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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.

They argue for a closed canon the same way cessationists do.

Their argument is that the revelatory gifts continue and do not undermine the authority of the closed canon.

1 Thess 5:20,21 Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Sam Storms (Third Waver):

Were not the Thessalonian Christians, for example, "bound to attend and submit to"(lit. "hold on to"; 1 Thess 5:21) the prophetic words they received, no less than to the Scripture in which this very instruction is found? Evidently Paul did not fear that their response to the spoken, prophetic word would undermine the unltimate authority or sufficiency of the written revelation (Scripture) that he was in process of sending them. The point is this: Noncanonical revelation was not inconsistent with the authority of Scripture then, nor need it be now. "Are Miraculous Gifts For Today: Four Views"; pg. 81,82

(These views are not necessarily my own, but in response to the OP)
 
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.

They argue for a closed canon the same way cessationists do.

Their argument is that the revelatory gifts continue and do not undermine the authority of the closed canon.

1 Thess 5:20,21 Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Sam Storms (Third Waver):

Were not the Thessalonian Christians, for example, "bound to attend and submit to"(lit. "hold on to"; 1 Thess 5:21) the prophetic words they received, no less than to the Scripture in which this very instruction is found? Evidently Paul did not fear that their response to the spoken, prophetic word would undermine the unltimate authority or sufficiency of the written revelation (Scripture) that he was in process of sending them. The point is this: Noncanonical revelation was not inconsistent with the authority of Scripture then, nor need it be now. "Are Miraculous Gifts For Today: Four Views"; pg. 81,82

(These views are not necessarily my own, but in response to the OP)

Thanks for this. I think this is the answer I was looking for. My first instinct is along the lines of Jerusalem Blade's post (I think it was 14). To me, it seems as if the argumentation for either side isn't as tight as their respective proponents would like them to be (myself included).
 
What is somewhat difficult to understand is the automatic linking of "non-cessationism" with the notion that the canon is not closed.

Isn't it possible (I'm not arguing that this is the biblical doctrine) that one could be a "non-cessationist" and believe the canon of scripture is indeed closed by saying:

1) the new revelation of God's Word or will did cease when the canon of scripture was complete,
2) the canon revelation aspect gifts were indeed completed in Scripture given to the Church upon the foundation laid by the prophets and apostles

however,

3) a continuation of an aspect of these specific gifts continue that do not add to or contradict the canon in any way
4) these gifts continue either as a miracle for evangelism as per Acts 2, a faith building activity per Romans 8,
but not in any way as an equal with the revelation of Scripture?

In asking these questions, it is assumed that the standard charismatic and pentecostal formulation that the work of the Holy Spirit is bifurcated, is evidenced by at least some of the (non-cessationist) gifts, and that new revelation of God's will through them are all incorrect biblically.
 
My acquaintance has been mostly with the third wave on this subject. The most to-the-point book is Surprised by the Voice of God by Jack Deere (formerly Dallas Seminary). He's a continualist who maintains a closed canon while admitting to ongoing divine revelation. Everything must be tested against the scriptures. Nothing is admitted as being divine, according to him, if it contradicts anything in the scripture. His definition of 'canon' is fairly narrow. From previous posts it appears that most PB defninitions of 'canon' are broad enough to include any and all divine communication, revelation, instruction, and the like.

Both PB and Deere insist that there is no authority on the same level as or superior to the scriptures as we know them. On this there is agreement. The difference seems to be whether particular revelations regarding individuals and situations are (or might sometimes be) valid. Deere would say "yes, but not on the same level as scripture". Complete cessationists would say "no". Using the PB definition of canon, most continualists would say it is open. Using their own definition, most continualists would say it is closed.
 
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.

No doubt that somethiing is either inspired or not. The question is whether there is mediate inspiriation. It seems to me every Biblical Christian has to say at least that there WAS mediate inspiration, when revelatory gifts were active. Not every prophecy uttered in Corinth was written down, becoming Scripture.

And, we know that it was mediate, because it had to be tested, etc.
And, if that fact didn't militate agaiinst the then-extant canon, it is hard to see how its continuation, itself, would militate against the completed canon. It seems to me that the revelatory gifts served the function of giving instruction to individuals as to what God would have them to do (like Paul's Macedonian vision).

And, we believe, of course, that God still directs people. We just don't believe that God verbalizes that guidance. But, for those that do, it is hard to see how that very fact militates against a closed canon. CJ Mahaney and Grudem argue that Scripture is of universal authority, whereas revelatory gifts are for personal, direct instruction in the will of God.

AGain, I don't agree with them, just defending both their firm stance on Biblical authority, while believing in the dynamic revelation of the Spirit.
 
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.

No doubt that somethiing is either inspired or not. The question is whether there is mediate inspiriation. It seems to me every Biblical Christian has to say at least that there WAS mediate inspiration, when revelatory gifts were active. Not every prophecy uttered in Corinth was written down, becoming Scripture.

And, we know that it was mediate, because it had to be tested, etc.
And, if that fact didn't militate agaiinst the then-extant canon, it is hard to see how its continuation, itself, would militate against the completed canon. It seems to me that the revelatory gifts served the function of giving instruction to individuals as to what God would have them to do (like Paul's Macedonian vision).

And, we believe, of course, that God still directs people. We just don't believe that God verbalizes that guidance. But, for those that do, it is hard to see how that very fact militates against a closed canon. CJ Mahaney and Grudem argue that Scripture is of universal authority, whereas revelatory gifts are for personal, direct instruction in the will of God.

AGain, I don't agree with them, just defending both their firm stance on Biblical authority, while believing in the dynamic revelation of the Spirit.

I'm not saying that these supposed revelations have to be added to the Canon that has been once for all given to the Church but I do think that it is duplicitous to state that revelation to an individual does not have universal authority. As I stated before, either the revelation to that individual is God-breathed or it is not. If it is God-breathed then my rejection of that revelation, even if it is just for that individual, is a rejection of God's Word.

What I'm connecting, then, is that this goes to the undermining of the Canon itself. Why? Because they claim that I can "take or leave" God's inspiration that was "just for the individual" but that God's Word is authoritative for everyone. In one sphere, God's inspiration must be given authority and in another it only has authority for the individual. I simply don't buy it.

In fact, this "God's inspiration for me" opens up the door to a rejection of God's Word. Why not simply flip the paradigm as many Charismatics do that make the God's inspiration "for me" more authoritative than God's Word. After all, they might argue, God's Word is difficult to interpret so you might argue that the inspiration directly received from God does not comport to the Word but, after all, that's just your interpretation.

Finally, whether or not the Canon is closed for everyone else, it certainly is not for the person who receives this inspiration. Hence, those that do receive God-breathed instruction should either add some looseleaf paper to the end of their Scriptures to remember what God told them or make sure they never forget what God told them.
 
Mary, in your post 37 you said,

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.​

And if they were caught in a digital audio recording? And then professionally transcribed? The inspiration of the Holy Spirit would be in the words as spoken. But this was my argument against the existence of such supposed prophets. Their words, inspired and infallible, from God, would be authoritative, and part of the canon of His word to humankind. It is claimed they are in accord with Scripture, but that is not the point; the point is, is He still speaking?

I like the quote, "The Bible alone is the word of God."

Ken (KMK),

The quote of Sam Storms you show (post 42) pertains to a time before the canon was closed, so Paul wouldn't object to other prophets. The canon closed around the year 90 (assuming that date), after John finished his writings.

This is how Sam Waldron, in his, To Be Continued? Are the miraculous gifts for today? presents it (this a brief summary of his argument):

---------

A brief look at why the miraculous gifts given the early church are not given today. Please also note, these gifts were people, who performed certain tasks.

The greatest and most important gift was the Apostles (Eph 4:11). Those in the apostolate had to have 3 qualifications: 1) eye-witness of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:21, 22; 10:39–41); 2) directly appointed by Christ (Mk 3:14; Lk 6:13; Acts 1:2); and 3) miraculous signs confirming their apostleship (Acts 2:43; 4:33; 5:12; 2 Cor 12:12). When these men died this foremost spiritual gift to the early church no longer existed, even though the fruit they bore remains.

The gift second in importance was the prophets (Eph 4:11; 1 Cor 12:28). Exactly as with the prophetic office in the OT their prophetic utterances were directly inspired of God and infallible (without error of any sort). When recorded their words were part of the canon of Scripture. The last recorded NT prophecy was the Book of Revelation: “Blessed is he that reads, and they that hear the words of this prophecy...” (1:3). If the prophetic office existed today then the canon of NT Scripture would still be open, and the Bible unfinished. All churches agree the NT canon is closed.

The house of God is built “upon the foundation of the apostles and [NT] prophets” (Eph 2:20; 3:5), and the foundation is already laid, and not still being built. The prophetic office is closed, as is the apostolate. So we see 2 spiritual gifts now ceased. Those who call themselves NT “prophets” nowadays are thus false, and all must agree they fail to meet the Deut 18:20–22 standard, and thus are condemned by the word of God!

The gift of tongues-speakers – using distinct foreign languages – as a revelatory gift equal to prophecy when interpreted (1 Cor 14:5), that is, bringing an inspired and infallible word directly from God, is, on the same basis as prophecy, ceased. With the completion of the Scriptures the revelation-gifts were no longer needed, the written word of God to His people sufficient that “The man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Tim 3:17)
 
I have been trying to understand this topic for a while. One article that helped was from Desiring God (thus continuationist). It shot down a number of arguments from cessationists (i.e. "Scripture says miraculous gifts ceased," "miraculous gifts were only for the Apostles to lay a foundation for the church," "miraculous gifts are detrimental to the authority of Scripture"). God is sovereign. He can do anything He wants--including miraculous things through His people.

From DG:

Signs and Wonders: Then and Now :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
 
I have been trying to understand this topic for a while. One article that helped was from Desiring God (thus continuationist). It shot down a number of arguments from cessationists (i.e. "Scripture says miraculous gifts ceased," "miraculous gifts were only for the Apostles to lay a foundation for the church," "miraculous gifts are detrimental to the authority of Scripture"). God is sovereign. He can do anything He wants--including miraculous things through His people.

From DG:

Signs and Wonders: Then and Now :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

He certainly attempts to shoot down all arguments and convinces you but that does not mean his hermeneutic and arguments are sound.

God can do anything He wants? Even miracles through His people? Do you actually believe the cessationist position doubts the Sovereignty of God? If that is an argument for your position, what position does it not argue for? Seriously, nearly every group that has a principle that contradicts what God reveals about Himself claim the same idea that "God can do anything." We don't base our understanding of God's activity on speculation but upon the things revealed.
 
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.

No doubt that somethiing is either inspired or not. The question is whether there is mediate inspiriation. It seems to me every Biblical Christian has to say at least that there WAS mediate inspiration, when revelatory gifts were active. Not every prophecy uttered in Corinth was written down, becoming Scripture.

And, we know that it was mediate, because it had to be tested, etc.
And, if that fact didn't militate agaiinst the then-extant canon, it is hard to see how its continuation, itself, would militate against the completed canon. It seems to me that the revelatory gifts served the function of giving instruction to individuals as to what God would have them to do (like Paul's Macedonian vision).

And, we believe, of course, that God still directs people. We just don't believe that God verbalizes that guidance. But, for those that do, it is hard to see how that very fact militates against a closed canon. CJ Mahaney and Grudem argue that Scripture is of universal authority, whereas revelatory gifts are for personal, direct instruction in the will of God.

AGain, I don't agree with them, just defending both their firm stance on Biblical authority, while believing in the dynamic revelation of the Spirit.

I'm not saying that these supposed revelations have to be added to the Canon that has been once for all given to the Church but I do think that it is duplicitous to state that revelation to an individual does not have universal authority. As I stated before, either the revelation to that individual is God-breathed or it is not. If it is God-breathed then my rejection of that revelation, even if it is just for that individual, is a rejection of God's Word.

What I'm connecting, then, is that this goes to the undermining of the Canon itself. Why? Because they claim that I can "take or leave" God's inspiration that was "just for the individual" but that God's Word is authoritative for everyone. In one sphere, God's inspiration must be given authority and in another it only has authority for the individual. I simply don't buy it.

In fact, this "God's inspiration for me" opens up the door to a rejection of God's Word. Why not simply flip the paradigm as many Charismatics do that make the God's inspiration "for me" more authoritative than God's Word. After all, they might argue, God's Word is difficult to interpret so you might argue that the inspiration directly received from God does not comport to the Word but, after all, that's just your interpretation.

Finally, whether or not the Canon is closed for everyone else, it certainly is not for the person who receives this inspiration. Hence, those that do receive God-breathed instruction should either add some looseleaf paper to the end of their Scriptures to remember what God told them or make sure they never forget what God told them.

Rich,

By "true for them" I don't mean some sort of objective impression, or something that supersedes Scripture (I doubt Mahaney, Piper, or Grudem do, either). Rather, specific instruction, like "Jonah, go to Nineveh." God didn't tell me to go to Nineveh. He most certainly said it to Jonah. It was wrong for Jonah to disobey. It had no bearing on JOnah's brother Al, assuming Jonah had said brother, for the sake of argument.

I am only beating this drum so that we give our continuationist brothers a fair hearing, and not erect arguments based on what they do not believe.
 
Rich,

By "true for them" I don't mean some sort of objective impression, or something that supersedes Scripture (I doubt Mahaney, Piper, or Grudem do, either). Rather, specific instruction, like "Jonah, go to Nineveh." God didn't tell me to go to Nineveh. He most certainly said it to Jonah. It was wrong for Jonah to disobey. It had no bearing on JOnah's brother Al, assuming Jonah had said brother, for the sake of argument.

I am only beating this drum so that we give our continuationist brothers a fair hearing, and not erect arguments based on what they do not believe.

I'm trying to give them a fair hearing but I'm interacting with the logic of this position.

Let's interact with your analogy.

God told Jonah to go to Ninevah. He didn't tell you. Yet, you have been told about God's instruction to Jonah. If you were to tell Jonah that God did not tell him that then you would be contradicting God. If you merely heard about God telling Jonah and did not believe it was God you would be disbelieving God. If you read about God telling Jonah and did not believe God told Jonah you would be disbelieving God. All these cases, whether inscipturated or not, would be sin since God did speak to Jonah.

Thus, as I've been saying all along, God's "Truth for them" cannot be confined to them because the moment they share that Truth it must either be believed or disbelieved by another and either God is being believed or He is not. Either you and I are giving counsel to another that God is the One who spoke or He is not. In fact, how fearful it must be for a Continuationist Pastor to run the risk of counseling a person that that voice they're hearing really isn't of God. After all, even as Piper points out Satan can imitate God pretty well.

Further, I don't believe I stated that a person would supersede Scripture. Not intentionally at least. What I stated is that not all Scripture is plain and if a person has a "revelation" to go into the ministry as an example, might they not ignore your counsel that weighs some of the GNC factors such as internal and external call? After all, not a small amount of prudence is built upon the light of nature and GNC from Scripture. It's a bit complicated sometimes and it's not at all unusual for people to go with the "God told me this" and have their eyes glaze over when you reason with them that such a course would be foolish based on GNC from Scripture. Thus, it's not that they place their revelation above the Scriptures but it is at the same level as the Scriptures (God breathed) and it is not at all easy to convince a person that has these regular impressions from God to stop seeking the voice within and learn how to study that which has been already revealed.

Finally, you did not interact with what I stated above and I would like your opinion. "Jonah, go to Ninevah" is a great example of something God told Jonah and He remembered and recorded. This was God-breathed. Even if it was not inscripturated, Jonah had a corpus of information that was God-breathed - the Law, Wisdom Lit, and some prophets, and what God told him. At least for him, if he was never to share it with another, he had a Canon+ while everybody else had a Canon. Hence, I argue that, for the individual who argues for continuationism, they cannot argue for a closed Canon for those that hear the voice of God. Everybody else has a closed Canon but not the people who hear the voice of God and who have variations of an addended Canon that they must remember.
 
God told Jonah to go to Ninevah. He didn't tell you. Yet, you have been told about God's instruction to Jonah. If you were to tell Jonah that God did not tell him that then you would be contradicting God. If you merely heard about God telling Jonah and did not believe it was God you would be disbelieving God. If you read about God telling Jonah and did not believe God told Jonah you would be disbelieving God. All these cases, whether inscipturated or not, would be sin since God did speak to Jonah.

Thus, as I've been saying all along, God's "Truth for them" cannot be confined to them because the moment they share that Truth it must either be believed or disbelieved by another and either God is being believed or He is not. Either you and I are giving counsel to another that God is the One who spoke or He is not. In fact, how fearful it must be for a Continuationist Pastor to run the risk of counseling a person that that voice they're hearing really isn't of God. After all, even as Piper points out Satan can imitate God pretty well.

Further, I don't believe I stated that a person would supersede Scripture. Not intentionally at least. What I stated is that not all Scripture is plain and if a person has a "revelation" to go into the ministry as an example, might they not ignore your counsel that weighs some of the GNC factors such as internal and external call? After all, not a small amount of prudence is built upon the light of nature and GNC from Scripture. It's a bit complicated sometimes and it's not at all unusual for people to go with the "God told me this" and have their eyes glaze over when you reason with them that such a course would be foolish based on GNC from Scripture. Thus, it's not that they place their revelation above the Scriptures but it is at the same level as the Scriptures (God breathed) and it is not at all easy to convince a person that has these regular impressions from God to stop seeking the voice within and learn how to study that which has been already revealed.

Finally, you did not interact with what I stated above and I would like your opinion. "Jonah, go to Ninevah" is a great example of something God told Jonah and He remembered and recorded. This was God-breathed. Even if it was not inscripturated, Jonah had a corpus of information that was God-breathed - the Law, Wisdom Lit, and some prophets, and what God told him. At least for him, if he was never to share it with another, he had a Canon+ while everybody else had a Canon. Hence, I argue that, for the individual who argues for continuationism, they cannot argue for a closed Canon for those that hear the voice of God. Everybody else has a closed Canon but not the people who hear the voice of God and who have variations of an addended Canon that they must remember.

Okay, let's think of the early church. Prophecy is going on in Corinth, and probably other places. Direct, God-breathed, not written down in Scripture, not spoken by apostles.

How were they to handle this inspiration? They were to test the spirits. They were to weigh the prophecies (1 Cor 14). There were direct person-to-person prophecies (acc. to 1 Cor 14), and the recipient was to remain silent while it was spoken. NOne of this was inscripturated. It appears, rather, to have been directive commands from God mediated through human beings, on a lesser level than the inspiration of Scripture.

And, just like preaching then, it was to be weighed in accordance with the Word of God. If it contradicted the word, it was false prophecy. The Word reigned supreme in the early church in which the gifts were active. It was not normative for all men in all times --obviously, or the Spirit would have inscripturated it. IT was a specific message given for a specific time, that had to be tested by Scripture.

You might ask: if you think that, why are you a cessationist? Frankly, just from historical fact. The gifts did cease. What passes for them today, as I have seen and heard it, even in "sounder" charismatic churches is so bland and general that can't be taken as anythign more than exhortation (which some of my sovereign grace friends have confessed to me).

I have seen charismatics, as they fall in love more and more with the Word, say 'That old stuff doesn't matter any more.'

I just don't want us to pass judgment based on the abuses, or the straw men, or a Biblically-inconsistent argument.

My only point with you, Rich, is that all you allege and charge charismatics with today, could have been alleged against the practice by Paul when it was actually going on. And, he doesn't do that. Instead he cautions and regulates it. That, in itself, is an important point.

If these things: tongues and prophecy, were works of the Spirit, who is Paul to say, "Only 2 or 3 speak. There must be an interpreter, etc etc." Is he trying to muzzle the spirit? Would he do this if the inspiration were on the level of Scripture? It seems to me that this, in itself, argues for a lesser inspiration (for want of a better term) than Scripture.
 
For Semper:
I understand what you are saying regarding Jonah. Would you also label as adding to canon, utterances which contain nothing beyond what is taught in scripture? I'm thinking particularly about reports of epiphanies to m's, saying in effect that Jesus is the Messiah and they are to seek Him for their salvation. Reportedly this is a common occurence around the world with scores of new m background believers. Would acceptance of these phenomena automatically/logically entail acceptance of an open canon?
 
Ken P.,

You said,

If these things: tongues and prophecy, were works of the Spirit, who is Paul to say, "Only 2 or 3 speak. There must be an interpreter, etc etc." Is he trying to muzzle the spirit? Would he do this if the inspiration were on the level of Scripture? It seems to me that this, in itself, argues for a lesser inspiration (for want of a better term) than Scripture.​

Is this not the very thrust of the continuationist argument? In this they hope to find New Testament precedent for contemporary "slightly fallible" prophecies! And can it be you are agreeing with them?

In the OT there were two kinds of prophets, true and false, exactly as the case was in the New. In the Old there were testings of prophetic utterances just as in the New (Deut 13:1-5; 18:20-22). As prophets were more abundant in the New, and participated in the gathered church, it was reasonable for the Lord to establish procedures to ensure that "all things [were] done decently and in order" (1 Cor 14:40).

The Holy Spirit could could speak exactly what He wanted to say through a Balaam (an ungodly vessel) and also utter perfectly a most significant prophecy through another evil person, Caiaphas (John 11:49-52). Should then His ability to speak His infallible word with perfect inspiration through the NT prophets be hindered? Must His ability be diminished and relegated to "a lesser inspiration"? Prophecy does not come by the will of man, "but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet 1:21).

One of the best books on this is Victor Budgen's, Charismatics and the Word of God: A biblical and historical perspective on the charismatic movement. He thoroughly exposits the pertinent verses, and has a lengthy analysis of the prophecies of Agabus.

Paul was not "muzzling" the Holy Spirit by giving His directions for the conduct of men as He spoke through them severally in the meetings, and for requiring scrutiny, lest a pretender should seek to infiltrate among them.


Mary,

It's an interesting phenomena you mention -- the dreams of Muslims where they are told to learn of and follow Jesus -- and I have witnessed this myself. I have not been able to do follow-up, however, to see the authenticity of the conversion. On principle I would say it does not "automatically/logically entail acceptance of an open canon". A dream is not the same as a prophetic utterance. Can angels -- "ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Heb 1:14) -- preach "the everlasting gospel" to them that dwell on the earth (Rev 14:6)?

Whatever phenomena appear, they must be interpreted by Scripture, and not Scripture interpreted by them.

Steve
 
For J Blade:
Can you explain the difference from a theological/episotomlogical perspective what the difference is between a (supernaturally originated) dream and a prophecy? It seems that the dreams of Pharaoh would qualify as both. Also where would an epiphany fit into this? An example would be a brilliant light appearing to a group and a voice coming out of that light, giving the essence of the gospel. It appears to me that all of these are supernatural, divine communications (assuming that the fruits thereof entail true discipleship). However, maybe I'm missing something.
 
Last edited:
He certainly attempts to shoot down all arguments and convinces you but that does not mean his hermeneutic and arguments are sound.

God can do anything He wants? Even miracles through His people? Do you actually believe the cessationist position doubts the Sovereignty of God? If that is an argument for your position, what position does it not argue for? Seriously, nearly every group that has a principle that contradicts what God reveals about Himself claim the same idea that "God can do anything." We don't base our understanding of God's activity on speculation but upon the things revealed.

Hmm...I'm pretty sure I didn't say cessationists doubt the Sovereignty of God, nor did I put my words forth as an argument for my position. In fact, I have no position in this debate; I am completely undecided. My church's Doctrinal position is cessationist, so no I don't think cessationists doubt the Sovereignty of God at all.
As far as Piper's argument is concerned, I suppose you can say that his arguments may not be sound. However, I haven't seen any evidence put forth that shows they aren't.
I am still not understanding why prophecy must be part of the canon. The Bible is obviously the revelation that is for the entire church. Why must all revelation be for the entire church? Would it be wrong for God to only direct an individual? Yes, people could fake revelation or be filled with pride--but how is that any different then the gifts at Corinth and throughout the church? The ESV Study Bible sheds some light on this subject. What are your thoughts on it's notes?

prophecy. The word “prophecy” (Gk. prophēteia) as used by Paul in 1 Corinthians refers generally to speech that reports something that God spontaneously brings to mind or “reveals” to the speaker but which is spoken in merely human words, not words of God. Therefore it can have mistakes and must be tested or evaluated (see 1 Cor. 12:29; 1 Thess. 5:19–21). An alternative view of this gift, held by some, is that it involves speaking the very words of God, with authority equal to the OT prophets and equal to the word of Scripture. A third view is that it is very similar to the gifts of preaching or teaching. This gift is widely indicated throughout the NT churches (see 1 Cor. 11:2–5; 12:28–29; 13:2, 8–9; 14:1–40; Acts 2:17–18; 11:27–28; 19:6; 21:9–11; Rom. 12:6; 1 Thess. 5:19–21; 1 Tim. 1:18; 4:14; 1 John 4:1). Prophecy is used to build up, encourage, and comfort the gathered community (1 Cor. 14:3). Prophecy is also used evangelistically to disclose the secrets of the hearts of unbelievers and lead them to worship God (14:24–25). Because God used this gift to build up the Christian community, Paul urged the Corinthians to value it highly (14:4–5, 39). distinguish between spirits. A special ability to distinguish between the influence of the Holy Spirit and the influence of demonic spirits in a person's life. Those who claim to speak under the Spirit's prompting could be mistaken, and so God also gives gifts of discernment to the Christian community (14:29; 1 Thess. 5:20–21; 1 John 4:1–3).
 
AThornquist
Hmm...I'm pretty sure I didn't say cessationists doubt the Sovereignty of God, nor did I put my words forth as an argument for my position.

That would be quite an understatement. The sovereignty of God is particularly characteristic of Reformed Theolgy, more an opposite of the broadly evangelical theology today.

Since the pentecostal/charismatic movement is not Reformed (due to Arminian influence, dispensationalism, not having a confession, etc), by default, it tends to broad evangelicalism (not Reformed Theology).

A couple thoughts reading through the various posts:

When the gift of tongues and interpretation was being exercised in I Corinthians 14, it is important to remember the canon was not yet complete. We might say that happened with the book of Revelation, later in the first century.

Also, the impression of what charismatics/Pentecostals do with this today is compounded by the fact that they commonly refer to this as...
a Word from the Lord.
That sounds like a direct, authoritative revelation from God which must be taken as like Scripture even if we say it must be compared with Scripture. If accepted, it would be taken as infallible revelation... that's where one difficulty with this is.
 
God told Jonah to go to Ninevah. He didn't tell you. Yet, you have been told about God's instruction to Jonah. If you were to tell Jonah that God did not tell him that then you would be contradicting God. If you merely heard about God telling Jonah and did not believe it was God you would be disbelieving God. If you read about God telling Jonah and did not believe God told Jonah you would be disbelieving God. All these cases, whether inscipturated or not, would be sin since God did speak to Jonah.

Thus, as I've been saying all along, God's "Truth for them" cannot be confined to them because the moment they share that Truth it must either be believed or disbelieved by another and either God is being believed or He is not. Either you and I are giving counsel to another that God is the One who spoke or He is not. In fact, how fearful it must be for a Continuationist Pastor to run the risk of counseling a person that that voice they're hearing really isn't of God. After all, even as Piper points out Satan can imitate God pretty well.

Further, I don't believe I stated that a person would supersede Scripture. Not intentionally at least. What I stated is that not all Scripture is plain and if a person has a "revelation" to go into the ministry as an example, might they not ignore your counsel that weighs some of the GNC factors such as internal and external call? After all, not a small amount of prudence is built upon the light of nature and GNC from Scripture. It's a bit complicated sometimes and it's not at all unusual for people to go with the "God told me this" and have their eyes glaze over when you reason with them that such a course would be foolish based on GNC from Scripture. Thus, it's not that they place their revelation above the Scriptures but it is at the same level as the Scriptures (God breathed) and it is not at all easy to convince a person that has these regular impressions from God to stop seeking the voice within and learn how to study that which has been already revealed.

Finally, you did not interact with what I stated above and I would like your opinion. "Jonah, go to Ninevah" is a great example of something God told Jonah and He remembered and recorded. This was God-breathed. Even if it was not inscripturated, Jonah had a corpus of information that was God-breathed - the Law, Wisdom Lit, and some prophets, and what God told him. At least for him, if he was never to share it with another, he had a Canon+ while everybody else had a Canon. Hence, I argue that, for the individual who argues for continuationism, they cannot argue for a closed Canon for those that hear the voice of God. Everybody else has a closed Canon but not the people who hear the voice of God and who have variations of an addended Canon that they must remember.

Okay, let's think of the early church. Prophecy is going on in Corinth, and probably other places. Direct, God-breathed, not written down in Scripture, not spoken by apostles.

How were they to handle this inspiration? They were to test the spirits. They were to weigh the prophecies (1 Cor 14). There were direct person-to-person prophecies (acc. to 1 Cor 14), and the recipient was to remain silent while it was spoken. NOne of this was inscripturated. It appears, rather, to have been directive commands from God mediated through human beings, on a lesser level than the inspiration of Scripture.

I think we can quit the charge that I'm erecting Straw Men, Sir, and simply interact on this. I am dealing with what we know about the character of God. For a fellow Cessationist, I believe you've been making some hay with my own presentation, assuming I'm trying to malign, when I'm only trying to make some application of their arguments. Is it not possible, after all, that they claim to escape a problem but fail to actually do so?

There is absolutely no place in Scripture where anything God breathed may be treated by men as anything less than authoritative. Whether every prophetic utterance was inscripturated is not my point - the point is that it has a "from the lips of God" oughtness that has to be treated with the same seriousness as Scripture because, if validated it is from God and has the same weight.

Thus, how can you argue that, from the perspective of obedience, a man is more or less bound to a prophetic utterance than to the Word of God?

And, just like preaching then, it was to be weighed in accordance with the Word of God. If it contradicted the word, it was false prophecy. The Word reigned supreme in the early church in which the gifts were active. It was not normative for all men in all times --obviously, or the Spirit would have inscripturated it. IT was a specific message given for a specific time, that had to be tested by Scripture.
As did prophecy in the OT. We agree.

You might ask: if you think that, why are you a cessationist? Frankly, just from historical fact. The gifts did cease. What passes for them today, as I have seen and heard it, even in "sounder" charismatic churches is so bland and general that can't be taken as anythign more than exhortation (which some of my sovereign grace friends have confessed to me).

I have seen charismatics, as they fall in love more and more with the Word, say 'That old stuff doesn't matter any more.'
On this, we fully agree. In fact, as I was musing over this today, I thought of something: Paul lists Biblical qualifications for Elders and Deacons but not for Prophets. I think there's good reason for this.

I just don't want us to pass judgment based on the abuses, or the straw men, or a Biblically-inconsistent argument.
And, as I stated above, I don't believe I've put any such arguments forward - either straw men or Biblically-inconsistent arguments. I've stuck to the point that the moment you admit God-breathed inspiration you have to deal with the author of the inspiration and cannot merely claim that there is a "second-tier".

My only point with you, Rich, is that all you allege and charge charismatics with today, could have been alleged against the practice by Paul when it was actually going on. And, he doesn't do that. Instead he cautions and regulates it. That, in itself, is an important point.

How so? Do you really believe Jonah would have disagreed with me that God's word to him was authoratative and had to be remembered even if not inscripturated? My problem with charismatics today is that they somehow think that they're speaking for God and it can be taken or left. I've even been in Charismatic Churches where they attempted to "regulate" it.

If these things: tongues and prophecy, were works of the Spirit, who is Paul to say, "Only 2 or 3 speak. There must be an interpreter, etc etc." Is he trying to muzzle the spirit? Would he do this if the inspiration were on the level of Scripture? It seems to me that this, in itself, argues for a lesser inspiration (for want of a better term) than Scripture.
Again, I think Paul's regulation is consistent with OT regulation. The idea that prophecy has to be tested is as old as the Scriptures themselves when Moses revealed that a prophet could not contradict that which was previously revealed.

Incidentally, do you consider the Urim and Thummim to be a lesser form of inspiration and by that I mean this: would Israel have been judged if they asked God whether they should go into battle, He said yes, and they refused to go? This is the key issue for me.
 
For Semper:
I understand what you are saying regarding Jonah. Would you also label as adding to canon, utterances which contain nothing beyond what is taught in scripture? I'm thinking particularly about reports of epiphanies to m's, saying in effect that Jesus is the Messiah and they are to seek Him for their salvation. Reportedly this is a common occurence around the world with scores of new m background believers. Would acceptance of these phenomena automatically/logically entail acceptance of an open canon?

Let's put it this way. Was Saul, on the road to Damascus, required to accept the authority of the Person speaking to him even though it wasn't in the Scriptures?

Now, the question of whether or not I believe some of these epiphanies are of God and His Providence are a completely different story. We have another thread recently on God's Providential superintendence of all things but I also could conceive of God using a Muslim's exposure to certain ideas to mediately cause a dream to occur that would lead a man to a place where he would believe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top