Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
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.
the destruction of Jerusalem which came 40 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. That's the nail in the coffin.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.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.
If you doubt a Biblically-accurate sermon are you doubting God's Word?
Yes.
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.
1 Thess 5:20,21 Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
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
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)
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As did prophecy in the OT. We agree.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.
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.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.'
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".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.
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.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?