24, 2011)

In most cases the apostle uses the word "perfect" as a description of those who are living in the complete revelation of "the fulness of the ages." It is clear from the context of chapter 3 that the circumcision still threatened the church. His own testimony is put forward as a reason for rejecting the claims of the circumcision and for pressing on in Christ and unto Christ. The revelation of which he speaks must therefore be understood as the revelation of Christ which is given in the New Testament, not something additional to the New Testament which goes beyond Christ.


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 24, 2011)

> Matthew Henry commentary Philippians 3:15,16:
> 
> 15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. 16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.
> 
> The apostle, having proposed himself as an example, urges the Philippians to follow it. Let the same mind be in us which was in blessed Paul. We see here how he was minded; let us be like-minded, and set our hearts upon Christ and heaven, as he did. 1. He shows that this was the thing wherein all good Christians were agreed, to make Christ all in all, and set their hearts upon another world. This is that whereto we have all attained. However good Christians may differ in their sentiments about other things, this is what they are agreed in, that Christ is a Christian's all, that to win Christ and to be found in him involve our happiness both here and hereafter. And therefore let us walk by the same rule, and mind the same thing. Having made Christ our all, to us to live must be Christ. Let us agree to press towards the mark, and make heaven our end. 2. That this is a good reason why Christians who differ in smaller matters should yet bear with one another, because they are agreed in the main matter: "If in any thing you be otherwise minded—if you differ from one another, and are not of the same judgment as to meats and days, and other matters of the Jewish law—yet you must not judge one another, while you all meet now in Christ as your centre, and hope to meet shortly in heaven as your home. As for other matters of difference, lay no great stress upon them, God shall reveal even this unto you. Whatever it is wherein you differ, you must wait till God give you a better understanding, which he will do in his due time. In the mean time, as far as you have attained, you must go together in the ways of God, join together in all the great things in which you are agreed, and wait for further light in the minor things wherein you differ."



It's not about "hearing voices" as a means of special revelation, nor about the special revelation of apostles in their unique role in delivering that special revelation. It's about walking informed by the (now completed) special revelation of the Word, with the Holy Spirit illuminating the understanding of the believer as he believes and walks in it.


----------



## Andres (Oct 24, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> I certainly cannot deny outright the numerous accounts of people hearing God's voice in the present day.



Why can't you? I do.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 24, 2011)

Andres said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly cannot deny outright the numerous accounts of people hearing God's voice in the present day.
> ...


 I've just heard too many first hand accounts of specific information unbeknownst to the receiver of a 'word' that was true or ended up happening: dollar figures that money that was needed, secrets that were never revealed.

I believe Spurgeon had a few instances of saying specific things during sermons which were directly applicable to certain individuals in his congregation.


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 25, 2011)

"Hearing" God's voice is simply the spill over from being immersed in the Scriptures. God never gives a revelation that is contrary to the Scriptures but he certainly gives us desires and confirms those desires with a peace that passes understanding. Romans 12:2 says "Do not be conformed to this world, 3 but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." The "renewal of your mind" is the study of and immersion in the Word, "hiding" the Word, the written Word, in our hearts and minds. The direct result of this immersion is knowing the will of God, that is our course of action consistent with the revealed Word. Any other means by which we may seek to know the "secret things of God" is divination.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Oct 25, 2011)

Having had to defend a few lunacy hearings as a young lawyer (what a joy), I can tell you that one of the common questions that a doctor who wanted to commit a person for lunacy would ask is "Have you ever heard God speak to you out loud?" If the answer was "yes," it was not looking good for your "client."


----------



## J. Dean (Oct 25, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think the Spirit gives "impressions" or specific callings to specific individuals?
> ...


Yes but individuals such as Joseph Smith claimed to hear God's voice too.

It's a dangerous thing to start "vision hunting." Far too easy for the emotionally hungry flesh (or worse, the devil) to imitate the Spirit.


----------



## moral necessity (Oct 25, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> In most cases the apostle uses the word "perfect" as a description of those who are living in the complete revelation of "the fulness of the ages." It is clear from the context of chapter 3 that the circumcision still threatened the church. His own testimony is put forward as a reason for rejecting the claims of the circumcision and for pressing on in Christ and unto Christ. The revelation of which he speaks must therefore be understood as the revelation of Christ which is given in the New Testament, not something additional to the New Testament which goes beyond Christ.



Nice response, Rev. Winzer!

Blessings!


----------



## Steve Curtis (Oct 25, 2011)

BobVigneault said:


> "Hearing" God's voice is simply the spill over from being immersed in the Scriptures


Amen.
As John Owen summarized, "If private 'revelations' agree with Scripture, they are needless, and if they disagree, they are false."


----------



## Douglas P. (Oct 25, 2011)

In my opinion Professor Gaffin's Perspectives on Pentecost is the best work available on this topic. I would argue that you can come to no other conclusion than that of Dr. Gaffin: Word/verbal revelation served a specific redemptive historical function and has now ceased (completely) with the completion of the Apostolic age (See Eph. 2:18ff).

I also agree with the sentiments above, whether Augustine, Spurgeon or other giants of the faith; if they claim something contrary to Scripture, I must believe and agree with Scripture.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 28, 2011)

kainos01 said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> > "Hearing" God's voice is simply the spill over from being immersed in the Scriptures
> ...


Could the same thing not be said of anything else that accords which scripture? such as theology, preaching and the confessions?


----------



## LeeJUk (Oct 28, 2011)

I think that private revelations do have a place for us at this current time and this has been shown in the scriptures and through Christian experience. There is no evidence that Paul ever thought in 50-67 A.D. when he was basically the only person writing to the churches that he a. thought they were scripture or b. thought there would ever be a N.T.

That doesn't mean that they aren't scripture, but what I'm saying is that Paul never had any concept of there being a canon nor a close of the canon and therefore he couldn't based on that be saying all private revelation will stop. We need to take Paul in his context instead of reading later traditions into his writings.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 28, 2011)

LeeJUk said:


> There is no evidence that Paul ever thought in 50-67 A.D. when he was basically the only person writing to the churches that he a. thought they were scripture or b. thought there would ever be a N.T.



This affirmation ignores much of the evidence of Paul's own letters. While Peter's identification of Paul's letters as Scripture does take place later, Paul himself views his letters as having immense importance. Thus the Thessalonians are charged by the Lord to ensure that his letters to them are read publicly. The evidence is well collected in Herman Ridderbos' _Redemptive History and the NT Scriptures_.

Dennis, I think all of us could speak of the Lord "showing" or revealing something to us - the question is the instrumentality by which that happens. For instance, with the word supplying the major premise and my conscience supplying the minor, I have often been shown that something I did was wrong. But this is not a "private revelation" in the sense those words typically bear; it is simply an ongoing aspect of exposure to the word.

[Moderator]This is a confessional board. One of the things we confess is that nothing is at any time to be added to the Scriptures, not even by _private revelation_. Please respect the confessional boundaries when advocating for any particular point of view.[/Moderator]


----------



## LeeJUk (Oct 28, 2011)

I did not suggest that we add or take away from scripture at all so I have no idea where you got that from.



py3ak said:


> LeeJUk said:
> 
> 
> > There is no evidence that Paul ever thought in 50-67 A.D. when he was basically the only person writing to the churches that he a. thought they were scripture or b. thought there would ever be a N.T.
> ...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 28, 2011)

Paul surely knew he was writing scripture because he recognized the things he was saying to have authority. They were to read the letters from Church to Church.



> (2Th 3:14) And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.


There are other instances where Paul understood the authority of his writings. But this one should suffice.


----------



## seajayrice (Oct 28, 2011)

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> Having had to defend a few lunacy hearings as a young lawyer (what a joy), I can tell you that one of the common questions that a doctor who wanted to commit a person for lunacy would ask is "Have you ever heard God speak to you out loud?" If the answer was "yes," it was not looking good for your "client."


 you'd also know you did not have a Presbyterian for a client


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 28, 2011)

LeeJUk said:


> There is no evidence that Paul ever thought in 50-67 A.D. when he was basically the only person writing to the churches that he a. thought they were scripture or b. thought there would ever be a N.T.
> 
> That doesn't mean that they aren't scripture, but what I'm saying is that Paul never had any concept of there being a canon nor a close of the canon and therefore he couldn't based on that be saying all private revelation will stop. We need to take Paul in his context instead of reading later traditions into his writings.



Hogwash.

Paul certainly had the concept of _canon_, simply because he had the OT; I can't imagine you'd deny that, so I'm going to choose to assume you meant he had no concept of there being a NT canon, though that's an equally preposterous statement. Paul understood that he was an authoritative prophet (this in itself should be enough to squash the idea that he didn't think he was writing scripture, given what he understood about OT prophets and the role of Word in redemptive history); but not only that, he was an Apostle - and he himself gives testimony that the perpetually existing pastors and teachers of the church (throughout all the world and in all ages) were built up into a house laid on the foundation of the teaching of the apostles and prophets. The Apostles' teaching was committed to writing for the explicit reason that they were given charge to teach all nations - which they could not do by any other means.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 28, 2011)

"...so apt are we to resent cautions as accusations ...." - Matthew Henry



LeeJUk said:


> I did not suggest that we add or take away from scripture at all so I have no idea where you got that from.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Andres (Oct 28, 2011)

LeeJUk said:


> I did not suggest that we add or take away from scripture at all so I have no idea where you got that from.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You said:



LeeJUk said:


> I think that private revelations do have a place for us at this current time and this has been shown in the scriptures and through Christian experience.



How are private revelations not adding to scripture? Are you going to argue private revelations have some sort of sub-authority?


----------



## LeeJUk (Oct 28, 2011)

Private revelations do have a place but it's not as authoritative as the scriptures. Is anyone who has any subjective guidance therefore outside the confession and adding to the scriptures? Do you feel called to the ministry? or the mission field? Did you feel led to marry a particular woman? This has been the experience of Christians throughout the ages, no one is saying it's authoritative as scripture but I don't believe we need to get rid of it totally. 

Also there is a big difference between Paul recognising his writings as authoritative and him actually thinking they would end up in a collection of writings called the N.T. canon which would mean the end of the spiritual gifts. This idea of "that which has perfect has come" refering to the canon - which he never knew was going to exist and never mentions, that's really problematic for me. 

Py3ak you said "Please respect the confessional boundaries...." as if they had been violated by me plus you felt the need to put it in bold red writing with moderator tags. I don't think I'm being unreasonable to interpret that as being an accusation. I don't appreciate being belittled by the use of Matthew Henry either.

Anyway it's clear that certain people just don't like others expressing a contrary view. I didn't belittle or put down anyone elses position, I simply wrote my own and people come on here saying my views are hogwash and acting as if I'm some sort of a heretic trying to deny the confession and damage orthodoxy. I think I'll make this my last post for another while.


----------



## Andres (Oct 28, 2011)

LeeJUk said:


> Private revelations do have a place but it's not as authoritative as the scriptures. Is anyone who has any subjective guidance therefore outside the confession and adding to the scriptures? Do you feel called to the ministry? or the mission field? Did you feel led to marry a particular woman? This has been the experience of Christians throughout the ages, no one is saying it's authoritative as scripture but I don't believe we need to get rid of it totally.



Those examples you have given are not private revelations. Using your examples, private revelation would be when someone says, "God told me to marry so and so" or "I heard God say that I'm supposed to move to South America". We've discussed on this board in the past how to discern a calling to ministry and also how to court/select a mate. Neither case involves having God speaking outside the canon.


----------



## MW (Oct 28, 2011)

LeeJUk said:


> Private revelations do have a place but it's not as authoritative as the scriptures.



Who reveals? God has given the Scriptures. It is claimed that God gives the private revelation. The Scriptures are to be received for the authority of God speaking therein. On what authority are so-called private revelations to be received? If they are not to be received for the authority of God speaking in them, they should not be called "revelations."

What is revealed? The Scriptures reveal the will of God. It is claimed that God makes known His will in private revelations. We are to understand what is the will of the Lord. If both are supposed to make known God's will then the understanding is to be exercised in relation to both sources of information about God's will.

It is impossible, when terms are properly explained, to hide under the cover that private revelations are not added to the Scriptures. Any claim to a private revelation is ipso facto a claim to further knowledge concerning God's will which is not contained in Scripture, and adds to what is known from Scripture. Any claim to know God's will carries with it the obligation to obey; and so any knowledge of God's will apart from Scripture would carry with it the obligation to obey God's will even as Scripture carries with it the obligation to obey its instructions.


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 28, 2011)

LeeJUk said:


> Anyway it's clear that certain people just don't like others expressing a contrary view. I didn't belittle or put down anyone elses position, I simply wrote my own and people come on here saying my views are hogwash and acting as if I'm some sort of a heretic trying to deny the confession and damage orthodoxy. I think I'll make this my last post for another while.



Lee, I can assure you my response did not come from someone simply "just not liking others expressing a contrary view," nor did I ever even remotely suggest you were a "heretic;" I don't think your "views" are hogwash, but I do find the statement that Paul did not know he was writing scripture to be so: even unbelieving, mainstream scholarship is beginning to catch up with the fact that biblical authors perceived themselves as writing actual _scripture_ in the fullest sense of the term.

Out of curiosity, may I turn the tables on you quickly before proceeding and ask you a few questions? You say Paul could not or would not have known that there was (or was to be) a New Testament canon - on what do you base this? Would you describe Paul's "self-understanding" similarly or differently to that of, say, Moses? Also, does that fact that a collection of Paul's letters (2 Peter 3) was circulating in his own day impact your answer at all? Does Jude's speaking of "the faith once delivered" and the epistle to the Hebrews speaking of the fullness of instruction for the church coming at a specific period in history have any consequence for this discussion? Finally, you grant that Paul knew his letters had "authority," but I ask, then, was he writing them only for temporary use in specific churches, or was he writing them for more than this?


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 29, 2011)

I think the problem arises when loaded theological language is made to absolutize every use of the word. I pointed out in the OP that Paul writes "God will reveal that to you as well." He seems to think that the average Philippian Christian could receive some sort of revelation from God, the question is what does he mean? We all confess that authoritative revelation has ceased with the close of the canon.

My gut reaction is that he isn't thinking of scripture per se, old or new, but the kind of spontaneous 'words' from the Spirit that were common to that era and may still be at work in terms of promptings, conviction, and guidance. 

Whether that era has ceased is beyond the scope of Paul's thoughts on the matter. That must decided within the context of a wider theological argument.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 29, 2011)

Lee, I regret having injured your feelings in any way. I placed the moderator warning _after_ addressing both you and Dennis, and in moderator tags, so it would be clear it was not part of my interaction with the substance of the thread, but a reminder to keep everyone within the boundaries. 

That said, though, our confession does reject private revelations: if someone is going to use that language, it is their responsibility to prevent misunderstanding by making plain that they do not intend the term in the same way that the confession does.

As to the substance, Prufrock has already addressed it very well, but let me just highlight the point he made earlier: it is clear in the case of Paul (Ephesians 2:20) and John (1 John 1:3) that they conceive of their work, including their work of writing, as fundamental. Now it is in the nature of a foundation that it cannot perpetually be under construction - not if you're ever going to get to the superstructure, at any rate. So the apostles know that they are mortal; they know that their work is fundamental; they must also know that at some point their work will be finished and come to an end. And they are aware that no other foundation can be laid. Thus a denial that they were aware of being engaged in a fundamental work for the remainder of the church for all time would necessarily seem to arise more from a lack of attention to NT statements than from actual knowledge of the apostles' thought-processes. It is not necessary to consult 1 Corinthians 13 to see that they knew they were writing authoritative Scripture, and it is only necessary to attribute to them basic intelligence to see that from the facts incontrovertibly on display in their writings they had wherewithal to conclude that this process would not continue indefinitely.



LeeJUk said:


> Py3ak you said "Please respect the confessional boundaries...." as if they had been violated by me plus you felt the need to put it in bold red writing with moderator tags. I don't think I'm being unreasonable to interpret that as being an accusation. I don't appreciate being belittled by the use of Matthew Henry either.
> 
> Anyway it's clear that certain people just don't like others expressing a contrary view. I didn't belittle or put down anyone elses position, I simply wrote my own and people come on here saying my views are hogwash and acting as if I'm some sort of a heretic trying to deny the confession and damage orthodoxy. I think I'll make this my last post for another while.


----------



## LeeJUk (Oct 29, 2011)

OK brother Ruben forgive me of my words and attitude. I obviously got you wrong.
We have unity in the Lord regardless of these differences and none of us should let our differences get in the way of Christian fellowship. 
I got a bit too offended and I apologise to all.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 29, 2011)

Thanks, Lee. Already forgotten.


----------

