With the blogosphere alive with the talk of the gifts of the Spirit and their existence or non-existence today, I’d like to discuss a sticking point that has long dogged the issue of modern day charismata: revelation.
Revelation scares people. God does not open His mouth and speak without major consequences. Revelation bothers many non-charismatics because the idea of God speaking to people today seems to butt up against the closed canon of Scripture; if God still speaks, should we not be writing down what He says? The Book of Revelation ends with a serious warning that whoever adds or subtracts from the Book will face dire consequences, right?
In the Book of Romans we read early on:
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
—Romans 1:16-20 ESV
Revelation of God has come through the created order. What God has made speaks to us about who He is and what His character is like. What God has made testifies about Him:
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their measuring line goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
—Psalms 19:1-5 ESV
This kind of revelation is referred to as General Revelation. It is God revealed through what has been made. This is the basis of the argument for Intelligent Design now being bandied about in scientific circles. It is also the revelation that speaks to us when we are out and about in the daily course of our lives on this third planet from the sun. For people who thoughtfully consider what God has put around us, His General Revelation can powerfully speak to the soul. Consider this hymn, a favorite of many:
O Lord my God, When I in awesome wonder,
Consider all the worlds Thy Hands have made;
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
Thy power throughout the universe displayed.CHORUS
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art!When through the woods, and forest glades I wander,
And hear the birds sing sweetly in the trees.
When I look down, from lofty mountain grandeur
And see the brook, and feel the gentle breeze. CHORUSAnd when I think, that God, His Son not sparing;
Sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in;
That on the Cross, my burden gladly bearing,
He bled and died to take away my sin. CHORUSWhen Christ shall come, with shout of acclamation,
And take me home, what joy shall fill my heart.
Then I shall bow, in humble adoration,
And then proclaim: “My God, how great Thou art!” CHORUS
“How Great Thou Art” begins with the acknowledgment of God revealed through General Revelation, then moves on to another kind of revelation, Special Revelation.
Think of Special Revelation as an autobiography of a craftsman. It’s an in-depth portrayal of a person. General Revelation is more like a photo of the craftsman’s workshop. We can deduce things about the craftsman by seeing his workshop, but we do not know anything in detail about him, only what he has made and the level to which he has made it.
For Christians, the Bible is Special Revelation of God. It speaks in detail concerning the history of our Triune God in reality and tells us details of His character. Special Revelation, therefore, is intimate in a way that General Revelation cannot be. It details who God is, how He is, and what He desires. General Revelation attests that He is and that He is awesome, but can tell us little more than that. Unlike Special Revelation, General Revelation cannot tell us what pleases God or how we can be found acceptable to Him. This is what makes Special Revelation essential. It can tell us how to be restored to God and how to please Him. It is God Himself speaking directly to Man—out of God’s mouth to our ears, preserved in print for all eternity. It is the essence of what all men need to know.
The Bible’s place as Special Revelation is universally true, therefore. It is Universal Special Revelation in that it speaks to all men at all times in all places for a general purpose. Because the Bible is given to Man as a Universal Revelation, its authority is grounded in God and has no exceptions, therefore, to whom it applies. For this reason, its authority cannot be abrogated. General Revelation cannot trump it. Instead, that revelation is subordinate to the Universal Special Revelation found in the Scriptures. The Scriptures illumine General Revelation and not the other way around.
Now I believe that there is one other kind of Special Revelation, and this is the part that becomes contentious. I’ve blogged about this before (and I would encourage everyone to read the post), but I believe that God speaks uniquely to specific men in specific times in specific places for a specific purpose. An example of this is in Acts:
Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus.
—Acts 13:1-4 ESV
Notice how the Holy Spirit operates here. He specifically called two people out of a specific congregation for his specific pupose. It was a Unique Special Revelation of God meant for that time, that place, those two believers, for one unique mission.
This idea of a Unique Special Revelation of God is what many non-charismatics object to within the charismatic movement. At issue is the idea that Unique Special Revelation somehow fights Universal Special Revelation for authority.
But as I’ve said, something that speaks to all men in all places at all times must be the final authority by nature of its universalism. Unique Special Revelation is not meant to speak to all men in all times in all places for general purpose.
Think of it this way. Many businesses have detailed vision and mission statements that the boss has handed down to employees and that serve as a template for all things done within the company. Those statements are a universal special revelation to the people who work for that boss. But should the boss come to a specific employee and say, “Johnson, I need you to fly out to Dallas and negotiate a deal with Franklin Heavy Industries,” the boss’s request is meant to further the vision and mission statements of the company so that the company prospers. The request is in keeping with the universal special revelation, but is in itself a unique special revelation. The rest of the employees of that company do not need to know that Johnson is on his way to Dallas. If they keep working in line with the vision and mission statements of the company, what Johnson is doing no way interferes with the common goal, but helps accomplish it. Nor are the bosses words to Johnson added to the vision and mission statement of the company.
In the case of the Acts 13 passage above, the Holy Spirit is going to the body of believers gathered at Antioch and nowhere else. That makes the message specific to a single gathering. In His words, he selects two believers from the crowd. There, too, is specificity, as is the mission itself: to go to Cyprus and beyond.
We see this same kind of Unique Special Revelation in Acts 16:
And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them. So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.”
—Acts 16:6-9 ESV
The Holy Spirit forbade the apostles from going into Asia. Whether this was by His words or by His setting up a roadblock, either way the point was made and a unique revelation of God’s specific purposes was achieved. Later on, the Holy Spirit again speaks to Paul via a Unique Special Revelation by giving him a vision of the Macedonian man praying. Notice that this was NOT a Universal Special Revelation in that God was not asking the entire Body of Believers at that point to move to Macedonia and start an evangelistic crusade! No, the Lord was directing Paul and his companions alone to do that specific work within the universal call to make disciples of all nations.
Again, all of the Unique Special Revelations listed in Acts exist to uphold the truth given within Universal Special Revelation. The Universal Special Revelation is the final authority over Unique Special Revelation.
A few more thoughts on this…
Not every word that God spoke is recorded, nor are all His actions. The book of John ends this way:
Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
—John 21:25 ESV
Jesus lived for thirty-three years, but the Gospels do not record every word He spoke in His entire existence on this planet. I, for one, would have loved to have heard the conversations He had with His parents in His youth. Wouldn’t those be fascinating and helpful for parents? Or what did He talk about with His disciples in those three years of nights around a campfire? We don’t hear all those. We are not privy to all His prayers. The differences between the Gospel of John and the three Synoptic Gospels are profound enough so that it is clear that not everything that Jesus said made it into the Bible. But God preserved what He wanted preserved in the Scriptures. What He felt was essential to Universal Special Revelation is in there. The canon is special for that reason.
What is even less recorded in the Scriptures is Unique Special Revelation. We know from the examples given in Acts that it certainly exists. I believe the very reason why these Unique Special Revelations are recorded in our Universal Special Revelation goes beyond the historical nature of Acts and into the very nature of Unique Special Revelation itself. God wants us to know that it exists and that He speaks that way.
What I do not believe is that each of those Unique Special Revelations must be known in order for the Body of Christ as a whole to operate. This is the reason that I have no problem not equating them with Universal Special Revelation. Those specific words are not essential for all of us to know, either in the days of the first century Church or the church of the 21st century. Their very specificity does not make them candidates for inclusion in Universal Special Revelation.
Although Paul clearly advocates revelatory speech through the charismatic gifts of words of knowledge, words of wisdom, words of prophecy, and the interpretation of tongues, God did not elect for Paul to record every single one of those Unique Special Revelations in His Universal Special Revelation. Yet the very fact that Unique Special Revelation does exist and that it is a means by which God works His specific will through specific people in specific times and specific places is important. For instance, Martin Luther’s 95 Theses pounded to the front door of the Wittenburg church was the result of God speaking to Luther and then to the people around him via the Unique Special Revelation granted him by the Holy Spirit, the one who grabbed hold of the reformer and used him for His unique purpose.
When a preacher expounds on the Universal Special Revelation via his sermon on Sunday, how can we not see that the Lord has ignited those words by means of Unique Special Revelation given to that preacher? What is the Unction of the Holy Spirit other than the Spirit speaking to a man in a given time to a given people for a given purpose?
I do not believe it is possible for the Church to exist without Unique Special Revelation. Just as Paul and his troupe were led to a man praying in Macedonia for a revelation of God to him and his people, so missionaries are called to specific groups of lost people around the world through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. When a missionary says that she has a heart for a certain people group, is that not a Unique Special Revelation given her by the Holy Spirit?
I believe we do an injustice to the Holy Spirit when we claim that Unique Special Revelation does not exist anymore. But I also believe that we grieve the Spirit when we try to manufacture Unique Special Revelation or fail to test any revelations we receive. This is clearly a mistake on the part of charismatics and non-charismatics have every right to call charismatics to task for this abuse. On the other hand, non-charismatics need to tread lightly when it comes to insisting that Unique Special Revelation does not exist. It certainly existed as recorded historically in the Universal Special Revelation of the Bible! Given its function, there is no reason to believe that God no longer wishes to direct His people in the same manner today that he did then. Nor do I see any proof that this kind of Unique Special Revelation has ceased. If it has, then no preacher should ever preach on the Scriptures, only read them to the congregation without any additional insights because those insights are no longer given by the Holy Spirit to a specific people in a specific time and place. Nor should he ever advise anyone in any specific instance of direction because all such direction has ceased.
I believe that Jesus chose these words very carefully:
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
—John 10:27 ESV
Notice that He does not say that His sheep hear His words. It is the voice that matters. A voice speaks and continues to speak, whereas words are spoken once. And so the Spirit of the Lord Jesus speaks to us today. Discernment is therefore called for since there are other voices speaking that are not of God. However, the existence of those voices does not negate the existence of the One Voice, the Unique Special Revelation of God that His people are called to follow. The Shepherd is still speaking and we must obey.
The Lord either leads by His Spirit today or He does not. Based upon all the Scriptural evidence, God still speaks through Unique Special Revelation. I just pray that we are both open and discerning enough to hear Him and act on His direction.
I’m curious as to how you use occurences from within the “Universal Special Revelation” to prove “Unique Special Revelation.”
What is even less recorded in the Scriptures is Unique Special Revelation.
Was not every word of the “Universal Special Revelation” in itself unique to the person God inspired to write it? The entire canon is an example of Unique Special Revelation – not meant for only one man but given to only one man to share.
But I also believe that we grieve the Spirit when we try to manufacture Unique Special Revelation or fail to test any revelations we receive.
Who do you set up as the authority on this? The person themselves? Church leadership? You? Who decides what is “real” Special Revelation and what is manufactured?
You’ve shown a real desire in many of your recent posts to make God subject to man’s sincerity. Little by little you reach for your mission of “something more than what you are experiencing,” but do so at the expense of more and more solid doctrine being either watered down or ignored completely. Why do you choose in this highly-related post to mention God’s warning (Rev. 22:18-19) only in passing and in a tone close to scoffing? If you’re so sure that without any indication that He would do so, God chose to continue talking directly to individuals after the canon was finalized, why do you ignore one of the major passages that seems to deny this? The warning is more dire than any other for Christians – one who disobeys this command is not regenerate.
You use some pretty fancy language, but I agree with you. I have found a way to learn to hear His voice, and I address it in one of my posts: http://helenslightblog.org/wp/?p=14.
Dan, consider me uncomfortably in your corner. I think we see eye-to-eye in general, but I’m not sure I’m clear on the terms you chose to use to delineate types of prophecy. I think I understand your reasoning for using them, just not quite sure I’m on board with the use of terms such as “general” and “unique.” I think this illustrates how hard it is for charismatics to properly exegete our Biblical understanding of prophecy to the satisfaction of a crowd that demands absolutes.
This is why I’m most comfortable using terms like “offices” and “gifts.” I believe I can make a Biblical argument of someone operating in a prophetic gifting that approaches the level of a prophetic office — I would argue anyone who preaches with great impact is such a person — but I’m careful of which lines I cross. Furthermore, I would add we hold such great saints in recent history as Luther in high regard to the point of equating his commentary on Galations as Scripture, but it’s pointless to argue a divine nature of his writ. Luther himself would never have made that claim (he might have pursued a trial of heresy against such a charge), even if we consider the result the true grace and action of a powerful God at work today.
Dan, you’ve broached another subject you’ll probably get lots and lots of push back on.
This is one subject I could speak a little on, but if I were to, I’d do it on my own blog instead.
Nevertheless, 1 Thess 5:19-21 wasn’t put there for laughs. In it we are told four things:
(1) don’t quench
(2) don’t despise
(3) do test
(4) do hold fast
In most places, people are too scared of the whole subject to even get past #1. After hearing nothing but zillions of sermons about all the horrifying misuses and abuses, who wouldn’t be scared?
Many haven’t gotten #2 down. They even might say something like “this sort of stuff ceased when the last apostle kicked the bucket”, and therefore it’s all “demonic” or “snake-handling hysteria” nowadays anyhow.
For others, they need more strengthening in the area of #3. Merely because big-name-so-and-so said it on television doesn’t mean squat.
Finally, #4 sometimes calls for faith and patient endurance, but, alas, very few ever get this far.
Acts, in various places, is a showcase for proper application of all four. This is no accident, and it wasn’t just meant for the 1st Century.
Finally, 1 Thess 5:22 is there to remind us that He never leads us into acquiescing to evil.
This post has been removed by the author.
King of Pop,
One last thing.
You were confused as to Unique Special Revelation being included in Universal Special Revelation. You also wondered about the caution in Revelation. You are right in that I may not have perfectly clarified that in my post, but I will definitely do so here.
At one point, all Special Revelation was unique to the people we see in the Scriptures. But God in His wisdom was using those specific people in specific situations and places (via the revelations He was choosing to reveal) to fill out the breadth of His Univsersal Special Revelation so that it spoke to all people in all places and all times for all general purposes. At that point, Universal Special Revelation was capped and closed. Nothing more of Scripture would be added. But this did not mean that God stopped speaking by His Holy Spirit to specific men in specific situations for specific purposes as I outlined in my previous comment.
How does that work?
Consider a writer who writes a singular work that speaks to the universal human condition. It will be his only published work. Much of that work consists of his wisdom dispensed through relationships with others, wisdom that he is now sharing with the world. However, this does not mean that he no longer writes handwritten letters to his friends, fans, and family.
Does this makes sense?
(Sorry, there was a mistyped phrase in the original comment. This should go where the deleted comment was.)
King of Pop,
If you don’t believe that God speaks to people in the Church today in the manner depicted in Acts 13:1-4, then how do you reconcile your own questions on limitations that you pose on your own blog in your post “Alcohol and the Christian”? The problem is you can’t without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But if you claim that the Spirit does not operate that way, you are forced into perpetual abstinence from anything that may prove a possibility for overindulgence. You are now a slave to Law and not freedom in the Spirit.
You asked who sets up the authority by which a determination is made as to what is wrong or right? Obviously, Universal Special Revelation is the guide in this. But the Holy Spirit, too, quickens not only the word of God in that revelation, but He also steps in when the gray areas start arising. In Isaiah it says that when we come to a place of needing discernment we will hear God speaking to us saying, “This is the way, walk in it.” Paul was in such a place. He was in a quandary about circumcision, then God led him by the Spirit to understand it was not needed. Yet right after this, he had Timothy circumcised in order to better preach to the Jews he was trying to reach. It is just such a case where the Holy Spirit steps in and says, “This is the way, walk in it.”
In the same way, the Spirit guides Christians today. He guides and speaks to the pastor preparing his sermon. Or do you not believe this to be true? If it is true, does this mean that what the Spirit reveals to that pastor as to the message he must bring and how he should bring it is the same as Scripture itself? It’s a revelation from God, is it not? If it’s not true, then God is not in it and the pastor should not be bringing the message.
I have told you why I believe that Unique Special Revelation is not the same as Universal Special Revelation and why it cannot be considered “Scripture.” The apostle Paul did not equate words of knowledge and wisdom with Scripture. I believe Paul knew he was writing Scripture, but he did not include those words of knowledge, wisdom, and prophecy that occurred in every believers’ meetings for a reason—they weren’t to be included. The case of tongues and their interpretation is also interesting because Paul writes that the tongue is not edifying to the greater gathering of believers unless there is an interpretation. Who is giving the interpretation? Isn’t it the Spirit of God? Why is this interpretation then not written down as a special revelation of God? No examples of an interpretation of a tongue has been written down as Scripture. Why? This did not mean that God was not speaking to those believers. The same distinction Paul drew back then is the distinction that we draw today.
The problem here is one of discernment. Discernment is at the heart of the issue you raise in your post on your own site. How much is too much? When should I do this? What is the best way to do the thing the Bible says I should do? Is there ever a reason to wait on God to provide an answer to a situation? I think 99% of Christians would say that waiting on God is true in many cases. But then what are we waiting for if not a Unique Special Revelation? The same is true of prayer. Why petition God for anything unless you are requesting some kind of revelation from Him? Whether it be growing deeper in Him or asking to have a need filled, what you are asking for is for God to speak or act—and as we know from Creation, God makes no distinction between speech and action in His own person. When He speaks, actions happen.
Does this clarify things?
Oengus,
Well said.
I will also add that God setup an Old Covenant and a New Covenant. I do not understand people who want to say that there was an Old Covenant, New Covenant Plan A (with gifts that died out with the apostles) and now a New Covenant Plan B (with no gifts.)
There was and is only one New Covenant. The New Covenant of Paul’s era is the New Covenant of our era.
Gaddabout,
The phrase “general revelation” is not one I made up. That has been used to describe God’s revelation through the created order for a very long time.
The word “unique,” in the sense that I am using it, means that it applies in a pointed, specific manner. That I did make up for this post. Perhaps I should have stuck with “specific” but I liked the interplay of alliteration of “unique” with “universal” (a word a truly wanted to use.)
As to Luther, I’m not claiming that the 95 Theses are Scripture—that’s the whole point. I am arguing that God spoke to Luther in a way that proves that God still speaks to people today.
Gaddabout,
One last thing.
I, too, do not like trying to exegete the gifts in detail. None of the apostles tried to exegete their existence and reasons for being. The gifts simply were and they were accepted at that level. Only their proper use was addressed.
The problem comes when people want an exegesis on a topic that the apostles didn’t try to explain. I don’t know what is worse, not believing what the apostles thought of gifts on their face value or trying to defend what the apostles didn’t try to defend.
Chalk it up to something along the lines of “where angels fear to tread.”
The issue is that to most people in the church(at least in my experience), “Unique Special Revelation” means stuff like :
– “I feel God leading me…”
– “God told me to…”
– “God has spoken to me…”
And all of these phrases are describing the same thing – a subjective nudge or impression that they take to be the leading of the Spirit. But scripture never describes God’s leading in this way. In fact, the Acts 16 passage you quote is the only example in Acts where you don’t know for sure that they are led in some objective matter.
I have to disagree with your use of John 10. Jesus is using a figure of speech here to emphasize He is the true way to salvation. And those that hear his “voice” are those that recognize Him for who He is. Ongoing subjective guidance is not what is in view here. I have a post on this passage which you can see here.
Isaiah 20 is another one of those passages that gets taken out of context. I won’t take up more space on your blog but just point here for my thoughts on it.
Dan,
I think I mislabeled some things from your article (“universal” instead of “general”). Sorry about that.
However, I stand by my original argument with more added. I addressed your method of proving that God speaks today to believers. Now for the actual argument.
I was pretty clear on what I thought you meant, and your follow up has solidified that. As brian touched on, there is a great gulf between the clear, direct communication from God mentioned in your proof texts and the subtle, subjective “nudging” we like to call the Spirit’s “conviction.” Obviously, the intances in Scripture had witnesses and general belief that God indeed spoke. This is much different than “I believe God wants me to…” I’m not denying that God directs hearts and gives man desires to do. The Holy Spirit does carry out the roles that Christ promised He would – teaching us the meaning of General Revelation and giving comfort through Scripture. What you’re suggesting, though, is that the subjective and emotion-induced urge to pull up stakes and move to Africa is the result of Special Revelation (or, The Call). Unless God does present us with an audible, direct instruction to do, there is no modern correlation with the passages you mentioned. Indeed, to suggest that man’s thoughts are paramount to God’s Word is to deny the finality and infallibility of Revelation.
brian, good stuff.
Brian (and King of Pop),
You’re not getting me here. Brian, just like you said in your expositions on the passages noted, I agree with you. This is not some inner impression. I never said anything about inner impressions. “Set aside Paul and Barnabas….” is not an inner impression.
I am not for inner impressions. I am for the firm voice of God leading the believer.
King of Pop,
So when you say “unless God present us with an audible call to do…” are you agreeing with me that God DOES call people audibly? If you are, then even one instance of that occurring in all of history after the close of the canon negates your entire argument.
From this I would have to surmise that you believe that God has never once spoken to an individual since the close of the canon, not even to illumine the Scriptures.
Brian,
You state in your exposition of the Isaiah passage that you believe that God has no will for an individual based on that passage. Do you believe that ANY of Scripture reveals that God has an individual will for a believer?
The Acts passages I quoted starkly show that God had an individual will for Paul and Barnabas in how they conducted their mission trip. What of those passages then?
I am not for inner impressions. I am for the firm voice of God leading the believer.
Dan, here are a few quotes which made me think you were of that mindset :
“When a missionary says that she has a heart for a certain people group, is that not a Unique Special Revelation given her by the Holy Spirit?”
“And so the Spirit of the Lord Jesus speaks to us today. Discernment is therefore called for since there are other voices speaking that are not of God.” (You’re talking about audible voices here?)
“It is just such a case where the Holy Spirit steps in and says, “This is the way, walk in it.””
I apologize if I mis-read you. Whenever I hear someone use the words “speak” or “voice” in relation to God, they are almost exclusively talking about subjective inner impressions.
Perhaps you could explain more of what you mean by “the firm voice of God”?
“You state in your exposition of the Isaiah passage that you believe that God has no will for an individual based on that passage.”
Well, not only on that passage. In that post I was just trying to show that the Isaiah passage cannot be used to support the idea of an “individual will”.
The Acts passages show that God had a specific task which he communicated clearly to the people He wanted to carry it out. That’s not what most people claim to mean by “individual will”. Again, I won’t take up space on your blog with this. I already have a post clarifying what I mean so I hope that answers your question.
“The Acts passages I quoted starkly show that God had an individual will for Paul and Barnabas in how they conducted their mission trip. What of those passages then?”
I can’t presume to speak for brian, but you just said in your article that that is Unique Special Revelation. You cannot, then, presume that even the method of revelation itself would be normative for everyone. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Also, you have given examples of how God gave unique revelation to specific people during the foundation of the early church, and before the completion of the canon. What you have not shown is:
1) God gave this kind of revelation to everyone, even in that time. These instances you point out are to leaders of the church (mostly apostles, but not all) during the formation of the church. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see any indication of 99% of believers ever receiving this kind of revelation in the Bible.
2) That God said this would continue.
I’m not saying I’ve disproved your point. I’m just saying you haven’t proved your point.