Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
I can see the various verses make it clear that any kind of teaching that is inconsistent with existing scripture does not stand. They clearly speak against so much of the kinds of things that Lee taught, making it clear that even if there were such a thing as a MOTA, it wasn't Lee.
But none of them defined the boundaries of scripture so neatly as to extend those two verses in Revelation to define what is scripture. And since there were many things already written that were not inconsistent with what we have as the Bible now, yet are not included as scripture, then it does not seem that simple — unless we are prepared to join the ranks of those two guys who visited here a year or so ago claiming that if they wrote, it was scripture.
|
I have no idea what you are talking about. Here is the discussion as I understand it: We had a long discussion previously about whether there are still apostles today. Igzy said there weren't Ohio and I said there was nothing in the NT to say that. Igzy then clarified his position saying that no one today can write scripture the way a few apostles did when the NT was written. That position I agree with, but Ohio said "I wish the NT gave us a clear word on that". I responded that I felt the NT says enough to give us clear guidance.
The verses in Revelation can clearly be used to refer to the entire book of Revelation. However, the book of Revelation can be considered as a "conclusion" to the NT. If the book is a conclusion then it is reasonable to say that word refers to the entire NT. Likewise, John said that the book of Revelation was "the revelation of Jesus Christ". If this is the vision he is referring to "the revelation of Jesus Christ" it is again reasonable to say that this would encompass the entire NT. You are free to choose the narrowest interpretation if you wish, but even if you do that doesn't mean the principle doesn't apply to the rest of the NT.
Paul said in the book of Galatians that you cannot add to or annul a covenant after it has been confirmed. This is a standard legal principle and would clearly refer to both the NT and the OT.
In addition there are many condemnations throughout the NT towards those who try to deceive by twisting the scriptures or distorting the scriptures. Likewise there are admonitions throughout to "cut straight the word of the truth". So even if you choose the narrowest possible interpretation of the two verses in Revelation, there is no ground to say that anyone could add to or subtract from the Revelation of Christ.
That is not to say that we cannot have those who speak the word of God today, or that have the gift of prophecy or the gift of apostleship. What it does mean is that everyone who speaks, whoever they are, must be governed, controlled and restricted by the word of God. Therefore, the NT does give guidance on this issue of whether we still have apostles that can write scripture.