Acts20.com

There are no 'new revelations' that render us no longer dependent on the Scriptures. (Christian Doctrine: A Pentecostal Perspective, Vol 1, page 50)Illumination of the Spirit does no refer to some 'new revelation' or 'deep hidden meaning.' Illumination is not intended to be a shortcut to scriptural knowledge or to replace exegetical study. (An Introduction to Theology: A Classical Pentecostal Perspective, page 46)

They are wrong.Then the logical conclusion is no prophecy is of God.God no longer speaks unless it's in his scripture.

Jude speaks of contending of the 'faith once delivered to the saints.' Our faith has already been delivered to us. The doctrines of the faith were revealed in the first century.But when Peter believed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God, it was because God had revealed it to Him. No man can know the Father but the Son, and he to whom He reveals Him. The Bible uses 'reveal' to refer to the individual receiving revelation of Jesus and the Father. The Bible says 'for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven....' and goes on to tell about the things that might be known of God being manifest in the things that are made. There is revelation in Christian.In I Corinthians 14, Paul speaks of 'every one of you' having a psalm, doctrine, tongue, revelation, or interpretation in a church meeting. He writes of revelation coming to 'another sitting by' while the prophets are speaking.Paul was not against the word (translated as) 'revelation.' He also prayed for a church to have the Spirit of revelation.The Bible doesn't just use 'revelation' to refer to set body of doctrine. We aren't supposed to add new doctrines to the faith. But the Spirit can reveal a deep understanding of the doctrine that have been revealed to the apostles to the individual today. The Spirit can also reveal an individual's callling or a variety of other things

I encountered a man on a forum who posts an interesting revival blog. But he was kind of negative, too, towards a lot of people and churches. He also had some videos that contained the f-word on YouTube.Well, he said he'd preached from the pulpit in the Filippines that it was prostitution when old white men went to the Filippines and married the young Filipina women and supported their parents. Now, I think it's pretty common for children to send regular support to parents and also for men to support their in-laws when they get older in the Filippines. This guy said one time when he preached, an older white man married to a Filipina punched him in the face, and he hit him back and won the fight. I told him maybe he got hit because he deserved it for calling the man's wife a whore from the pulpit. It reminded me of a one of the Proverbs. But he thought he had 'the heart of God' on the issue of young women marrying old white men over there. And at another time, he defined prophesying as having the 'heart of God'. So I might surmised he considered the doctrine he was promoting that it was prostitution for old men to marry young women to be some kind of doctrine revealed to him. I pointed out Boaz and Ruth and Isaac and Rebecca. He was trying to get the Philippines to outlaw marriages with 20 year age gaps or more through a contact in the parliament. Anyway, his approach seems to be not Pentecostal to me. The Pentecostal movment is kind of Fundamentalist. Doctrine is supposed to be in the Bible. You can get other kinds of 'revelations' or whatever you call it. But you don't change what the Bible teaches. And this man's teaching on marriage doesn't fit with what the Bible teaches.Of course, whether God is grieved about a lot of old white guys marrying poor young women in the Filippines, I can't say that. But I wouldn't call it prostitution if they get married. It could be that he's seen a lot of 'sexpats' who've been married half a dozen times marrying innocent 20-year-olds. He mentioned bar girls. The old sexpat marrying the bar girl may get both of them out of fornication and spreading venereal disease, so it's probably a net plus for society. The issue of not adding new doctrines to scripture is apparently a difference between Pentecostalism and Montanism, or at least one version of it. Apparently, Montanism added some marriage doctrine. Tertullian argued for 'monogamy', meaning the idea that widows and widowers should not remarried. He considered it a revelation added on top of what was taught in the Bible. He argued that the 'husband of one wife' was originally given for bishops, but was applied to all believers. The white preacher in the Filipines ideas about marriage reminded me of this Montanist doctrine

Sounds like this:Scripture is a closed system of truth, complete, sufficient, and not to be added to (Revelation 22:18–19). It contains all the spiritual truth God intended to reveal.

The Holy Spirit and the Holy Word of God agree, every time without fail.If it is contrary to the Word, the Holy Spirit did not speak it Charles A. HutchinsSenior Pastor SPWCCongregational Church of Godwww.spwc.church

On what grounds do we suppose that the NT writers were inspired differently from us?Second, no one is arguing that new revelation ever be accepted if it is contrary to what has already been given.There is not a single clear statement in scripture to close the canon. What? God inspires for thousands of years, from Genesis to Revelation, then, suddenly, He refuses to say more? Hogwash.OTCP, so much of what you post is anti-Pentecostal cloaked in the guise of heartfelt concern for truth. The truth will be Pentecostal through and through.

QW....

Because any new revelation must be consistent with previous revelation.

Quiet Wyatt...