Reconciling Progressive Revelation with Christian viewpoints

All research or scholarship questions
AdibM
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:27 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Reconciling Progressive Revelation with Christian viewpoints

Postby AdibM » Wed Sep 03, 2008 5:36 pm

Is there a good essay or article out there that attempts to do this? I found something by Robert Stockman but I'm still looking for more resources. Thanks immensely in advance. :)
"To be a Bahá'í simply means to love all the world; to love humanity and try to serve it; to work for universal peace and universal brotherhood." -- `Abdu'l-Bahá

brettz9
Posts: 1366
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Reconciling Progressive Revelation with Christian viewpoints

Postby brettz9 » Wed Sep 03, 2008 10:19 pm

The talk of 'Abdu'l-Baha in Some Answered Questions I think is useful:

http://www.bahai-library.com/writings/a ... aq/20.html

BruceDLimber
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:34 pm
Location: Rockville, Maryland, USA

Re: Reconciling Progressive Revelation with Christian viewpoints

Postby BruceDLimber » Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:11 pm

Greetings!

SAQ is definitely the primary source, yes!

And in addition I'll commend to you Riggs' Apocalypse Unsealed (the newer edition is The Apocalypse) and I, Daniel, both of which may be found in the "Books" section of http://www.bahai-library.org

A supplementary source might be: www.bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled

Good hunting! :-)

Bruce

Keyvan
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Reconciling Progressive Revelation with Christian viewpoints

Postby Keyvan » Sun Sep 07, 2008 3:10 pm

BruceDLimber wrote:Greetings!

A supplementary source might be: http://www.bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled



I do not like this site. We need to stop linking people to it.

The creator has a deranged belief that Mormonism is some sort of preface to the Baha'i Faith and wants to prove it as such through his site.

He bases this off of (though does not refer to this reasoning in his site) this idea that a handful of Baha'i's share, that in this obscure pilgrims note, of all things, in which Shoghi Effendi is recorded to have said that the Mormon founder, Joseph Smith, was not a prophet (like Mormons believe), but rather a "seer" - and then these individuals interpret that to be a status of low level divine communication. So basically they believe that that Joseph Smith was some sort of psychic and that in his writings he predicted certain events to happen at certain dates that turned out to be aligned with occurrences in Baha'i Faith - but that the rest of what Joseph Smith said was just made up nonsense.

To an outsider, the mere sight of Baha'i's trying to reconcile Mormonism with their faith makes the Baha'i Faith effectively look false, and degrades the value of all of the substantial proofs he compiles of the reconciliation between the Baha'i Faith and other religions.

The creator is stubborn and refuses to listen to anyone but himself. He does not realize how it looks to an outsider, and how he is unknowingly turning away countless people who could have otherwise found interest in the Baha'i Faith. He gets overjoyed when a few Mormons send him emails saying they are interested and thinks that he should never remove the Mormon section because then he wouldn't draw in those Mormons. He'd rather make a few Mormons interested and automatically deter countless other honest seekers who end up falsely ruling out any validity for the Baha'i faith, thinking we uphold some sort of validity for Mormonism - a religion which in academic circles and society at large is seen as the epitome of religions that are obviously false (fringe faiths such as Scientology and Raelienism aside.

brettz9
Posts: 1366
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Reconciling Progressive Revelation with Christian viewpoints

Postby brettz9 » Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:30 pm

Bruce, my equivocation was not about the power of the primary source, but whether it met Adib's particular needs. Some other article might synthesize more examples from the Baha'i Writings.

Keyvan, it's been a while since I've looked at the site, but while we certainly cannot endorse Joseph Smith as a prophet, the Universal House of Justice, in a letter on its behalf, wrote that while he was not a "prophet, minor or otherwise", he was a "religious teacher sensitive to the spiritual currents flowing in the early 19th century directly from the appearance of the Bab and Bahá'u'lláh and the Revelation of Their Messages of hope and divine Guidance." (in Lights of Guidance, no 1728).

If there are problems you see with any Baha'i site after contacting that individual, you really ought to bring this up with the institutions rather than our hashing it out here.

best wishes,
Brett

Keyvan
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Reconciling Progressive Revelation with Christian viewpoints

Postby Keyvan » Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:47 am

brettz9 wrote:Keyvan, it's been a while since I've looked at the site, but while we certainly cannot endorse Joseph Smith as a prophet, the Universal House of Justice, in a letter on its behalf, wrote that while he was not a "prophet, minor or otherwise", he was a "religious teacher sensitive to the spiritual currents flowing in the early 19th century directly from the appearance of the Bab and Bahá'u'lláh and the Revelation of Their Messages of hope and divine Guidance." (in Lights of Guidance, no 1728).

If there are problems you see with any Baha'i site after contacting that individual, you really ought to bring this up with the institutions rather than our hashing it out here.

best wishes,
Brett




My objection is not that. It's that the site:

1) juxtaposes "mormon prophecies" next to "islamic prophecies," "christian prophecies" etc, thereby presenting the status of "mormonism" as parallel to the status of the religious dispensations that Baha'i's hold as valid, when they are light years apart. Although this is obviously not the intent of the sites creator, he makes it appear that way - he knows he makes it appear that way - and he doesn't care....

2) nor does the article on mormon prophecies he presents show any disclaimer indicating the official Baha'i position on the status of Joseph Smith.


I've tried contacting him about this and he gave me a canned response. He said that his ABM is aware of it and doesn't have an issue apparently. I don't know what contacting the institutions can do for this...i mean hes not doing anything wrong...hes just doing something in poor and misleading taste. Thoughts?

brettz9
Posts: 1366
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Reconciling Progressive Revelation with Christian viewpoints

Postby brettz9 » Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:38 am

Hello Keyvan,

My point is that it is not our business as individuals to be speaking negatively about someone here. Institutions, on the other hand, can in fact become involved in advising or informing an individual if they would agree that something is in "poor and misleading taste". However, using phrases like "the creator is stubborn", are not helpful and even more harmful given what our Writings say about talking behind others' backs. It'd be a little different if one were to ask "what do you guys think about the approach used at such-and-such a site.", or even to express your concerns about the contents of the site and let us come to our own conclusions about the site.

I'd say you have the choice to either let it go and focus on teaching and community work, or you can assert your perogative to bring it to the attention of the institutions.

best wishes,
Brett

portmanteau
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:03 am

Re: Reconciling Progressive Revelation with Christian viewpoints

Postby portmanteau » Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:12 am

I have found that the easiest way for Christians to understand Progressive Revelation is to show them quotes from Christian writers, theologians, and speakers on Progressive Revelation in Christianity. Yes, many Christian denominations believe in Progressive Revelation, but it is not commonly taught.

Here are some quotes I gathered:


Progressive Revelation from a Christian Perspective

http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1963/JASA9-63Bube.html
A Perspective on Scriptural Inerrancy
RICHARD H. BUBE
(1) Progressive revelation. Progressive revelation means that God has given His revelation of Himself to men in ever increasing clarity, fullness, specificity, and detail, adopting at each stage of man's development that form of the revelation and that content of the revelation which is the most meaningful and the most useful. The growth of the revelation concerning the identity of the Messiah is a typical example. The very essence of God's dealings with His people in the Old and New Testaments can be understood only in terms of progressive revelation. When we look at the Old Testament through the revelation given in the New Testament, we see that the earthly promises given by God to His earthly people Israel with their earthly promised land of Canaan were symbolic of the deeper spiritual promises given by God to His people in Christ with their spiritual blessings and their spiritual land of promise in heavenly places. We cannot go back today into the forms and symbols of the Old Testament revelation and hold them up as vital and significant in the face of the realities of the New Testament fulfillment of these forms and symbols in Jesus Christ. This Old Testament viewpoint is indeed inerrant as the revelation of God; it faithfully presents His essence to His people in the time in which it was given and to us today when properly understood. In order for it to present faithfully His essence to us today, however, we must take into account the limitations under which it was given, and we must see its larger interpretation in the fuller revelation of the New Testament.



http://www.endtimes.org/progressive.html
What is Progressive Revelation?
It is important to understand how God chose to reveal Himself if we are going to understand prophecy. To quote Charles Hodge "The progressive character of divine revelation is recognized in relation to all the great doctrines of the Bible. One of the strongest arguments for the divine origin of the Scriptures is the organic relation of its several parts." In other words it is very important to understand that God revealed Himself progressively, and not all at once. This may seem fairly obvious by looking at the diverse authorship of the books of the Bible, and the many years that God's truth took to be written down, but the understanding of progressive revelation is important in relation to prophecy. The fact that the Millennial Kingdom is to be 1000 years isn't revealed until the 3rd to the last chapter of the Bible. That doesn't make it any less true.

http://www.obt.org.uk/About/progress1.htm

Progressive Revelation - 1
Michael Penny
…one of the important principles in understanding the Bible is to appreciate that revelation is progressive. That means that we should not expect to find in earlier Scripture something that is revealed later. We do not find Noah circumcising his sons, as God did not reveal circumcision until afterwards, in the time of Abraham. And we do not find Abraham keeping the Sabbath day, as God did not reveal the Sabbath (to Moses) until after the exodus from Egypt.
We will never understand Genesis properly if we insist on reading into it the Law of Moses, a Law which was not revealed by God until 400 years or more after the end of Genesis. This may be obvious, yet many of us are tempted to do such things when we come to the New Testament. We read the revelation that the risen, ascended, glorified Saviour gave to His apostles, in the epistles, back into the Gospels. In this way we can distort and misunderstand the teachings and actions of our Lord Jesus Christ when He was on earth.
Similarly we can read the revelation Christ gave to the Apostle Paul contained in his later letters, back into his earlier ones. Or, even worse, perhaps, we can read that revelation back into the letters of Peter, James and John - or back even further into the Gospels. In doing this we can only cloud our understanding of just what the Lord Jesus Christ was doing when on earth, and just what Peter, James and John were teaching during the time covered by the Acts of the Apostles.

It has been said that the most important variable in God's dealing with mankind is time; that is, revelation is progressive, and as such, it seems eminently sensible that we give greater emphasis and weight to the later parts of Scripture, rather than the earlier. Many Christians do this in part, giving greater emphasis to the New Testament than to the Old Testament. However, do we take this to its logical conclusion?

http://www.herewestand.org/HereWeStandBook/1B1.html
There is a concept that theologians refer to as “progressive revelation.” Progressive revelation means that God reveals the Truth to us, but He doesn’t do so in an instant. Rather, He does so progressively. He didn’t just send His Son to us right after the sin of Adam. Rather, He spoke to us through the prophets first. So, man’s knowledge about God progresses, until the entire Bible is completed, and at last we can see the whole picture. Progressive revelation is necessary for us because we have become totally depraved after the fall of Adam. Our understanding of the Bible would be very twisted if God did not start to teach us from the basics.

http://www.sermonlinks.com/Sermons/Disp ... m/DP_4.htm

Ryrie, op. cit., pp. 123-124; cp. New Scofield Reference Bible on Gen. 1:28

The basis for salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations. It is this last point, of course, which distinguishes dispensationalism from covenant theology, but it is not a point to which the charge of teaching two ways of salvation can be attested. It simply recognizes the obvious fact of progressive revelation. When Adam looked on the coats of skins with which God had clothed him and his wife, he did not see what the believer today sees looking back on the cross of Calvary. And neither did other Old Testament saints see what we can see today.


http://www.solagratia.org/Articles/New_ ... ngdom.aspx

New Testament Eschatology in the Light of Progressive Revelation: Special Focus on the Coming Kingdom
By Daniel B. Wallace

What am I saying? I am simply arguing that we need to read the Bible in light of the progress of revelation--not only between the testaments but also within each testament. Even within the NT there is progressive understanding. We (i.e., both pretribulationists and posttribulationists) tend to impose a systematic framework on the text, rather than adhering to a biblical approach to exegesis in this instance. Although we would agree that scripture does not disagree with itself, we would be quite wrong to assume that the finality of revelation was known in its details before it was ever recorded.

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=278
The Preciousness of Blood
(Leviticus 17)
By: Bob Deffinbaugh , Th.M.

(1) The principle of progressive revelation. The principle of progressive revelation is simply this: God has chosen to reveal His truths to mankind sequentially. Thus, the great doctrines of the faith are generally introduced early in the Old Testament, later developed more fully by the prophets, and then by our Lord Jesus in His earthly ministry, and finally seen in their fullest form in the New Testament, in the light of the interpretation and teaching of the apostles.

This leads me to a very important application: The principle of progressive revelation provides us with a vital clue to the importance of any teaching.
Because the atoning work of Christ was so important, so precious, God began to reveal the underlying principles very early in time. I believe that the same thing can be said for any doctrine that is truly vital, truly important, truly precious.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin01.html
The Issue of Progressive Revelation
For some reason, God revealed His truth in history, in progressively more detail and expansiveness over time. There were aspects of His revelation that were NOT available to Abraham that WERE available to Moses. Likewise, there may be truths that were available ONLY to NT writers, and NOT to the OT writers--in keeping with this principle.
In other words, just because it comes to explication in the NT doesn't mean it can be thrown out as being incorrect. Granted, it may not have much persuasive 'power' to those only accepting the OT, but it is certainly not out of line with how God does things.
The reality of progressive revelation is obvious EVEN TO those who only accept the OT. It is highly unlikely that Moses was 'briefed' by God on Malachi's prophecy that YHWH would come to His temple someday(!)...esp. since there was no temple (nor talk of a temple) in Moses time. This prophecy was a LATER revelation of God to Israel. The birthplace of the Messiah in Micah 5.2 was probably not known to Abraham.
This point should be very clear, without multiplying examples. The truth of progressive revelation is obvious EVEN in the OT; so it should not be a priori rejected when it comes to the OT-NT relationship.

http://www.twopaths.com/study_HowTo.htm
If we are looking for guidance on a topic, we must consider which Bible teaching reflects the most recent revelation from God. The Bible's teachings about retaliation and revenge are a good example of progressive revelation. First, at the time of Abraham, unlimited revenge for a wrong done was considered normal and proper (Genesis 34:1-2, 25-29). Later, the Law of Moses limited revenge to an equal injury for any injury done:
If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. (NIV, Leviticus 24:18-20)
Finally, when Jesus came, He said we should not take any revenge at all:
You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (NIV, Matthew 5:38-42)

http://www.thekingiscoming.com/Tbs/2005 ... _says.html
QUESTION: What is meant by the term, "progressive revelation?"
ANSWER: Progressive revelation means that over a long period of time, during which the various books of the Bible were being transmitted to men and recorded, God revealed His plans for mankind, particularly with regard to redemption and prophecy, and also the facets of His own nature. Later revelation did not alter the veracity of that which came earlier, but added to it and built upon it.
…When the Book of Revelation was complete, so was the Bible, and so was God’s revelation to man regarding what He would have us know of a spiritual nature. Thus, the entire Bible works together to provide us with a complete picture of Christ. In fact, the whole theme of the Bible ultimately is the revelation of Jesus Christ. Progressive revelation within the pages of Scripture gives the Bible continuity and demonstrates God’s faithfulness in fulfilling His promises to mankind.

www.realtime.net/~wdoud/documents/STUDI ... eutics.doc
Hermeneutics -- The Science and Art of Biblical Interpretation
By Drue Freeman, Pastor
Trinity Bible Church, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
The third theological principle is that Revelation is Progressive. This refers to the fact that various precepts are initially presented in a summary form and then enlarged. A wonderful example is found in the "promised seed of the woman" found in Genesis 3:15. More information about the Messiah is found throughout the Old Testament, especially in the types and symbols that are used to give a vivid picture of the Messiah who was to come. The New Testament is documentation of the reality that Messiah has come. While this is the clearest example of Progressive Revelation, there are many concepts that are initially presented and then developed.

http://www.conservativeonline.org/journ ... 1_id03.htm
Dr. Robert Lightner
Visiting Professor of Theology
Tyndale Theological Seminary
An Address Given Before the:
Conservative Theological Society
2nd Annual Meeting, August 3, 1999
Tyndale Seminary, Ft. Worth, Texas
All evangelicals have always believed in progressive revelation. That is a far cry from a complementary hermeneutic.
By progressive revelation, I mean the gradual unfolding of God’s truth throughout history as recorded in Scripture. In other words, progressive revelation emphasizes more development or enlargement of early truth than was given in the Old Testament. In the process of time, God gave more information about things that He began to reveal in the Old Testament. For example, let’s talk about the Trinity. While I believe the Trinity can be defended from the Old Testament, I certainly can’t do it as easily as I can from the New Testament. That truth was revealed gradually over a long period of time. You need the whole of the revelation to understand it, but the emphasis is on the development not change.

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/comptrith.htm
Trinitarianism: Modified Tritheism
by
Jason Dulle
Understanding the NT in light of the OT is necessary if we wish to pay full respect to God's progressive revelation of Himself to man, for the nature of progressive revelation will not permit newer revelation (NT) to essentially alter the foundational understanding given us from the old revelation (OT). The old revelation was given as a foundation upon which to understand the new, and was not intended to be radically altered by subsequent revelation. The new revelation was not given to redefine the meaning of the old, but rather to add to it. Trinitarianism errs in that it does theology backwards, reading later revelation into prior revelation, redefining the latter rather than adding to and complimenting it. To do theology properly, then, we must begin with the Old Testament's insistence on monotheism, understanding such as it is clearly portrayed and most naturally understood (as a numerical oneness) and interpret the distinction passages in the NT in light of that understanding.
A cursory examination of the Scripture will reveal that the distinction passages are not found in Scripture until after the incarnation (new revelation), and that most distinctions occur only between Father and Son (often to the exclusion of the Spirit). In light of such an observation, and in consistency with the progressive nature of revelation, Oneness theology concludes it best to understand these distinctions as arising because of the incarnation. Only such an approach can adequately deal with all the evidence, do justice to the progressive nature of revelation, preserve the foundational understanding of God's identity as set forth in the OT, and fully account for the distinction passages in the NT.

http://www.christfellowshipkc.org/cat1.html
As anyone can see, God did not give all of His special revelation at the same time. He gave it gradually, over a period of about 1500 years. God's gradual revelation of Himself and His purposes over this period of time is known as progressive revelation. This simply means that people who lived in 1400 BC (around the time of Moses) were not given access to as much of God's specially revealed truth as those who lived at the end of the first century AD, when the complete New Testament had been written.
Neither special revelation nor progressive revelation continue today. God has given us His complete Word in the sixty-six books of the Bible.

http://www.thebookwurm.com/intro-02.htm
God has spoken to us by means of a progressive revelation. Just as a school teacher cannot cover a year's material in the first lesson, God gave His Word a little at a time, over the course of centuries. Progressive revelation does not imply that new books are being added to the Bible, today. The final chapter of the Bible warns against additions (Rev 22:18,19). “22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”(King James Bible, Revelation)

http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/may2001.htm

“…the ultimate Author of these inspired prayers was the same One who revealed the New Testament. As Gleason Archer noted:
“Progressive revelation is not to be thought of as a progress from error to truth, but rather as a progress from the partial and obscured to the complete and clear” (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Chicago: Moody Press, 1974, Rev. Ed., p. 460).
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFA ... 1W0900.pdf
Alleged Errors in the Bible—Part Four
By Dr. Norman Geisler
(from Baker’s Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker, 1999)

Forgetting That Later Revelation Supersedes Earlier. Sometimes critics do not recognize
progressive revelation. God does not reveal everything at once, nor does he lay down
the same conditions for every period of history. Some of his later revelations will supersede
his earlier statements. Bible critics sometimes confuse a change in revelation with a mistake
That a parent allows a very small child to eat with his fingers but demands that an
older child use a fork and spoon, is not a contradiction. This is progressive revelation, with
each command suited to the circumstance.

http://www.womenpriests.org/classic/craston.asp
The Reverend Canon R.C.Craston, Canon of Manchester and Vicar of St.Paul's Church, Bolton, Lancs.
Progressive Revelation
A further principle of major importance in the method of applying the authoritative teaching of Scripture is that of development in the process of revelation and of its understanding. As the writer has observed elsewhere,(1) in the Bible we see a unique educational process whereby progressive knowledge of God and his ways with and for men is imparted. But the process of education is always within the framework of human knowledge and understanding at the time. What is newly revealed bursts that framework, and when a new framework thus emerges, the relative and temporary aspects of revelation are left behind. Thus, within Scripture itself we see partial concepts of God's nature, inadequate because expressed in the anthropomorphic understanding of the times, corrected by later and fuller revelation. Commands of God, suited to contemporary needs of the Israelites in the Wilderness, are later abrogated or modified. Food laws, for example, are set aside, distinction between clean and unclean meats being removed. In relation to the latter there is specific repudiation of earlier insights and commands both in the teaching of Jesus and in the Vision to Peter in Acts 10. But other aspects of Old Testament revelation, while never specifically countermanded, are also now left behind. Obvious examples are capital punishment for adultery, many other judicial penalties, and health laws, particularly in respect of women, menstruation and child-birth. A developing understanding of God's fuller revelation led the Christian conscience to regard these matters as no longer binding. By the same process of understanding many Christians do not see capital punishment for murder as part of God's unchanging will for mankind. Indeed, unless this concept of development in the understanding of revelation is recognized, there would be no justification for setting aside capital punishment for adultery or any of the criminal laws of Leviticus.
In short, there are aspects of revelation which are of temporary significance. In the case of some, Scripture itself makes this clear. With others a developing Christian judgment leads to the same conclusion. We need to ask at this time whether certain insights on the man-woman relationship as presented in Scripture are not of lasting significance.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a11.htm
The Catechism of the Catholic Church
PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
CHAPTER THREE
I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT
ARTICLE 11
"I BELIEVE IN THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY"
The progressive revelation of the Resurrection
992 God revealed the resurrection of the dead to his people progressively. Hope in the bodily resurrection of the dead established itself as a consequence intrinsic to faith in God as creator of the whole man, soul and body. The creator of heaven and earth is also the one who faithfully maintains his covenant with Abraham and his posterity. It was in this double perspective that faith in the resurrection came to be expressed.


http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/lib ... pture.html
A Gradual and Progressive Revelation

Another thing to note about God’s communication with us over the course of salvation history is that he was wise enough not to reveal too much about Himself too fast. One can compare our relationship to God to a human love relationship. When a couple begins courting, they don’t “tell all” on the first date. Rather, as they get to know each other better, they gradually reveal more and more about themselves. When their wedding day finally comes, they reveal themselves completely to each other, even physically. The total intimacy of marriage is the culmination of a progressively deepenig relationship.

That’s the way God works with us too.

http://www.avemaria.edu.ni/philosophy%2 ... eology.htm
THL 102. CATHOLIC APPROACH TO SCRIPTURE. General introduction to the Scriptures through an analysis of the development of key themes, texts and the literary forms and historical background which shape the message of salvation history from creation to the parousia. Consideration of the Bible as the progressive revelation of Christ as the Word of God. Emphasis on the literal sense of the text. Prerequisite: THL 101. Offered: every semester. Credit, three hours.
http://www.st-michaels.org.uk/Sermons%2 ... Basics.pdf
But Anglicans aren’t biblical fundamentalists. We don’t imagine that
God the Holy Ghost stopped revealing His truths when the biblical period came to an
end. A defining characteristic of the Church of England is that it is founded on
Scripture, Reason and Tradition. God’s truth is a progressive revelation.

http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/co ... ngs/36.asp
The Discovery of the Trinity
by Mark Shea
Two basic tenets of Catholic teaching are that 1) God revealed himself in a progressive revelation that was completed with the death of the last apostle and 2) since then the Church's understanding of that complete revelation has deepened and developed.
Perhaps the classic model for understanding this process is seen in the revelation given by God concerning His own Triune nature. Certain critics of the Catholic Faith speak of the doctrine of the Trinity as an "invention" of the Church. However, it is closer to the mark to say that this truth was discovered rather than invented. For the Church, so far from creating anything, simply followed the clues left by God in His complete revelation given through Scripture and Tradition.

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_General/Hermeneutics.htm
Principle #4: The Progressive Revelation Principle
The Word of God is to be understood from the Old Testament to the New Testament as a flower unfolding its petals to the morning sun. God initiated revelation, but He did not reveal His truths all at one time. It was a long and progressive process. Therefore, we must take into account the then-current state of revelation to properly understand a particular passage. For example, an interpretation of a passage in Genesis which assumed a fully delineated view of the "new Covenant" would not be sound. As the saying goes, “The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.”

Keyvan
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Reconciling Progressive Revelation with Christian viewpoints

Postby Keyvan » Tue Oct 07, 2008 3:36 am

heres a good forum devoted to this discussion

http://groups.myspace.com/bahaichristiandialogue

AdibM
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:27 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Re: Reconciling Progressive Revelation with Christian viewpoints

Postby AdibM » Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:23 am

Keyvan wrote:heres a good forum devoted to this discussion

http://groups.myspace.com/bahaichristiandialogue


Thanks, but I can't seem to join the group because the profile is down for special maintenance. Can't view the forum posts either for some reason, just loads a white page.
"To be a Bahá'í simply means to love all the world; to love humanity and try to serve it; to work for universal peace and universal brotherhood." -- `Abdu'l-Bahá

Keyvan
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Reconciling Progressive Revelation with Christian viewpoints

Postby Keyvan » Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:54 am

thats weird. is it still not working for you?

AdibM
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:27 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Re: Reconciling Progressive Revelation with Christian viewpoints

Postby AdibM » Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:52 am

Nah it's fine now, I joined - thanks.
"To be a Bahá'í simply means to love all the world; to love humanity and try to serve it; to work for universal peace and universal brotherhood." -- `Abdu'l-Bahá


Return to “Discussion”