Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 6

He says second-century leaders held “a very conservative view of special revelation,” believing no new special revelation after the apostles, while Gnostics and Montanists claimed the opposite; what would it do to modern Christian movements (including popular claims of “God told me…”) if the church treated post-apostolic “new revelation” as a danger rather than a norm?

Another way to ask: If the church treated “new revelation” after the apostles as dangerous, how would that affect modern groups and “God told me…” claims? What might change in your own church culture?

Direct Answer Bercot implies that treating “new special revelation” claims as dangerous would push modern movements to test everything more strictly against the already-delivered apostolic faith and to view novelty with suspicion. It would likely reduce doctrinal innovation justified by private spiritual claims and align the church with the early Christians’ focus on preserving what was received.

Support from Transcript:

He says second-century leaders held “a very conservative view of special revelation.”
They “firmly believed that there was no new special revelation after the death of the apostles.”
“No one in the Second Century Church claimed to have any new revelation from the Holy Spirit.”
Their task was “preserving the faith that had been received from the apostles.”
He contrasts this with “heretical groups like the Gnostics and the Montanas” who “claimed to have new special revelation,” and “the Church rejected their claims.”

Discussion Follow-ups What kinds of teachings today get protected by the phrase “God told me”? How would church accountability change if “new revelation” was treated as a red flag requiring strong verification rather than instant acceptance?

Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 6 of 10