Resources
- How To Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button below
- Resources On Continuing Revelation
- Heidelcast 222: A Question & Answer Cornucopia
- All the Episodes of the Heidelcast
- How To Subscribe To Heidelmedia
- New Way To Call The Heidelphone: Voice Memo On Your Phone
- Text the Heidelcast any time at (760) 618–1563.
- The HB Media Archive
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- Heidelberg Catechism (1563)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008).
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Why I Am A Christian
Here is a problem with the Piper-Grudem view on continuing revelation. They say that the new revelation is not binding either in doctrine or ethics. That sounds good, but it does not work. If they come to me and bring me a warning from God, yet it isn’t binding, then it really does not make sense for me to reject it. Am I sinning in rejecting it? If they say no, then it is hard to take such a warning seriously. If they say yes, then they are adding to Scripture.
It is an unstable view; that is why I left it behind.
Is there room in the concept of the closed and completed canon for a revelation of specific warning, such as a congregation being warned by vision, dream, or word to flee or take cover?
Ed,
In a word: no. Either Scripture is sufficient or it isn’t.