A Humble Argument for the Cessation of NT Prophecy and Tongues, Part 5

Dr. Bob Gonzales · #1 (**permalink**) 03-09-2009, 11:01 PM

Brothers,

In the first 4 parts of my series, I sought to establish the major premise, namely, that all pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation has been completed and has, therefore, ceased. In this 5th installment, I set the stage for the minor premise by clarifying the real point of debate. The real issue for most evangelicals is not whether Scripture-quality revelation has ceased. The question is whether the miraculous gifts of prophecy and tongues are forms of canonical special revelation. Acknowledging this point is crucial if our debate with our continuationist brothers is to be characterized by fairness and graciousness rather than false caricatures and audacity.

The Cessation of Special Revelation: A Humble Argument for the Cessation of NT Prophecy and Tongues, Part 5

Enjoy!

Your servant,

lynnie · #2 (**permalink**) 03-09-2009, 11:22 PM

While I agree with Grudem and not you, I must say that you are extremely gracious and accurate in distinguishing between the different groups of continuists/charismatics.

I get so annoyed when people just blithely lump us all together with the loonies going to prophecy conferences to hear guys that got new revelation from Jeremiah and Abraham and even Jesus in their room last night (I am not making this up, really).

I think you outlined the issues very well, so that a continuist like me would be able to dialogue, and not just brush you off as ignorant of the distinctions.

**armourbearer** · #3 (**permalink**) 03-10-2009, 01:07 AM

I have appreciated reading through the series thus far. But one point which needs to be made is that the continuationist advocates do a very poor job of distinguishing between so-called continuing revelation and canonical revelation. The very name, "continuing," suggests that the revelation which they seek after today is of the same nature with the revelation which was active during the canonical process. If it is not the same, why call it "continuing?" It can only be because the revelation believers accept as divine is the kind of revelation which was manifested during the canonical process; anything less than this lacks the divine authority the continuationist is arguing for. Hence he equivocates on the term "revelation," now saying it is the same, now saying it is different.

Jimmy the Greek · #4 (**permalink**) 03-10-2009, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I have appreciated reading through the series thus far. But one point which needs to be made is that the continuationist advocates do a very poor job of distinguishing between so-called continuing revelation and canonical revelation. The very name, "continuing," suggests that the revelation which they seek after today is of the same nature with the revelation which was active during the canonical process. If it is not the same, why call it "continuing?" It can only be because the revelation believers accept as divine is the kind of revelation which was manifested during the canonical process; anything less than this lacks the divine authority the continuationist is arguing for. Hence he equivocates on the term "revelation," now saying it is the same, now saying it is different.

IMHO, It is this equivocation that makes Grudem's view fundamentally flawed -- essentially arguing that the gift of Prophecy today is not exactly the same as in the NT, but kinda like it in a sense and related to it.

Dr. Bob Gonzales · #5 (**permalink**) 03-10-2009, 12:05 PM

Matthew and Jim,

I agree with your comments. Grudem has not persuaded me that there is an exegetical basis for distinguishing NT congregational prophecy from OT canonical prophecy.

On the one hand, I appreciate his desire (unlike some more radical continuationists) to ensure that Scripture has pride of place as that ultimate rule by which the church is directed how to glorify and enjoy God. Indeed, he even subordinates modern "prophetic" utterances to the judgment of the church's elders. In that sense, he's trying to protext the canon and the church from false prophets, which is commendable.

On the other hand, what I think might be more appropriately labeled "a biblically informed and spirit lead exhortation or testimony" (assuming of course, that it's an accurate comment comming from a godly brother) given my one member to the congregation is called "prophecy," which introduces an equivocation that can lead to confusion. The more conservative and Bible-centered among these continuationist brothers may keep a check on abuses. But the weaker less-Bible centered among them may not have the same restraint and fall prey to confusion and error.

I dont' say this with a spirit of superiority or pride but, I hope, genuine concern to give honor to Scripture and to protect Christ's sheep. At the same time, I hope that my polemic against charismatic views with which I disagree will not lead me to downlplay or depreciate the need for a robustly pneumatic Christianity.

Thanks again for your input.

Your servant,