Q&A 49: What is progressive revelation? 50:Did the apostolic gifts end with...
Vern Peterman · Dec 5, 2010
Questions & Answers, No. 48
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/49261721142499

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

All right. We have a handout. Again, I'd remind you we've got two parts to it. So please see to it that you have both parts. And as has sometimes been the pattern of late, we have three questions in today's Q&A. And actually quite a bit of material potentially to cover. So we will, how do I say, hoof it. Okay. All right. In this set of three questions, the first one, make sure you take both sets of handouts. There are two sets, make sure you get both. The first question, Q&A 49, what is progressive revelation? Now progressive means all sorts of things these days, doesn't it? It can be a bad thing in case of disease. It can be something political or social.

In this case, progressive revelation has a particular meaning, and we'd like to take a look at it. The classical use of the term progressive revelation says that the contents of Scripture were inspired by God so as to be written over time. That's the idea. Progressively, we have the writing of Scripture. That's the general idea of progressive revelation.

God did not come to Moses and say, Moses, I want you to write a bunch of stuff for me. I want you to be my secretary. And just plop it down in front of them and say, here, write this stuff. That's not how God did it. God instead spoke over time through these authors of Scripture. As we put it here in the second sentence, we could say that progressive revelation means that God progressively revealed the contents of Scripture to mankind. a little at a time. We have a two-page supplemental handout. That's this one here that looks folded. No, I didn't run over it with the car, okay? It's folded on purpose. And it's folded because it's folded from legal size, folded over and then a corner folded over so that it will fit inside binder pages. And so what you have here in this A set of two legal size charts is this.

One is the Hebrew Old Testament chronology and then the second one is the New Testament chronological overview. The idea with each of these is to lay out in historical sequence when and over what period of time each of the books of the Old Testament and New Testament were written. The New Testament books were almost all written in probably a fairly short period of time. And so you will see those as more of a specific date. The Old Testament has a different story and one of the reasons why we see that it's presented.

At the bottom of this Hebrew Old Testament sheet, what you'll find is the book of Psalms, written from 1446 BC to actually I have there should be 536. I tried to get the author to fix it but he won't listen to me. Anyway, it should be 536 BC. What it basically says is this, that it was almost over a thousand years period of time that the book of Psalms was being collected.

It was I suppose one way you could say is the book of Psalms was Israel's national hymn book. And it starts with, and I say starts with, I mean that chronologically, not with the numbers of the Psalms, but it starts with in time the first Psalm in it, not Psalm 1, but the first Psalm in it chronologically is a Psalm by Moses having having gone through, as we'll see this morning and next week, the Dead Sea, excuse me, the Red Sea. Now, yeah, it makes a difference.

So Moses wrote a psalm, Moses wrote a psalm, and then other authors wrote psalms. Who are some of the authors of the psalms? Can you think of some? Particularly David, yes. An author of a number of them, And it's interesting, at one of the psalms in the 70s, by psalm designation, there's a little note at the end of it that says, in this psalm, all the psalms of David are summed up. That is, by that point in time, they had gathered together all the psalms of David.

But they continued to add more psalms to the collection, didn't they? So what you find is that's a good example of even with the Psalms in one book that we now have, it's actually a progressive revelation through time. So Moses, though he wrote the first one chronologically, Moses never saw the rest of them himself. David, though he wrote many of the Psalms, didn't write all of them, did he?

And more were written in centuries after his time. So this idea of progressive revelation is one of not only were the Bible books themselves revealed and written, one at different times from another, but within a particular book, some of them were collected over time, Psalms being the most substantial instance. What are some other books of the Old Testament that you see on that sheet that were written over a period of time?

What's that? Chronicles, right. We say first and second mostly because the scroll was so big they broke it up into two. But Chronicles was collected over time. What are some others that you see took time? Kings, right? Kings, Proverbs, good. Any of those that you see spread out over a period of time, took in some cases centuries to end up collecting the entire content.

And so that would be an example of progressive revelation even within a particular book. Other books were written within a fairly short period of time. One of them that you have at the right end of that is Haggai. Haggai is only like four chapters long to my recollection, written about 520 BC. And here it was written, completed, all done within one particular year, unlike some of the others that we've noted here that took a longer period of time.

Okay, let's go back to our handout here. I have a question. Right. Our system of dating is only something fairly recent. We introduced the term, I believe last week, the Gregorian calendar, which is what we use. But in fact, there wasn't any such big-scale chronological dating system until recent centuries.

And the typical way of dating things that you will see often in the Bible, the typical way you find of dating things was according to, for instance, the reign of certain kings. They would say, in this day and this month of the third year of the reign of this king. So things would be timed often by rulers. and counted that way. There would be some major event at times that things would be clocked according to.

The Jews were given a calendar that What's real interesting, we'll be looking at some of this in the main service. What's real interesting, their calendar is basically a lunar calendar with occasional adjustments because it would get out of sync. So they'd throw in an extra month from time to time to get the calendar back into sync.

Yes? Do you have any idea what the day of creation was? Ah, if you go back through, say, Bishop Ushers or another one is, let's see, Dr. Jones, Floyd Nolan Jones, some of those who have used the genealogies and things of that sort and clocked back using that approach. which also assumes some certain things about the genealogies. They've ended up with dates like, you know, September 23rd, and I'm pulling that number out of my head, you know, 404 BC. So while it is possible to actually come up with a date, it is also based on assumptions which are not necessarily verifiable or universally agreed upon. But it is possible to make some assumptions and actually arrive at a date of creation. Now, that's a very good question. When God said, let there be light, I'm not sure he glanced at the calendar page first. Now, having said that, one could make some assumptions that may turn out to be correct. If God rested on the seventh day, what was the seventh day? Basically, Friday sundown to Saturday sundown, right? So to simplify it, Saturday. And then that would make the first day of creation what day? Sunday, right?

But again, that may be assuming a bit much. But making some assumptions, it is possible to arrive at conclusions like that. Specific days, specific, I think one conclusion even came up with an hour, but I'm not sure about that. Anyway. Yeah. Hey, you can't save daylight. You can't. That whole thing is a myth. Okay. Let's go to the first bullet here on page one.

The Bible was written by about 40 authors over a period of about 1,500 years, though some portions of it were compiled from earlier documents. Probably, and the evidence seems to point to Moses having compiled the book of Genesis from earlier documents, and quite even possibly clay tablets, based on the evidence.

And it makes reference to documents that are no longer available to us. Several places in the Old Testament make reference to books that we don't have in our possession. That's part one. Paul writes about, in the letter to the Colossians, a letter to the Laodiceans. We don't have that letter. So there is some reference in the Bible to other documents that we don't have possession of. The 40 authors, as far as we can tell, with the book of Psalms, for instance, we don't always have an author. So it could be that there are some more whose names we just simply don't have. But about 40 authors.

The only one that by any evidence was not Jewish was Dr. Luke. Dr. Luke, according to Colossians 4, 10 through 14, wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, a little over a quarter of the New Testament. And the indications are that he was not Jewish, quite possibly a Greek physician trained in Philippi. And that indicated by where he shows up in Acts, his references to how he pulled information together, things of that sort.

Yes? Pardon? No, the Bible is definitely a unique book. Think about it. Here we bring our Bibles and we have Bibles in our pew racks and things like that. What are we doing? We are going about looking at and studying what's clearly an ancient document. Even if people go and dispute it was written here and there, they still have to admit it's an ancient document. And it's an extraordinary collection. There's nothing else quite like it. Even the various other, the sacred scriptures, so to speak, of the various world religions don't compare to the Bible. So yeah, a very unique book. Pardon? Yes, people are motivated to discount it, right? Next year. Next year will be the 400th anniversary of the King James Version. Now there were previous English versions before that. Okay, third bullet down the first page.

Each author wrote what was revealed to him at the time that he wrote. The cumulative revelation from God up to that time was the amount of truth revealed, though more would eventually be written until the time when the revelation through Scripture was complete.

So here's Moses. He pulls together and passes on the first five books of the Bible. And then right after that we have Joshua, probably the one who was entrusted with the five books. Joshua likely being written by Joshua himself. So you find as you go through scripture that here's a sequence and you have it laid out on this legal size document that we saw there.

There is both a backward-looking view in these books as well as a forward-looking view from the beginning to the end. Genesis has prophecy in it, right? Even though it's all about history that took place before Moses' time, it has prophecy in it. Genesis 3.15 prophesies that Messiah is Savior. In the very last chapters, contain prophecies about the sons of Israel, including that the Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah. So there's prophecy even in the very first book, which is all historical.

And yet, you go to Revelation, is there history in it? Yep. Is there prophecy in it? Yep. Here's the book Revelation, it has both history and prophecy just like Genesis has history and prophecy. Genesis majors in the history and minors in the prophecy. So what does Revelation do? It minors in the history and majors in the prophecy. Okay, fourth bullet. Scripture uses the term mystery to convey something that was not revealed in the past but now has been revealed.

And the definition there is given in Colossians 1.26. This term then, that is mystery, is based on the principle of progressive revelation. Something that wasn't revealed in the past, but because of the principle of progressive revelation, is now revealed and made clear.

Did Daniel have any idea that Jews and Gentiles would be put together in one particular group of people entirely different from the nation of Israel, both in its makeup and how God deals with it? Did Daniel have any idea? No. Daniel never knew. Did Daniel write things prophetically?

Yes. He still didn't know about the church. And even though the Old Testament authors wrote from time to time about grace, the idea that there would be a group of people entirely under the principle of grace was not known to them. But the New Testament makes it quite clear, doesn't it? Now, having said all this, there are those who will overextend the principle of progressive revelation and make revelation continue even into our own time. The Mormon Church, of course, early in their history practiced polygamy.

They actually battled the US Cavalry. They had their own money. But how did they end all those conflicting things? How did they end all those conflicting things that put them at odds with the U.S. government? They wrote their own book, but what else happened? They had a revelation.

Progressive revelation allowed them to say, well, we're now going to put all that aside. And because of the ability to have progressive revelation, they can put things aside, even things that are in their book. So the Book of Mormon, even though on the basis of the Book of Mormon, they said in their earlier history that blacks could not hold the priesthood. That was changed in 1978. They changed that in 1978. Why? How?

Through a progressive revelation. Progressive revelation for some groups is overextended past what the Bible reveals. So basically there's no end of revelation. You can always change and fix anything. Yes. Yes. living in your home, then you were even given greater spirituality. Yes. The only reason we know is that we are. I made 32 trips out there to give talks at Utah State College. Yes. Each time we were proselytized. Yeah.

But see, what they'll do is by the principle of progressive revelation, which they overextend beyond scripture, they can basically take anything that has been taught and change it. They even changed the Book of Mormon to accommodate it. They used to say in one particular reference, white and delightsome people. And then they changed that to pure and delightsome when they allowed blacks to hold the priesthood. So they actually changed the original book.

Pardon? Yes, that's right. That's right. Accommodating the political correctness. Okay, let's move on to the next question. And that we'll find on page two there. Yes? Yeah, I think one of the differences, the Bible has progressive revelation that is still within the total fabric, consistent.

What Mormonism does is it has progressive revelation that is allowed to contradict the earlier revelation. And by the way, that same thing is true of the Koran and the Hadith in the Islam. Later revelation corrects and sets aside earlier revelation. And that's one reason why Mormonism has been called America's Islam. But that is a difference between the way the Mormons operate and the way the Bible states things. The Bible is not contradictory and later stuff correcting earlier stuff. The Bible instead is a consistent document the Book of Mormon and all the subsequent revelations or not. Okay, let's take a look at page two. The head of that page is Q&A 50.

Did the apostolic gifts end with the apostles or are they continuing even now? Okay. Those of the Pentecostal or Charismatic perspective will say that the gifts of the apostolic era are continuing even today or that they have been restored in the era of the latter reign. Pardon? Yeah, right.

There are several reasons to believe that God's specific oral and written revelations are complete in scripture, and that the apostolic gifts were given for the era of the apostles and are not included in the gifts God intended to be expressed today. And we have there a semicolon, and that's to spell out that here are some of the reasons why.

One, the presence of known and named apostles at the time of Christ's first coming and shortly thereafter offered a mutual validation as openly testified in the New Testament. That is, Peter could say, listen to the writings of Paul. Paul could write about Peter. They could write about one another. and talk about one another, and if you said, well, you know, I don't know about this guy Matthew, you could go and talk to one of the other apostles.

There would be mutual confirmation. Oh yes, he really is one of the apostles. And yes, we did in fact see Christ resurrected. Both of us did. So you could cross-check during a period of time, you could cross-check what one apostle said with the other, and each would confirm the other as an apostle.

So there was the opportunity for that mutual confirmation that you don't have now. It's not a matter of apostolic succession, what some churches have tried to major in, but of mutual and multiple apostolic confirmations. One confirms the other. Not just, I got this torture, I got this baton from Peter or Paul or something like that. Each living apostle could vouch for the validity of the other. And that's what we find frequently in the New Testament. The third bullet down goes like this.

The apostles and their contemporary sponsored authors, that is Mark and Luke. Mark and Luke were not apostles, were they? So what we say is they were sponsored. and contemporary with the Apostles, were authorized to write Scripture, but the evidence is strong that the canon of Scripture, God's deliberate and specific written revelation, is closed.

I give in reference to that Jude 3. Jude, who was Christ's half-brother, We have two authors of New Testament books, James and Jude, that were written by Jesus' half-brothers. By the way, neither of whom believed until Christ was resurrected. And they said, that's pretty hard to deny. That's my brother there, right? Okay, so here's Jude in Jude verse 3. He says, I wanted to write to you about our salvation. But in view of things, and I'm paraphrasing here, he says, I urge that you contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

His word for contend is an intensive word. We have our word agony. This is agonizomai is the root word there. And what it is is an intense athletic effort. He uses a prefix that intensifies the meaning. We could translate it this way. I urge that you put forth a super Olympic effort. That would be one way to carry it across in terms of the intensity that he's calling for. I urge that, when he uses that word contend in English, that's what he's meaning.

A super intense effort. that you contend for the faith, and it's got the definite article, the one faith, the set of doctrines. It's used from Acts 6 all the way into Revelation as the faith, the faith that was taught by the apostles. The one set of teachings. I urge that you contend with the super olympic effort for that one faith, the set of doctrines taught by the apostles. that was delivered, that was once for all delivered, and the Greek word there is hapax, means once given, perpetually valid. And it has a sense of finality, that same word is used of Christ's death. Once given, once done, perpetually valid. And so that's the urging, he's talking about here is a set of doctrines delivered by the apostles. He says, I urge that you contend for that. And by the way, it's once delivered, it's done, we don't keep adding and adding and adding and adding. Finally, at the very last part of Revelation, we have another statement.

I would say that it doesn't stand by itself, but when taken together with Jude 22.18, talks about warning against those who would add to or take away from this prophecy. All Scripture is inspired, but that means that anything that is not Scripture is not inspired. That sets Scripture apart. What is inspired and what is not.

The fourth bullet down. After the New Testament era, the Church Fathers, as they are called, recorded that the apostolic gifts were no longer being expressed. We have multiple indications of that. This is not just some brief indication, but multiple authors said this isn't happening anymore.

There is a fellow by the name of Clement who wrote from Rome to the church at Corinth. What's very interesting is that he wrote from Rome to the church at Corinth about every topic that Paul included in 1st Corinthians except one. Supernatural spiritual gifts. He didn't bring that up. And that was about the same time John was writing Revelation. Very interesting that the Corinthians would have all the same issues, but that one had gone away.

After the New Testament era, the church fathers, as they are called, recorded that the apostolic gifts were no longer being expressed, and the one exception to that was Montanus, who had several clear strikes against him. Number one, his primary co-prophets were women, each of whom, there were two, each of whom had left their husbands to follow Montanus. That's not so good. That's not a good sign.

Two of those in direct or secondary relationship with John the Apostle wrote that Montanus was a heretic. That is, two of those who were either disciples of John or were in company with the disciples of John wrote that Montanus, this fellow who was speaking out, was a heretic. Three, Montanus said that Jesus would return to Asia Minor, where Montanus lived, rather than to Israel, as the Bible says. When Jesus comes again, he's not coming to Israel or Jerusalem or anything like that. He'll come back to here where we are in Asia Minor. Something's wrong there, right? The next bullet down, 1 Corinthians 13, 8-13 offers strong indication that the apostolic era gifts are fitting only to the era of the apostles.

We have teaching recorded, both the audio file and the handout from that are on the church website. In addition to that, Hebrews 2, 3, and 4 Hebrews was written in the middle to late 60s, that is 65 to about 67 AD, probably are good estimates of its date. Certainly before 70, because it says, it is evident, present tense, that Jesus was from the tribe of Judah. The records of where Jesus would have been recorded the family he was from. It was destroyed in 70 AD, so it must have been written before that time, right?

Hebrews 2, 3, and 4 expresses the testimony and miraculous acts of the Apostles in the past tense. That's what the Apostles did. The Apostles in the past tense were carrying these things out, signs and wonders and miracles. So even by that time, these evidences, miraculous evidences, were looked at as being in the past. Okay.

Then, the last bullet on page two, the apostles met specific biblical criteria for being apostles. That same handout, and also last week's handout, we included a We included a page that charted the spiritual gifts and the top part we listed those that were miraculous spiritual gifts and we listed on the bottom, which is kind of the middle of that, the gifts that extend into our present time. At the bottom of the page it lists here the qualifications and gives the scripture references for someone to be an apostle. So someone can't just say, hey, I'm an apostle. Trust me. It has to check out biblically. One final point on that is the last sentence in that last bullet.

The apostles were a foundation, Ephesians 2.20, and that foundation is complete.

You would have thought it interesting if, you know, it was about 1960-1961 when they started building on the foundation for this building that we're meeting in here, at least this portion of it, right? Now, are they still building the foundation for this building where we meet? No. Why don't we see them continuing to just keep building and building and building the foundation? Yeah, the foundation is complete at some point and then you build the building on top of it.

Therefore, what that says is that the apostles were an essential, an essential starting gift, but meant as a foundation, not as an ongoing activity in the structure, right? They were definitely a foundational gift. At some point, you're through with the foundation, right? So, I think that likewise indicates that the apostles and the gifts that went along with them were something appropriate for the time.

Exactly what God had in mind, but not a continuing gift. What would be the problem if I came in here one morning and said, guys, you guys need to know that I'm an apostle. And what would be the problem with that? What were the problems with that? You were with Jesus. I wasn't with Jesus, yeah. I didn't see Jesus walk around. I wasn't among those who were taught by him personally. That's one problem. That's certainly one. What are some others?

You don't look that old. Pardon? I don't look that old, yeah. Thank you. My kids may differ on that. Yeah, I come here, I've been here for nine years now and I haven't done anything, you know, you may say that it's wonderful, that it'd be nice, but I haven't done any wonders, right? I haven't done any signs, wonders, and miracles. I don't have that validation that goes along with things.

So that would be a problem. Here's another problem. Am I still, as an apostle then, capable of authoring scripture? Well, and that would be a problem if the scriptures were once for all delivered, right? So there are several things wrong with that, but you do have people who go around claiming to be apostles. And that creates all the same problems that we've got that we just mentioned. Yes?

I think one of the most interesting things for me is your background and your parents and grandparents. You have that type of a background. They don't go for it. Yeah, my grandparents were Assembly of God ministers, both of them, because in that denomination both male and female are allowed to be ministers or pastors. So, yeah, that was the background that, at least on my mom's side, was present. And they believed in all the spiritual, supernatural gifts. Yeah, oh yeah, they did. And I loved my grandparents and had a great time with them. You know, one of the ways that Nancy knew I was serious about her is I took her to meet my grandparents.

But nonetheless, yeah, that was something I looked at and I said, well, no, I don't buy into that. That's a problem. My grandmother used to sing for Katharine Kuhlman. My grandfather was one of the earliest, I've heard the earliest but I'm not sure of that, I haven't confirmed that, Assembly of God Pastors in California. But I just don't think it stands up to scripture.

Let's look at Q&A 51, that's on page 3. This goes along with some of the points we've been discussing. Q&A 51 reads like this. How should we view a statement by someone who says, God told me. Anybody ever have that happen? Yeah, God told me this, God told me that. And a lot of times it's well meant. I'm not, you know, trying to speak ill of someone, but the phrase typically assumes that God is continuing revelation today. to and through specific people. The God told me phrase merits a few appropriate observations and questions. The first bullet we have there, God tells us, followed by something derived clearly from scripture, is a more fitting statement for today.

Because the reality is God's intent is that we look from scripture for revelation and truth. and where it is objective revelation and not the subjective revelation that God told me. God has revealed to us in his word, has objectively observed, objectively interpreted, and then subjectively applied, first personally, then to others. You see, actually what is written in scripture is objectively observable, objectively interpretable.

It's only when we look at application that the subjective aspect comes into play. The next bullet down, the God told me phrase often reveals a lack of regard for the purpose and sufficiency and finality of scripture. It frequently goes along with a lack of understanding of the character of scripture. It's a subjective bypass of objective truth. For an apostle or apostolically sponsored author, God told me is revelation.

For anyone else, it's Gnosticism. I have special knowledge. That's Gnosticism. I have special knowledge you don't have access to and you can't verify. That's Gnosticism. Yeah, if you think about it, what are some of the ways that people can claim to have revelation that you brought up on dreams? Can you think of other ways that people claim to have revelation? Just thoughts that come into your mind. That's right. A thought that enters my mind, they'll consider that a revelation. Right? Think of any others. Visions. Visions, yes. And I've spoken to people who've claimed to have had visions.

The pastor, I was at a church in Carson City. Nancy and I ultimately left because they went kind of way out charismatic, but the pastor told me he'd held hands with Jesus. So, yeah, visions, hunches, feelings, voices, you know, all sorts of things of that sort.

I even heard of one fellow who, when seeking the Lord's will, would ask the Lord a question and look at the nearest traffic light and see whether it was green, yellow, or red. You know, and use that to determine the Lord's will. And these people drive, too, anyway.

Okay. One of the things there, if God tells us something subjectively, how do we know for sure if it's God who did the telling? A little tough to know. Next one. God's Word is His intended instrument for deep spiritual impact. Hebrews 4.12. talks about the Word of God is alive and powerful and touches where? Sharper than a two-edged sword touching where? The heart. Yeah, kind of the connecting point between soul and spirit. You can go through all sorts of counseling. You can take various medications or anything. Nothing touches that deep. And this is a basis, I think, for biblical counseling. is God's Word touches deeply.

For truth and sanctification, for spiritual transformation, as we behold the Lord, we're transformed, and for spiritual growth. Why would an understanding believer replace that with feelings and hunches and unverifiable separate revelations of whatever source? Next one, final bullet. Any supposed revelation, feeling, hunch, voices in the mind, or experiences must be judged and evaluated by scripture and not the reverse. Suppose you did have a dream. You just say, well that must be the Lord's revelation. How would I judge my dream? Verify it through the Bible.

Yeah, ultimately we use the Bible to test everything. and not use, you know, hunches, feelings, even something fairly intense. We ultimately have to judge everything through scripture. I think all of us can say we've had experiences of one kind or another, and some of which have been rather intense. Some of which may have been impressive. But in the end, everything has to be judged by scripture. We measure everything by scripture. So if we do have some hunch, feeling, voices in the mind, everything of that kind, dreams, it all has to be judged by scripture. Scripture is a measure of truth for all these things.

Even in the apostolic era, I'm reading the last paragraph, When prophecy was a valid and genuine gift, Paul wrote this, do not despise prophetic utterances, of course then it was appropriate, but examine everything carefully. Even in Paul's own day, he didn't say, oh it's a prophetic utterance, go with it. What did he say?

Examine it carefully. Check it out. We're now in a time when prophetic utterances are no longer being made through the Holy Spirit's gifting, but examining everything carefully with Scripture is exactly what God has in mind. Check it out. Examine it with Scripture. Look carefully.

Acts 17.11 is one passage where even looking at what Paul said, what do they do? They examine the Scriptures daily, to basically check Paul. Gary, you? The Bereans. The Bereans, yes. The Bereans were the ones who were considered more noble.

Why? Because they examined everything carefully, checking everything with Scripture. Scripture is a reliable standard against which everything else can be measured. And by the way, that's one reason why, even though I love my grandparents dearly, each of them had some amazing things to tell, and I was glad for the missionary stories that they could tell and that kind of thing. In the end, I say, well, I see a problem because it doesn't measure against Scripture. You know, those are great stories and I'm glad, you know, I can hear about, you know, the miracles the Lord did even in both of my grandparents' lives. And I love to hear about the cannibal stories and even miraculous ways in which my grandfather was physically preserved.

So lots of things I could tell you, but in the end, everything has to be measured by Scripture. I won't use a miraculous event, I won't even use something that's rather impressive to go against scripture or to add to scripture. Scripture is the measure of everything. It's God's intended and revealed truth, intentionally revealed truth. Okay, I think there's a buzzing in my ear, but any comments, questions, inspirations, exasperations? Yes, Pat. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Ah. Muhammad claimed that an angel revealed these things to him.

And it's an interesting pattern that the earlier passages which talk more about being peaceful and caring and loving and all that show up in the initial parts and then later on is where you get the idea of killing the Invadel. We as Christians, Christians and Jews are called people of the book. because Islam was a religion that was developed centuries after the end of the New Testament era, when Muhammad died 632 AD. But the principle that a number of Muslims take is that the later revelations correct the earlier revelations. So you take the ones who are fanatical are the ones who take the principle that the later revelations are the ones that apply. The earlier ones that talk about being kind and loving and caring and all that are set aside by the ones that say to kill them. Does that mean that Mohammed was wrong or that Angel was wrong? Well, it's their principle that the later revelation sets aside the earlier one. And so given a conflict, the later revelation is what governs.

But who is that revelation? Who is rewriting it? Oh, I don't know that it's rewritten at all. Well, how do they get this later revelation? Well these are things, see Muhammad was the prophet, right? In their teaching. Muhammad was the prophet and Muhammad was given these various revelations and so he wrote down supposedly what he was given from the angels. Pardon?

They're all from Muhammad, yes. And we hear about the Quran but the other parallel book we hear less of is the Hadith. There's the Koran and the Hadith. And those are the two books of revelation in Islam. And Muhammad is supposedly the author of it all.

Yeah. Isn't that where Sharia law basically comes from? Yeah. The Sharia law is, here's how I apply it. And that's where a lot of the Hadith... And that's a fairly modern interpretation. use of the interpretation, I guess I could say, of the Koran. Yeah, one of the things you've got to look at is if it may be helpful to think in these terms.

In the same way that Christianity had gone through all these different social movements and all these different kinds, there's all brands of Christianity, you know. out there. Lots of variety. In the same way that that's true of Christianity, that's also true of Islam, that they've got all these...

First of all, there's the, you know, you hear of the Sunni and Shiite difference, a fairly major difference that actually started with what part of Muhammad's extended family you happen to get rooted from. So that's a major division, but there's also other divisions within that including everything from Muslims who are rather peaceful in their intent to those who are definitely not. And so part of it is the same social derivation that you see taking effect in Christianity, where there's lots of variety in how things are taught and how things are understood. And some of the extremes, I mean, we hear about Muslim fanatics, well they can be fanatic against different groups too. And they have no hesitation to even take it to death between the various groups.

Well that's what I'm saying. That's what he did when he gassed 300,000 of his own people because they were not of his sect. Oh, you're talking about 20 years ago. Yeah, okay. It's a sect and it's also a tribal religion. Ultimately Islam was originated from about 300 different tribal religions brought together basically under the moon god and that's why you see the moon and the star. They had a whole bunch of little tribal religions and it was pulled together, but the reality is the tribes are still underneath it all. And so you have tribal conflicts and all that still present. And it also makes it difficult to characterize Islam.

Is it a peaceful religion? Well, there are some that are. Are they all peaceful? Absolutely not. And it's because, just like in Christianity, there's all kinds of variety. There are Christians who do things that we would not agree with at all. And the same thing among the Muslims. They have disagreements, sometimes violent disagreements, amongst themselves.

Other comments, questions? I'm starting to see noses get closer to the window, so we probably better call it good. Okay? Alright, let's pray. Lord, we thank you that you've revealed truth to us, truth we can stand upon, truth that's good for eternity. And we thank you for that. We thank you that as we look at Scripture, it's not just a matter of filling our head, but indeed it's a matter of filling our hearts, our hearts with you. And we just thank you for that precious word that you've given to us. We pray in Jesus' name. Amen.