Is there such a thing as Progressive Revelation?

[mizpeh]

Did God hide himself to his beloved nation, Israel, in the Old Testament?
When Moses spoke to God face to face, who did he speak to? Did Moses ever declare a Trinity?

Why is there a book called the Revelation of Jesus Christ instead of the Revelation of the Trinity?

You see, I think God did reveal Himself to his chosen people, Isreal. They knew Him and worshipped the one true and living God. They were not blinded to who God was in the Old Testament.

God has always wanted mankind to know Him in truth. God looked for those who would be a light for His truth and His ways on the earth. God seeks to be worshipped in spirit and in truth. Did He hide His true self to those He espoused in the OT? Absolutely not! If God is a Trinity then the Jews never worshipped Him as such. He was one God (not a compound unity) in the OT and He is the same one true God of the NT. Only in the NT He became man to take away the sins of the world.

Why would God need to be made flesh to reveal He had an eternal Son? Why wasn't it clear in the OT and especially to His chosen people that God had an eternal Son? Shouldn't the Jews have known this?

To those who believe in progressive revelation, is there more of God to be revealed?

Here's an excerpt from Against Praxeas by Tertullian:


But, (this doctrine of yours bears a likeness) to the Jewish faith, of which this is the substance -- so to believe in One God as to refuse to reckon the Son besides Him, and after the Son the Spirit. Now, what difference would there be between us and them, if there were not this distinction which you are far breaking down? What need would there be of the gospel, which is the substance of the New Covenant, laying down (as it does) that the Law anti the Prophets lasted until John the Baptist, if thenceforward the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not both believed in as Three, and as making One Only God? God was pleased to renew His covenant with man in such a way as that His Unity might be believed in, after a new manner, through the Son and the Spirit, in order that God might now be known openly," in His proper Names and Persons, who in ancient times was not plainly understood, though declared through the Son and the Spirit.

http://www.christiandefense.org/Tertullian.Prax.htm#31

Tertullian is saying that Modalistic Monarchists such as Praxeas bear a resemblence to the Jewish faith because each faith (Jewish and Modalism) believes in one God and rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. Tertulllian espouses progressive revelation and seems to believe God hid the truth of who He was even to Abraham, Moses, David and all the patriarchs of the OT! Yet Jesus tells us: Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me, and again, But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled, and again, That Christ should suffer, andthat he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.


All these new revelations supposedly found in the NT had been prophesied of old. All the messianic prophecies of the OT point to a future Son not an eternal Son. A future Son who would be God incarnate. Not a new revelation of God, but the same God known by Abraham, Isaac,and Jacob, who took on flesh to reveal Himself to his creation.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

[Cassius]

Did God hide himself to his beloved nation, Israel, in the Old Testament?
When Moses spoke to God face to face, who did he speak to? Did Moses ever declare a Trinity?

Why is there a book called the Revelation of Jesus Christ instead of the Revelation of the Trinity?

You see, I think God did reveal Himself to his chosen people, Isreal. They knew Him and worshipped the one true and living God. They were not blinded to who God was in the Old Testament.

God has always wanted mankind to know Him in truth. God looked for those who would be a light for His truth and His ways on the earth. God seeks to be worshipped in spirit and in truth. Did He hide His true self to those He espoused in the OT? Absolutely not! If God is a Trinity then the Jews never worshipped Him as such. He was one God (not a compound unity) in the OT and He is the same one true God of the NT. Only in the NT He became man to take away the sins of the world.

Why would God need to be made flesh to reveal He had an eternal Son? Why wasn't it clear in the OT and especially to His chosen people that God had an eternal Son? Shouldn't the Jews have known this?

To those who believe in progressive revelation, is there more of God to be revealed?

Here's an excerpt from Against Praxeas by Tertullian:


http://www.christiandefense.org/Tertullian.Prax.htm#31

Tertullian is saying that Modalistic Monarchists such as Praxeas bear a resemblence to the Jewish faith because each faith (Jewish and Modalism) believes in one God and rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. Tertulllian espouses progressive revelation and seems to believe God hid the truth of who He was even to Abraham, Moses, David and all the patriarchs of the OT! Yet Jesus tells us: Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me, and again, But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled, and again, That Christ should suffer, andthat he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.


All these new revelations supposedly found in the NT had been prophesied of old. All the messianic prophecies of the OT point to a future Son not an eternal Son. A future Son who would be God incarnate. Not a new revelation of God, but the same God known by Abraham, Isaac,and Jacob, who took on flesh to reveal Himself to his creation.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.


As to why the Book of Revelation begins with "a revelation of Jesus Christ" and not a "revelation of the Trinity" I'm not even going to bother to answer something so absurd.

Now a belief in progressive revelation is not to insist that the Jews of the Old Testament were "blinded" to the knowlege of God, etc. However there was much in the Old Testament that was simply a symbol foreshadowing of what was yet to come. The Old Testament sacrfices were taken at the time to be the literal answer to the sins of the Jewish people. However, little did they know that these "sacrifices" were simply signs of the true sacrfice of God Himself on the cross. Hence, progressive revelation no matter how you try to work around it. There is a tremendous amount of material in the Old Testament that does not make the slightest sense until fully explained in the New. This is what progessive revelation is. To deny a progressive revelation of the Godhead is one thing. But to deny the concept of progressive revelation in the Bible is just downright ridiculous. I would ask you, Mizpeh, why were the Jews able to read the Psalms that speak of Christ's crucifixion in almost explicit terms and still not know that the messiah would be killed? Because that knowlege was not yet given. In the same manner, the Jews knew that there was a God but they did not yet know that such a God had a Son until the New Testament when this was revealed. They also did not know that His Spirit was distinct from Him.

The Jewish Shema, which today is interpreted in a unitarian sense, was not always taught as such. The Jews (who reject Christ I might add) of today teach unitarianism largely as a backlash against Christianity and thier emphasis on unitarianism did not begin until the first century in an effort to stem the growth of Christianity. What Tertullian was saying in the quote above is that the Jews are rejectors of the fact that God has a Son.

On the matter of Jewish Godhead views, I would like to quote the anti-Trinitarian author Karen Armstrong, author of the bestseller "A History of God". Armstrong is no friend of Trinitarianism and is actually a proponent of Islam, but she says this in alll honesty on page 53 of her book,

"When they recite the Shema today, Jews give it a monotheistic interpretations: Yahweh our God is One and unique. The Deuteronomist had not yet reached this perspective. Yahweh ehad did not mean God is One, but that Yahweh was the only deity whom it was permitted to worship. Other gods were still a threat, their cults were attractive and could lure Israelites from Yahweh, who was a jealous God."

No, Tertullian was saying that the Modalistis were similar to the Jews because they both reject the independent identity of the Son and the Spirit. The Jews refused to recognize that God had a Son and they were eventually followed by the Muslims in the seventh century and now by Oneness Pentecostals in the twentieth century. Honestly I don't understand why cults go to the 'almighty' Jews constatntly for opinions on religious matters. The Jews continue to reject Christ so what does it matter what they think today?

[mizpeh]

Isaiah 43:10-15 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore [I]ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God. Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?
Thus saith the LORD, your redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; For your sake I have sent to Babylon, and have brought down all their nobles, and the Chaldeans, whose cry is in the ships. I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.


Did Israel not know their God? They were in covenant with the Lord to be His witnesses to the world! Why is the doctrine of the Trinity news to the Jews and why did it take over 250 years to formulate? Because it is man-made.

[mizpeh]

And again..............

Isaiah 44:6-8 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

The nation of Israel are witnesses of God. God told them His plans ahead of time. There was nothing that He did not tell them. If there was a Trinity, the OT and the Jews would have declared it!

[OriginalPraxeas]

"When they recite the Shema today, Jews give it a monotheistic interpretations: Yahweh our God is One and unique. The Deuteronomist had not yet reached this perspective. Yahweh ehad did not mean God is One, but that Yahweh was the only deity whom it was permitted to worship. Other gods were still a threat, their cults were attractive and could lure Israelites from Yahweh, who was a jealous God."

You may disagree with this...I don't doubt, but the pagan world was full of trinity of sorts. Many of the pagan deities came in triplicate form. Many had Father, Mother and child trinities....

Would it be such a surprise that God wanted them to know that He was NOT comparable to any of them?

God says "Whom will you liken ME to" and God declares that HE is alone

Neh 9:6 Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshipeth thee.

Job 9:8 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.

Psa 86:10 For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone.

Isa 37:16 O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.

Isa 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Gen 22:16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

Isa 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

God is by Himself....not ourselves. The Jews were right even according to Jesus

Joh 4:22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.

[mizpeh]

John 4:22 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=John+4%3A22) Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Jesus said the Jews KNEW WHAT they worshipped to the Samaritan woman at the well. The Jews didn't need a progressive revelation of God called the Trinity revealed to them since the God they served from Abraham wasn't anyone other than YHWH - 'He is'. They had the truth of the knowledge of God from the beginning and they knew it.

What the Jews did need to know was that JESUS was the Lord of glory revealed in flesh. If they had known that a greater than the temple, a greater than Abraham, a greater than Jonah, a greater than Solomon was walking in their mist, they would not have crucified the Creator.

[mizpeh]

John 8: 51-59 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Because of the highlighted verse above, I would say that once again the Jews, who were the nation God chose out of all nations to be a the bearer of truth as to who God is, didn't have a clue as to God's identity if we are to believe in the theory of progressive revelation from a Trinitarian perspective. Jesus tells us that He perceived the Jews to believe that His (Jesus') Father is God, not a Trinity. Jesus went on to tell them of their ignorance of the Father not the Trinity.

Why doesn't Jesus make it plain that the Father is the first person of the triune God instead of misleading his Jewish brethren that His Father is God alone?

Jesus has spurned opportunity after opportunity to declare the Trinity. You would think that a person who declares himself to be the way, the truth, and the life, would be zealous to declare the truth at every turn. Well, in fact, Jesus did declare the truth and He did not declare a Trinity.

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. John 10:18

[mizpeh]

Hosea 8:2 Israel shall cry unto me, My God, we know thee.

[jdcord]

Armstrong is no friend of Trinitarianism and is actually a proponent of Islam, but she says this in all honesty on page 53 of her book,


It doesn't matter how "honestly" she says anything! She is a proponent of Islam, and thus has no understanding of the one true God. Therefore, her proclamations are at best "questionable" right from the start. But more likely, her statements about what perspectives the "Deuteronomist" had or had not yet reached are "doubtful" right from the start, since her own perspectives are naturally antagonistic to the those of the Jews in the first place.

Her viewpoint is therefore worthless in this discussion.



The Jews refused to recognize that God had a Son ...


Wrong. The Jews merely refused to recognize that Jesus, ... specifically,... was that Son.




Honestly I don't understand why cults go to the 'almighty' Jews constantly for opinions on religious matters.


So you are insulting us, now, by calling us a cult? ...... why are you even here, then? Certainly it is not to "win" us by your amazing (*cough*) insights into God's word - unless you honestly think somehow that insulting people is a great way to win them over.



The Jews continue to reject Christ so what does it matter what they think today?

What they think today may or may not matter (some of it could possibly be instructive); but the things they wrote, and that are written about them, in the Old Testament most definitely matter!

[mizpeh]

Something else came to my mind tonight. I'm trying to read the NT with the thought in mind that it is written by Jews who had no concept of the Trinity or any ideas about God other than what is written in the OT. Paul had that awesome experience of seeing the Lord on the Damascus road which radically changed his life around. Those he persecuted he now ministered to and suffered for.

My thought was : Why didn't Paul with all the revelations he truthfully claimed he received from the Lord clearly proclaim the Trinity? A revelation of the Trinity would have, IMO, made just as profound an effect on Paul as seeing Jesus and one would think that he would have shouted this progressive revelation of who God is from the rooftops.

I think it's clear why he didn't. Paul was an Hebrew of the Hebrews. He, as Jesus testified in John 4, knew who God was. For a Jew, God coming as man to earth would mean that the God, YHWH, whom they had worshipped for thousands of years, was the One who came and died.

[mizpeh]

Hi Mizpeh,

The idea of progressive revelation is inferred from scriptures such as Eph 1:1-11. The most important thing to remember about this concept is: although revelation may be progressive, it is never contradictory. The most fundamental, foundational tenet of the OT is that God is monotheistic in a basic, numerical sense. Any revelation in the NT does not contradict this, and in fact, this tenet must be kept in mind when interpreting the NT revelation. The latter is simply an expansion of the former, not a change.

God didn't spend two thousand years re-enforcing monotheism to His chosen people Israel, only to turn around and say, "Just kidding!" ;)
Okay, I got the same type response at CARM. I guess I didn't elaborate enough. Sure there are mysteries that God kept hidden from the beginning of time only to be revealed in the last days....the Gentiles being added to the church, the body of Christ, forgiveness of sins by the sacrifice of the lamb of God, more end time stuff...etc but this is about God himself.

He has revealed himself as Savior but He is still the same God that parted the Red Sea. The revelation of Jesus Christ was not that God is a Trinity of persons but that God himself came in flesh and blood to redeem us. Jesus is the same God of both Testaments not a new revelation of the very essence of God.

[mizpeh]

Greetings RedeemedCynic84-

Paul proclaimed Jesus to be the person of the Father Incarnate:

"To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself" (2 Co 5:19)

Paul equated the Spirit of the Lord (the Holy Spirit) to be the Spirit of Jesus:

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (2 Co 3:17)

"For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ" (Php 1:19)


Paul was merely recognizing and affirming the biblical distinctions of God's existence: Father- who is God in His transcendent existence, and
Son- who is God in his human, incarnate existence. To infer multiple persons is a predilection.

It does not bode well for Trinitarianism to "look behind the curtain", so to speak. Most Trinitarian commentators are forced to dismiss the majority of remarks by the ante-Nicene fathers, because their opinions did not reflect Nicene orthodoxy. I have, however, found this to be a useful tool when discussing the evolution of Christian theology with Trinitarians. Most have no idea the tenets of their doctrine did not originate with the apostles.
You should take this up with All4Him. He thinks himself an early Father/post apostolic expert. He is constantly quoting ante-Nicene fathers to prove they believed in the Trinity.

[mizpeh]

God didn't spend two thousand years re-enforcing monotheism to His chosen people Israel, only to turn around and say, "Just kidding!" ;)
Not only did God reinforce monotheism by constantly calling himself...me and I, but He told the Jews that they knew him, that they were his witnesses of who He was...then He came as man to save the world from sin. Even Jesus said the Jews knew what they worshipped. So why would God mislead the Jews into thinking they knew Him and that they worshipped him without telling them outright, 'O, by the way, there are three of me that you must worship' !

Why would He mislead them into thinking they worshipped the one true God and then proceed to further reveal himself as an eternal Trinity with one part of the Trinity coming in the flesh? It doesn't make any sense nor does it agree with scripture.

[mizpeh]

lol technically, the Trinitarian statement is actually a response and refutation of what the ante-Nicene fathers said.

Can you give examples of what you mean by "the Trinitarian statement is actually a response and refutation of what the ante-Nicene fathers said."

Are you talking about modern day Trinitarians? And what Trinitarian statement are you talking about...the Nicene Creed?

[mizpeh]

There was a time when the Son was not! He he he, I like that saying.

The error for all of them was making the Son eternal and existing as the divine Son, the Logos, distinct from the Father from before the birth of Christ instead of referring to the Son as human. The Son is that holy child conceived of the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary. All scripture before the birth of Christ related to the Son of God is prophetic or looking to his birth and all scripture after the birth of Christ that speaks of Christ as having a preexistence before his birth looks back at who Christ was before his birth....that is God.

Do you know of any anteNicene writers who taught the Trinity as it came to be known or set forth at Nicea?

[mizpeh]

Dave,

You wrote this: It does not bode well for Trinitarianism to "look behind the curtain", so to speak. Most Trinitarian commentators are forced to dismiss the majority of remarks by the ante-Nicene fathers, because their opinions did not reflect Nicene orthodoxy. I have, however, found this to be a useful tool when discussing the evolution of Christian theology with Trinitarians. Most have no idea the tenets of their doctrine did not originate with the apostles.I haven't read many of the ante-Nicene fathers. You say their opinons don't reflect Nicene orthodoxy then what do you gather from reading them? Oneness? Binitarism?

[mizpeh]

Hi Mizpeh,

Specifically with the Apologists- subordinationism. For them, the Son was neither co-eternal nor co-equal. Even when ones like Tertullian began speaking of three Persons in one substance (una substantia et tres personae), his Son was not co-eternal (and arguably, not consubstantial). It would take Nicea to correct this, which they did in letter, but not in spirit. Subordinationism continues to plague Trinitarianism, and this is never so evident as in their explanation of Jn 1:1. (just finished that thread, BTW. Perhaps we can revive it :dance:)Go ahead. But I have to warn you, I have an extremely difficult time defining God in a qualitative sense. It just doesn't set right with me. :realmad: