Thread: How does a non-cessationist argue for a closed Cannon?

I just can't quite figure out how a non-cessationist would be able to say that the Canon is closed with a lot of assurance.


Appreciate the help.

The Lord spoke many things to people even during Bible times, but not all of it was recorded for posterity. So the Lord may speak to people today without requiring that His words be recorded for posterity.

Not everything the Lord has spoken to men was written in the Bible.

Originally Posted by Kim G

The Lord spoke many things to people even during Bible times, but not all of it was recorded for posterity. So the Lord may speak to people today without requiring that His words be recorded for posterity.

Not everything the Lord has spoken to men was written in the Bible.

Sure.

But what is the positive argument for the closed Cannon?

In order to understand their arguments better, I would recommend a book titled, "Are Miraculous Gifts For Today: Four Views". Sam Storms contribution is very helpful in understanding the modern 'Third Wave' viewpoint.

Originally Posted by InevitablyReformed

But what is the positive argument for the closed Cannon?

I don't know. I'm not particularly a non-cessationist. I'm not convinced either way.

What is the cessationist's argument for the closed canon?

Originally Posted by Kim G

Originally Posted by InevitablyReformed

But what is the positive argument for the closed Cannon?

I don't know. I'm not particularly a non-cessationist. I'm not convinced either way.

What is the cessationist's argument for the closed canon?

Not sure. Maybe another thread should be started.

Ok, but should this one then be CLOSED???

Originally Posted by PuritanBouncer

Ok, but should this one then be CLOSED???

You're the boss.

Shouldn't the thread title read, "How does a cessationist argue for a closed Canon?" I don't think a non-cessationist would argue for that.

Check out this thread: Case from Scripture for Cessationism

In it I posted a couple of arguments.

Steve

How does a non-cessationist argue for a closed Cannon?

I don't know, but if I were standing in front of one, I'd be hoping it was closed.

Now, if we're talking a closed CANON, it'd be a different story.

Originally Posted by Brad

How does a non-cessationist argue for a closed Cannon?

I don't know, but if I were standing in front of one, I'd be hoping it was closed.

Now, if we're talking a closed CANON, it'd be a different story.

Brad, ya beat me to it. When I saw the OP, what immediately came to mnd were all those Civil War re-enactments I've seen at Greenfield Village and other places... Oh, closed cannons there are good things!

And so are closed canons...

Margaret

Steve,
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point. I can't believe you actually think theologians like Gordon Fee and Wayne Grudem believe the Canon is not closed? If that is what you believe, I can say without hesitation your are very wrong. But like I said, maybe I am misunderstanding you.
Terry

Originally Posted by Galatians220

Originally Posted by Brad

How does a non-cessationist argue for a closed Cannon?

I don't know, but if I were standing in front of one, I'd be hoping it was closed.

Now, if we're talking a closed CANON, it'd be a different story.

Brad, ya beat me to it. When I saw the OP, what immediately came to mnd were all those Civil War re-enactments I've seen at Greenfield Village and other places... Oh, closed cannons there are good things!

And so are closed canons...

Margaret

Yep. Very funny. I corrected the OP. Thanks.

Originally Posted by InevitablyReformed

Originally Posted by Galatians220

Originally Posted by Brad

I don't know, but if I were standing in front of one, I'd be hoping it was closed.

Now, if we're talking a closed CANON, it'd be a different story.

Brad, ya beat me to it. When I saw the OP, what immediately came to mnd were all those Civil War re-enactments I've seen at Greenfield Village and other places... Oh, closed cannons there are good things!

And so are closed canons...

Margaret

Yep. Very funny. I corrected the OP. Thanks.

One (or two) in every crowd, dontcha know?

Just being silly. Now back to our regularly scheduled thread......

There are several non-cessationist arguments. Note that I'm not promoting any of these arguments as being valid but merely reporting them.

1. The canon isn't closed if one views Revelation prophetic fulfilments as still being future. The witnesses speak the words of God and prophecy during the end times--call it tribulation or whatever. This is assuming that the term "canon" also includes spoken (but not written) divine revelation.
2. The canon refers to scripture, written and infallible. The inspiration/infallibility involved God's intervention at two stages, namely the revelation itself and then the writing thereof. The revelation itself, though infallibly delivered, could have been not understood or misunderstood. However, the final written form was and is infallible. Also present-day prophecies and revelations, when from God, are infallibly delivered but, lacking the second stage of inspiration (the Spirit-guided writing thereof) may be fallibly spoken and interpreted.
3. It is argued that the criteria for authenticating OT prophets does not apply to the NT gift of prophecy, since it says (somewhere, don't remember where) to test all things and hold fast to that which is good, implying that there is some "not-good" within the prophetic utterances in churches.
4. A closed canon and the sovereignty of God are mutually exclusive. If God is sovereign, He can do what He jolly well pleases. He is free to surprise us if He chooses. Saying the canon is closed involves predicting God's behavior for all future ages of mankind. It is, in fact, saying that He cannot again choose to do something that He has chosen to do in the past. [This is the extreme, rather offensive expression of the argument.]
5. Another argument is "the facts of the matter". Particularly during the past decade or two there have been many well-documented cases of dreams, visions, epiphanies and the like which have resulted in the conversions of scores of "religion of peace adherents" to allegiance to the "Prince of Peace" whom we all worship. In 1993 already Dudley Woodberry (Center for World Mission) stated that about half of m-xtn conversions are due to this kind of thing. Logically, there are three possibilities. One is that these events were the creation of some mass hysteria. A second is that they were counterfeit miracles staged by Satan. A third is that they were from God.

In one case, after an epiphany, over a hundred m's became xtn believers within 3 days and they have stuck with it through persecution over the past 2+ years. In another case it was several thousand, with a consequent major people movement with multiple martyrdoms and severe persecutions over a couple of years.

It has been argued that cessationism refers only to the cessation of the supernatural gifts listed in the epistles and thus does not preclude these kind of epiphanies and consequent conversions as being from God. Others use the term "cessationism" to encompass everything supernatural. Perhaps someone can clarify for me what the term means to the PB administrators.

On second thought, much of what I wrote above are non-cessationist (continualist) arguments for the canon's NOT being closed.

It depends on how rigid one wants to be in terms of what constitutes divine revelation. Obviously any new doctrine or clarification of an old doctrine would qualify as new revelation. If there is a vision of Jesus telling unbelievers to seek him, that's nothing more or less than what is written in the scriptures already. On the other hand I wonder how cessationists would view something like a voice telling an unbeliever to tune into a certain radio program at a certain frequency and time to learn about God? Is that new revelation or not? Do cessationists regard this kind of communication as being valid (that is, it occurs spontaneously, not through a human 'prophet'.)

Originally Posted by Leslie

On second thought, much of what I wrote above are non-cessationist (continualist) arguments for the canon's NOT being closed.

It depends on how rigid one wants to be in terms of what constitutes divine revelation. Obviously any new doctrine or clarification of an old doctrine would qualify as new revelation. If there is a vision of Jesus telling unbelievers to seek him, that's nothing more or less than what is written in the scriptures already. On the other hand I wonder how cessationists would view something like a voice telling an unbeliever to tune into a certain radio program at a certain frequency and time to learn about God? Is that new revelation or not? Do cessationists regard this kind of communication as being valid (that is, it occurs spontaneously, not through a human 'prophet'.)

Mary,

I caught that you were writing on the why it wouldn't be closed argument.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Leslie

On second thought, much of what I wrote above are non-cessationist (continualist) arguments for the canon's NOT being closed.

Well noted! The only way one can argue for a closed canon with continuing revelation is if the revelation is of a different nature with that found within the canon. The more adept continuationists accept this, and start adding qualities like "fallibility" and "mediacy" to the revelation. But by then it is clear that it is not "continuing revelation" they are arguing for, but continuing communication of revelation. At which point it becomes necessary to discern the communication as we would with any word of man.

Terry, your point is well taken. What you say of Fee and Grudem has merit, although I would say it's an oxymoron to assert the canon is closed while arguing for continued revelation. From my perspective by definition a non-cessationalist is arguing that the inspired, infallible Word of God is still being spoken.

Now if the words of one of these "prophets" were written down, that would, according to Biblical definition, be canon.

If the proponents of such equivocate and qualify, they fail of the biblical definition of prophesy -- which is the same in the OT & NT.

Actually, The canon must be closed. It's in the definition. (I usually spend some time telling a person how we discovered what the cannon is. Most people are clueless) It had to be written by a apostle, or somebody close to one. Well, they are all gone, ergo, no new books could be 'discovered'.And, here's the big one...it doesn't contradict anything else in scripture. When people argue against a closed cannon, they usually are trying to add to what the scriptures say.

Not to mention that verse in Hebrews about "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son," Now if anybody says 'Jesus' appeared unto them and gave them further revelation. They are also lying. Jesus will not be seen until the second comming.

Kim G

The Lord spoke many things to people even during Bible times, but not all of it was recorded for posterity. So the Lord may speak to people today without requiring that His words be recorded for posterity.

Not everything the Lord has spoken to men was written in the Bible.

Yes, in fact John tells us that many things even about Jesus did were not recorded, that "even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." (John 21:25)

One way we understand this is that God has uniquely superintended the Scripture, to preserve them throughout history.

Not everything was, or could be, or should have been recorded as canon, but God has miraculously preserved his Word through the foundation of the Apostles and the Prophets (Ephesians 2:20). That is what is preserved in His Word (and foundations are not re-built, particularly eternal ones).

Having recently seen the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit, I can tell you that even without approaching this in faith, that the Old Testament believers preserved and recognized the same Scripture we use today. For example, the Masoretic Text (sixth century) that Orthodox Jews use today has exactly the same books as we have today in the Old Testament.

Also, even without faith, we see that the Bible was uniquely (miraculously) preserved so that texts made 1,000 or 2,000 years ago are virtually identical to texts we use now.

By faith, we know God has seen to it that His people have Had His Word somewhere preserved all the way through, and that we have all He intends us to have, that He might be honored and glorified through it.

I think to understand what we're talking about we have to understand that the canon is the repository of God-breathed teaching that God has given to us to sufficiently equip the man of God for every good work. One of the mistakes that Roman Catholics make is that they think that the fact that the Apostles first uttered some of the canon audibly gives rise to the idea that the written canon is distinct from what was spoken. What really made the RC's mad during the Reformation was when the Reformers pointed out that, in substance, the RC's were no different than the Anabaptists - Anabaptists believed God spoke immediately to the individual while the Roman Catholic Church believed the Church had the ability to immediately discern revelation.

In the final analysis, the non-cessationist has to answer the question as to the binding nature of this immediate revelation they claim from God. If it is, in fact, God breathed then it cannot simply be something personally authoratative. To claim this either diminishes the nature of Scripture itself as only having personal authority to those that accept it. If continuing revelation is God-breathed then it needs to be shared with others so they can know what God has proclaimed and, by necessity, it has to be authenticated.

Of course the very fact that continuing "revelation" from non-cessationists is all over the map would make God the author of confusion because these modern "prophets" contradict one another.

How do cessationists explain conversions, particularly mass conversions, of m clergy to faith in God? What would it take for Calvinists to convert to Hinduism? Are these epiphanies a function of hysteria or are they Satanic or from God? Do bogus conversions hold up under persecution? Since the epiphanies do not involve any new revelation I don't see any problem with accepting them as legitimate. The fact that this happens is indisputable--there are thousands of witnesses to similar phenomena occuring all over the world.

Grudem, in his Systematics, makes the clearest argument for spiritual gifts of revelation and a closed canon. NOt that I'm convinced!

But, it can be a straw man to say they are inconsistent. DO we not believe that preaching is God's means of communicating: the preaching of the Word of GOd is the Word of God and all that? Yet, preachers say wrong things. Is a sermon, then, uninspired in any sense? Or, does the Holy Spirit use poor fallible human speech as the voice of Christ (surely you have heard him, Paul writes!).

Be clear: I am not arguing for continuation of revelatory gifts. I am just saying let's not create straw men to knock down or burn.

There are some nuances to the discussion worth considering that are covered in this book:

The WCF and the Cessation of Special Revelation -- Milne

Originally Posted by KenPierce

Grudem, in his Systematics, makes the clearest argument for spiritual gifts of revelation and a closed canon. NOt that I'm convinced!

But, it can be a straw man to say they are inconsistent. DO we not believe that preaching is God's means of communicating: the preaching of the Word of GOd is the Word of God and all that? Yet, preachers say wrong things. Is a sermon, then, uninspired in any sense? Or, does the Holy Spirit use poor fallible human speech as the voice of Christ (surely you have heard him, Paul writes!).

Be clear: I am not arguing for continuation of revelatory gifts. I am just saying let's not create straw men to knock down or burn.

But preaching is mediated and that is the point. Preaching is an exposition of the Word of God. The God-breathed Words that are being exposited have been authenticated and are living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword. The Spirit is active through this means.

The issue would become if the preacher (as some do) claims that God has told him something apart from any means. He is now claiming to have immediate revelation (immediate meaning without means). If it is God breathed revelation then the non-cessationist cannot merely claim it is authorative for the individual. If it is the very Word of God revealed to that man then it is authoratative and not a "take it or leave it" kind of thing. Again, canonicity speaks to the authority undergirding what is being said.

Hence, I think the non-cessationist position actually undermines the authority of Canon at large. Why? Because it posits that God is breathing out new revelation to individuals but in such a way that it is somehow "personal" to the individual and we do not have to take notice. Would somebody care to claim that the stories of a Muslim receiving immediate revelation of Jesus Christ are binding upon me? That is to say, if I doubt that Christ actually revealed Himself personally to that Muslim am I denying that which is God-breathed? If I am not condemned for doubting God-breathed Revelation in one sphere then why am I condemned for doubting the Word of God whose authority is derived from the same Source?

The non-Cessationist cannot have it both ways. If Scripture is binding because it is God breathed then so is the personal revelation that modern "prophets" receive and it ought to be recorded.

Rich,

Though I am a cessationist, I wonder how that would be any different than in the founding era of the church. In short, couldn't that same argument have been leveled against Paul? Paul, why are some of your writings "scripture" and others not?

It seemeth to me that the prophecies were likely specific instructions like "Jonah, go to Nineveh." Now, Reformed people do believe God calls us to specific works, do we not? We just don't think he uses words.

But, I can see where others might say: Scripture is authoritative for all. Prophecy may be speaking to an individual or group about God's specific will for their lives, etc.

Just advocating for the "devil" here.

Originally Posted by KenPierce

Rich,

Though I am a cessationist, I wonder how that would be any different than in the founding era of the church. In short, couldn't that same argument have been leveled against Paul? Paul, why are some of your writings "scripture" and others not?

It seemeth to me that the prophecies were likely specific instructions like "Jonah, go to Nineveh." Now, Reformed people do believe God calls us to specific works, do we not? We just don't think he uses words.

But, I can see where others might say: Scripture is authoritative for all. Prophecy may be speaking to an individual or group about God's specific will for their lives, etc.

Just advocating for the "devil" here.

Well, I think it's pretty obvious that the difference between Paul and somebody else is one of Office. He was an Apostle. It's sort of like asking what the difference between Elijah and just anybody else is. The Church has always recognized that the Apostles had the authority to provide new revelation and the signs and wonders they performed testified to their authority.

The Roman Catholic Church actually criticized the Reformation by challenging them with the fact that they didn't have all the "miracles" that the RCC was claiming. In fact, every time you turn around the RCC is claiming some new miracle. Mary seems to show up everywhere and then her appearance is sanctioned by the RCC and it becomes a pilgrimage site.

Calvin rightly pointed out that we don't need new miracles because we're not claiming new Revelation. The RCC, on the other hand, is constantly claiming new Revelation and must manufacture new miracles to claim authority for its new teaching. At least the RCC is honest enough to state that its new Revelation is binding and not pretend as if the claim to new Revelation affects nobody but the person who heard it. It doesn't relieve them from condemnation for adding to God's Word but they're also not so foolish as to believe that something God breathed can be kept under a bushel.

Originally Posted by KenPierce

It seemeth to me that the prophecies were likely specific instructions like "Jonah, go to Nineveh." Now, Reformed people do believe God calls us to specific works, do we not? We just don't think he uses words.

But, I can see where others might say: Scripture is authoritative for all. Prophecy may be speaking to an individual or group about God's specific will for their lives, etc.

And this is precisely how many charismatics would answer the OP. Whatever revelation gifts today exist are not normative for the whole church but are occasional. They would draw a difference between the gifting of apostles who had the promise that they would be led into all truth and prophets who enforced the covenant in particular situations.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Originally Posted by KenPierce

It seemeth to me that the prophecies were likely specific instructions like "Jonah, go to Nineveh." Now, Reformed people do believe God calls us to specific works, do we not? We just don't think he uses words.

But, I can see where others might say: Scripture is authoritative for all. Prophecy may be speaking to an individual or group about God's specific will for their lives, etc.

And this is precisely how many charismatics would answer the OP. Whatever revelation gifts today exist are not normative for the whole church but are occasional. They would draw a difference between the gifting of apostles who had the promise that they would be led into all truth and prophets who enforced the covenant in particular situations.

If I doubt the personal revelation that these prophets have for themselves or for their specific situation am I doubting God's Word?

If you doubt a Biblically-accurate sermon are you doubting God's Word?

Rich wrote:
Well, I think it's pretty obvious that the difference between Paul and somebody else is one of Office. He was an Apostle. It's sort of like asking what the difference between Elijah and just anybody else is. The Church has always recognized that the Apostles had the authority to provide new revelation and the signs and wonders they performed testified to their authority.

KP responds: The point was not everything Paul wrote or spoke authoritatively ended up in the Bible. But, I'll bite: if not Paul, what about the small-p prophets in Corinth?

Originally Posted by KenPierce

If you doubt a Biblically-accurate sermon are you doubting God's Word?

Yes.

Originally Posted by KenPierce

Rich wrote:
Well, I think it's pretty obvious that the difference between Paul and somebody else is one of Office. He was an Apostle. It's sort of like asking what the difference between Elijah and just anybody else is. The Church has always recognized that the Apostles had the authority to provide new revelation and the signs and wonders they performed testified to their authority.

KP responds: The point was not everything Paul wrote or spoke authoritatively ended up in the Bible. But, I'll bite: if not Paul, what about the small-p prophets in Corinth?

I don't understand how this relates to the issue. The point is that if something is God-breathed then it carries with it the authority of almighty God. If I repudiate whatever is God breathed then I am repudiating that authority. No, not everything that Paul said was God breathed but when he wrote with inspiration as an Apostle his words carried with them an "oughtness" that cannot be denied the person who reads them or hears them properly exposited.

Thus, if a person is going to claim God-breathed inspiration in prophetic form today, it is not something that can merely be "true for them". The non-cessartionist cannot have God-breathed inspiration that he allows others to disclaim as something other than coming from God. He must insist that, if God inspired it, it would be sin for others to deny its inspiration.

Thus, when a person prophesies about their life to me and I don't believe that prophesy is from God then either they have presumed to speak for God and have not or they have spoken for God and I do not believe God's inspiration. There's no room for us both to be guiltless.

In other words, there is no room for ambiguity on this issue. You can't be ambivalent about whether or not God has inspired someone with revelation. Either you accept it as God breathed or you do not.

Perhaps some of you can help clarify this. It seems this is under the surface here as we try to understand this. Can we equate "cessationism" with the authority (canon) of Scripture? This is what is hard to understand.

I understand more fully the doctrine of Scripture and the very high priority of Scripture the Reformers restored for the Church.

The Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture has been divinely superintended through the centuries and the sufficiency of the cannon of Scripture has born witness to by the church in every age, even in the Old Testament.

The scriptures are self-attesting- they relate to one another, prophecies reference their fulfillment and are perfectly related to one another in a non contradictory way even though they were written over several thousand years, on three different continents, in three different languages.

They have provided a witness of their sufficiency and completeness in every generation.

So, adding to them in any way is not only an error of procedure, it is one of substance, and a great harm to the church.

I also understand there is no biblical basis for bifurcating the Holy Spirit coming once for salvation and then again for "gifts," as pentecostal and charismatic theology does.

However, when we talk of a few of the "gifts" in isolation as we do when we speak of "cessationism" (e.g. speaking in other tongues), is it not possible the gift continues not as new revelation (as in adding to or contradicting scripture) but as a miracle, exhortation gift, or faith building activity.

For example, as I read Acts 2:1-16, the speaking in other (known) tongues there was not an addition to church canon. It was a fulfillment of old testament prophecy (another proof God's people have had the complete canon of Scripture), but was a miracle that resulted in evangelism.

From other passages, e.g. Romans 8:26 is it possible this gift is possibly a faith building one (again, not adding to or contradicting the sufficiency of the canon)?

Scott,

I'm trying to make a fairly discrete point here about the nature of authority for those that claim continued immediate revelation.

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

Terry, your point is well taken. What you say of Fee and Grudem has merit, although I would say it's an oxymoron to assert the canon is closed while arguing for continued revelation. From my perspective by definition a non-cessationalist is arguing that the inspired, infallible Word of God is still being spoken.

Now if the words of one of these "prophets" were written down, that would, according to Biblical definition, be canon.

If the proponents of such equivocate and qualify, they fail of the biblical definition of prophesy -- which is the same in the OT & NT.

I don't think the words of one of these "prophets" written down would be canon unless there were the superintendence of the Holy Spirit in the writing thereof. Even if the original communication were from God, yet the transmission of that either verbally or in writing by a fallible, sinful human could and would muck up the final product.

Originally Posted by InevitablyReformed

I just can't quite figure out how a non-cessationist would be able to say that the Canon is closed with a lot of assurance.


Appreciate the help.

the destruction of Jerusalem which came 40 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. That's the nail in the coffin.

Originally Posted by Anton Bruckner

Originally Posted by InevitablyReformed

I just can't quite figure out how a non-cessationist would be able to say that the Canon is closed with a lot of assurance.


Appreciate the help.

the destruction of Jerusalem which came 40 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. That's the nail in the coffin.

Pardon my ignorance, but what does the destruction of Jerusalem have to do with the closing of the canon?