Anabaptists, Catholics and Continuing Extra-Biblical Revelation

[thatbrian]

What do Anabaptists and Roman Catholics have in common? Firstly, they both have frameworks of Continuing Extra-Biblical Revelation. Secondly, they both oppose the doctrine of sola fide, anding to faith an element of works-righteousness.

It's the continuing extra-biblical revelation which I'm interested in discussing here.

Is the canon sealed or not? That is the question.

 

[BobRyan]

What do Anabaptists and Roman Catholics have in common? Firstly, they both have frameworks of Continuing Extra-Biblical Revelation.

What do Anabaptists and Roman Catholics and NT saints in Paul's day and Charismatics and Pentecostals and ... have in common?

Firstly, they all have frameworks of Continuing Revelation.

Secondly almost all of them get falsely accused of oppose the doctrine of sola fide, anding to faith an element of works-righteousness.

It's the continuing extra-biblical revelation which I'm interested in discussing here.

Do we have any examples of any of them (even Catholics) claiming that they have extended the Bible by even one book with the prophetic messages of someone in their denomination?

Or do they all agree that the canon sealed? That is the question.

BTW "extra-Biblical" means "outside the Bible" it is "self-conflicted to argue "in the Bible extra-Biblical"

 

[delizzle]

What do Anabaptists and Roman Catholics and NT saints in Paul's day and Charismatics and Pentecostals and ... have in common?

Firstly, they all have frameworks of Continuing Revelation.

Secondly almost all of them get falsely accused of oppose the doctrine of sola fide, anding to faith an element of works-righteousness.

It's the continuing extra-biblical revelation which I'm interested in discussing here.

Do we have any examples of any of them (even Catholics) claiming that they have extended the Bible by even one book with the prophetic messages of someone in their denomination?

Or do they all agree that the canon sealed? That is the question.

BTW "extra-Biblical" means "outside the Bible" it is "self-conflicted to argue "in the Bible extra-Biblical"

After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.
Colossians 4:16 NIV

Simply answer is that we don't know. If archeologists discovered the lost letter to Laodicea, would you consider it scripture?

 

[JonShaff]

After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.
Colossians 4:16 NIV

Simply answer is that we don't know. If archeologists discovered the lost letter to Laodicea, would you consider it scripture?

Good question.

 

[delizzle]

Good question.

A more interesting question would be what if Paul's letter to the Laodiceans proved that everything the Roman Catholic Church taught was true and that the Reformation was the greatest heresy in Christian history?

 

[JonC]

What do Anabaptists and Roman Catholics have in common? Firstly, they both have frameworks of Continuing Extra-Biblical Revelation. Secondly, they both oppose the doctrine of sola fide, anding to faith an element of works-righteousness.

It's the continuing extra-biblical revelation which I'm interested in discussing here.

Is the canon sealed or not? That is the question.

I don't know that this is true of all Anabaptists. I found this on Anabaptist.org explaining why the canon is closed:

So long as the living voice of prophets and apostles was to be heard, there was no pressing need of a canon of Scripture. Under the inspiration of God they knew what was inspired, and what was not. But as soon as these men were dead--and with them inspiration ceased--it became necessary that their writings be gathered together to know what were their messages to the churches, and to preserve those writings from corruption.​

 

[JonShaff]

A more interesting question would be what if Paul's letter to the Laodiceans proved that everything the Roman Catholic Church taught was true and that the Reformation was the greatest heresy in Christian history?

Interesting "what if", but i do not bother with what if's lol

 

[Adonia]

What do Anabaptists and Roman Catholics have in common? Firstly, they both have frameworks of Continuing Extra-Biblical Revelation. Secondly, they both oppose the doctrine of sola fide, anding to faith an element of works-righteousness.

It's the continuing extra-biblical revelation which I'm interested in discussing here.

Is the canon sealed or not? That is the question.

There is no adding to anything on our part. When one is given authority by Jesus Christ Himself, one can legitimately use that authority.

 

[delizzle]

Interesting "what if", but i do not bother with what if's lol

Agreed. The point that I was trying to make was that we need to be very careful when deciding what is actually scripture. In the case of Paul's messing letter, if added to the cannon, it could have enormous impact on theology.

 

[rlvaughn]

What do Anabaptists and Roman Catholics have in common? Firstly, they both have frameworks of Continuing Extra-Biblical Revelation...

To which Anabaptists are you referring? Could you give an example?

Simply answer is that we don't know. If archeologists discovered the lost letter to Laodicea, would you consider it scripture?

I'm not sure what you refer to that we don't know. But if archaeologists discovered something they claimed was Paul's letter to Laodicea, why would we believe that it was? If would have no provenance among God's people. Further, I do not expect that to happen, lest God has left his people for 2000 years not thoroughly furnished for every good work (Cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Agreed. The point that I was trying to make was that we need to be very careful when deciding what is actually scripture. In the case of Paul's messing letter, if added to the cannon, it could have enormous impact on theology.

Why would we expect a letter to the church of Laodicea to include theology that is inconsistent with or even contradictory to the rest of Paul's writings?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Keeping in mind Ana-Baptist usually refers to the Continental movement, but I assume you are using the term to refer to modern Anglo-American Baptists. In what way do they have such a framework? The folks I fellowship with are Cessationists.

 

[TCassidy]

What do Anabaptists and Roman Catholics have in common? Firstly, they both have frameworks of Continuing Extra-Biblical Revelation. Secondly, they both oppose the doctrine of sola fide, anding to faith an element of works-righteousness.

False assumptions lead to false conclusions. "Ana-Baptist" was a derogatory term used against almost all dissenters from Rome. Even Martin Luther was called an "Ana-Baptist" by Rome. Granted Andreas Karlstadt, once worked alongside Martin Luther, and is often thought of as a forerunner of South German Anabaptism because of his reforming theology but Luther was never close to being an Ana-Baptist, and wrote extensively against them (see Von der Wiedertaufe an zwei Pfarrherrn written in 1528, and Von den Schleichern und Winkelpredigern published in 1532.)

So who, exactly, do you mean by the broad brush term "Ana-Baptist?"

 

[BobRyan]

After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.
Colossians 4:16 NIV

Simply answer is that we don't know. If archeologists discovered the lost letter to Laodicea, would you consider it scripture?

I would not consider it scripture but depending on the content it could be considered inspired.

A more interesting question would be what if Paul's letter to the Laodiceans proved that everything the Roman Catholic Church taught was true and that the Reformation was the greatest heresy in Christian history?

then I would question if it was indeed inspired... but still not scripture.

 

[thatbrian]

There is no adding to anything on our part. When one is given authority by Jesus Christ Himself, one can legitimately use that authority.

When a single person gets direct messages/inspiration directly from God, or claims authority to speak for God, then he, for all intents and purposes, can trump the written word of God.

 

[thatbrian]

I am obviously not speaking of cessationists in the OP. When I refer to anabaptists, I am referring to (some) baptistic groups who are also continuists.

 

[delizzle]

I'm not sure what you refer to that we don't know. But if archaeologists discovered something they claimed was Paul's letter to Laodicea, why would we believe that it was?

If it was authentic, why wouldn't you believe it was?

If would have no provenance among God's people. Further, I do not expect that to happen, lest God has left his people for 2000 years not thoroughly furnished for every good work (Cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Unless God dis not want to reveal the letter until the right time, and that time has not arrived yet.

Why would we expect a letter to the church of Laodicea to include theology that is inconsistent with or even contradictory to the rest of Paul's writings?

Well, if it confirmed that Paul and his successors are appointed as the "Vicar of Christ", and that the "church" was actually the institution and not the members, it would confirm that the Roman Catholic Church and sacred tradition (the foundation of Catholic doctrine) to be equal to scripture. Thus, solar scripture would be false.

 

[delizzle]

I would not consider it scripture but depending on the content it could be considered inspired.

Why not? Other than the Magistrum of the Catholic Church, who makes the official decision on it being scripture? Paul did command the Colossians to read the letter to Laodicea. Wouldn't you say it would then be important?

 

[Rob_BW]

Yeah, I would like to see a better identification of these anabaptists.

 

[OfLivingWaters]

When a single person gets direct messages/inspiration directly from God, or claims authority to speak for God, then he, for all intents and purposes, can trump the written word of God.

Well, that is why we have the doctrinal father's gifts (24 elder's), meaning the scriptures which they received by God. If one professes to receive revelations from God, if what he says stands upon scripture then he is. The gospel is everlasting and is not a wrap. Rev.14 is clear concerning that. All doctrine, dogma, interpretation and revelations must stand on the foundation for it has already been laid. By this is how we test.
Revelation14
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 7 saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

 

[thatbrian]

Well, that is why we have the doctrinal father's gifts (24 elder's), meaning the scriptures which they received by God. If one professes to receive revelations from God, if what he says stands upon scripture then he is. The gospel is everlasting and is not a wrap. Rev.14 is clear concerning that. All doctrine, dogma, interpretation and revelations must stand on the foundation for it has already been laid. By this is how we test.
Revelation14
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 7 saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

SDA?