Have you ever noticed that in virtually every case where a teacher or preacher of the gospel has gone completely out into left field it's because they supposedly received some new "revelation from the Lord?" Usually it's a twist on familiar scriptures that reveals something new that was previously "hidden."
When you listen to them describe how a new revelation has been acquired, the process follows a familiar pattern. It usually starts with some sort of conversation with God. For example, they're stumped by some passage of scripture; then they begin asking God questions and God replies with something that leads to more questions. Finally at the end there's an "Ah-ha!" moment when the new revelation is given or discovered.
These teachers almost seem to be in competition with one another to see who can come up with the latest (and most outrageous) revelation. In the process the true gospel gets thrown down and trampled on.
My question is this is there really any need for extra-Biblical revelation? If it's allowed, how are we supposed to know which "revelations" to believe? Don't we need one authoritative source?
When you listen to them describe how a new revelation has been acquired, the process follows a familiar pattern. It usually starts with some sort of conversation with God. For example, they're stumped by some passage of scripture; then they begin asking God questions and God replies with something that leads to more questions. Finally at the end there's an "Ah-ha!" moment when the new revelation is given or discovered.
These teachers almost seem to be in competition with one another to see who can come up with the latest (and most outrageous) revelation. In the process the true gospel gets thrown down and trampled on.
My question is this is there really any need for extra-Biblical revelation? If it's allowed, how are we supposed to know which "revelations" to believe? Don't we need one authoritative source?
- 1
- 1
- Show all