Steven Spielberg’s new movie Disclosure Day

[ScottA]

No one said the foundation is the whole building. The point is that the rest of the building is built on that foundation, not by laying new foundations in every generation.

Paul says the church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” and then “groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord” (Ephesians 2:20–21). First Corinthians 3:11 says, “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

The building continues. The foundation does not. Calling that “little faith” does not answer the text. Show where Scripture says new apostles and prophets must arise to finish what the original foundation began. You still have not done that.

I didn't say there is any other or additional foundation--I said the is a "finish." Why do you not fully acknowledge that a finish was yet to come?

 

[ScottA]

You keep asserting that unwritten and sealed things would later be written, but you still have not shown a verse that says that.

Daniel 12:4 says the prophecy was sealed until the time of the end. It does not say new Scripture would be produced. Revelation 10:4 says John was told, “Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.” Nothing in the passage says someone later would be authorized to reveal them.

You are building your argument on a claim the text never makes. Telling me I am “falling short” is not proof. Show the verse that says those unwritten things would later be written and revealed, or admit that you are adding that conclusion yourself.

Yes, I keep repeating what you have not included in your short-fall doctrine...which is not proof, but an offer of help, if not a warning.

I am not "adding" that conclusion, but revealing it, as it was given to me by God to do--it is not mine, but His who sent me.

 

[ScottA]

You accused me of contradicting myself by saying God does not change while some of His methods and covenant arrangements do. Yet you admitted that some things were one-time acts while others continue. That was my distinction from the beginning.

To clarify...Events change, but God's methods and His ways do not change. He may not use the same method for everything--but that doesn't mean His methods change--it means He changes one of His methods to another of His methods, and He has lots of different methods. But when things repeat, or need repeating, He repeats. And if the need is similar to a similar time before, He will do it again. Because, He changes not.

 

[ScottA]

No, that is not what I said.

I quoted you...you clearly stated the who and what, I didn't need to build anything, nor did I. You said enough, I just pointed it out...and you apparently didn't like hearing it.

 

[bdavidc]

I didn't say there is any other or additional foundation--I said the is a "finish." Why do you not fully acknowledge that a finish was yet to come?

The issue is not whether the building has a finish. Of course it does. The issue is your unsupported leap from “the building will be finished” to “new apostles and prophets must arise to finish it.”

Ephesians 2:20 says the church is already “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” Verses 21–22 then describe the building continuing to grow. The foundation is laid, and the temple grows upon it.

Paul said, “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” 1 Corinthians 3:11. He also said, “I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon” 1 Corinthians 3:10. Notice the distinction. Paul laid the foundation. Others build upon it.

Yes, Christ will finish His church. Philippians 1:6 says, “He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” But that does not prove an ongoing succession of foundational apostles and prophets.

I fully acknowledge the finish. What I do not acknowledge is your claim about how that finish must come, because you still have not shown a verse that says new apostles and prophets must arise in every generation. That is the point you need to prove from Scripture.

 

[bdavidc]

Yes, I keep repeating what you have not included in your short-fall doctrine...which is not proof, but an offer of help, if not a warning.

I am not "adding" that conclusion, but revealing it, as it was given to me by God to do--it is not mine, but His who sent me.

This is the problem. You are no longer proving your doctrine from Scripture. You are asking me to accept your claim that God personally sent you to reveal what Scripture does not say.

That claim does not authenticate itself. Scripture says, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God” 1 John 4:1. The test is the written Word, not the confidence of the person claiming revelation. “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” Isaiah 8:20.

Paul even warned that if “an angel from heaven” preached something contrary to the gospel already delivered, he was to be rejected Galatians 1:8. Your claim to have been personally sent by God does not place you above biblical examination.

You still have not shown a verse saying those sealed or unwritten things would later be revealed. Instead, you now claim that God personally gave you this conclusion to reveal and sent you to do it. Until that claim is established from Scripture, it remains a private revelation, not something binding on other believers. I will not go beyond what is written. 1 Corinthians 4:6.

 

[bdavidc]

To clarify...Events change, but God's methods and His ways do not change. He may not use the same method for everything--but that doesn't mean His methods change--it means He changes one of His methods to another of His methods, and He has lots of different methods. But when things repeat, or need repeating, He repeats. And if the need is similar to a similar time before, He will do it again. Because, He changes not.

You are contradicting yourself. Saying God “changes one of His methods to another of His methods” is still a change in method. God Himself does not change, but Scripture plainly shows that His ways of administering His purposes can and do change.

God once spoke “at sundry times and in divers manners” by the prophets, but “hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son” Hebrews 1:1–2. The priesthood changed, and therefore “there is made of necessity a change also of the law” Hebrews 7:12. Animal sacrifices were repeated continually, but Christ offered “one sacrifice for sins for ever” Hebrews 10:12.

Your claim that whenever a similar need arises God will repeat the same method is not a biblical rule. It is an assumption. God finished creation once, Christ died once, the foundation was laid once, and the faith was “once delivered unto the saints” Jude 3.

God’s unchanging nature does not prove that apostles, prophets, signs, revelations, or foundational acts must be repeated. You still need a verse that actually says they must be.

 

[bdavidc]

I quoted you...you clearly stated the who and what, I didn't need to build anything, nor did I. You said enough, I just pointed it out...and you apparently didn't like hearing it.

Quoting part of what I said does not prove your interpretation of it. You took my words, assigned them a meaning I did not state, and then argued against that meaning.

If you believe I clearly said what you claim, quote the exact sentence and explain how it proves your accusation. Simply saying, “You said enough,” is not an argument.

“No, that is not what I said” is not me disliking the truth. It is me correcting your misrepresentation. Deal with what I actually said, not what you have decided I meant.

 

[bdavidc]

Once again:

This thread was started to discuss Disclosure Day, mankind’s fascination with hidden truth, the danger of deception, and the truth God has already revealed through Jesus Christ. It was not started as a debate over continuing apostles and prophets, the seven thunders, sealed revelation, or who appoints church offices.

You raised an objection to one statement in my post, and I answered it repeatedly. That side argument has now completely buried the point of the OP. Your latest reply is another attempt to turn a wording choice into a new argument instead of addressing the original subject.

If you want to continue debating apostles, prophets, Revelation 10, or how those offices are appointed, start a separate thread and tag me. I am not continuing that debate here. Please keep any further replies in this thread connected to Disclosure Day and the biblical warning about deception.