Revelation Different from Inspiration: Continuationist argument

[Andrew P.C.]

Is it correct to say that it is likely there is a lot of inspired writings and things the apostles spoke that did not make it into the canon?

No.

This would reject the sovereignty of God and His promise in Isaiah 40:8; Luke 24:26; Matt. 5:18; 2 Pet 1; 1 Tim 3 and many others.

If God is sovereign and there is no darkness in Him (1 John) why would He keep scriptures from His beloved for 2,000 years?

Also, we have to understand that the apostles did not walk around saying a bunch of "inspired" stuff. The SCRIPTURES are inspired. The Apostles were sinners just like us all and therefore were susceptible to err. Therefore, what we have in our hands are infallible, inerrant, and inspired. These scriptures have been kept by God (Isaiah 40:8) and will never pass away.

So, to answer your question is to start with a faulty premise.

 

[Peairtach]

What do the Scriptures say? While we know that the canon is closed (Eph. 2:20, 1 Cor. 3:10), we also learn in both Testaments that there were genuine prophets whose prophecies were not inScripturated (e.g., Huldah, Philip's daughters).

I don't think you are using the word "testament" with its proper redemptive meaning. "Prophecy" was a distinctively old testament office which included the mediatorial action of speaking and applying the words of the covenant in the name of the Lord. This has been fulfilled with the coming of one like unto Moses, Acts 3. After the sun has risen there is no need of candles. What we see in the "New Testament" Scriptures is the closing up of the old covenant word with the confirmation that all has been fulfilled in Christ and all things are new. It is upon this basis that light has come to the Gentiles. The fact this "prophetic" message is in the New Testament does not make it a "new testament" function. It only means the new testament had not yet begun to function according to its "perfection."

"Testaments" may, with propriety, be used to refer to both God's early dealings with his people via covenants up to Sinai and the New Covenant made by and with Christ.

The fact that there were biblically accredited prophets giving genuine and uninScripturated prophecies (i.e. Philip's daughter's, the Corinthian prophets 1 Cor 12:10) after the coming of the one like Moses and thus functioning like candles after the rising of the sun presents a problem for this argument. If candles shine after the rising of the sun, we must ask: why do they do so? If we believe that there is a biblical rationale for this phenomenon that also does not allow ongoing continuation of the NT gifts distributed under the Sovereignty of the Holy Spirit, we must not merely assert our conclusion but must prove it as a "good and necessary consequence [that] may be deduced from Scripture."

We can prove from Scripture that a requirement for Apostleship was that a candidate had seen the Lord not in a vision but with his naked eye. We also know from the Scriptures that the primary function of Apostles was laying a foundation for the churches. Taken together these facts provide the Scriptural statements from which we must deduce by good and necessary consequence that the continuing of the Apostolate throughout the church age was not God's intent for the new covenant church and that, whatever may be said for the spiritual gifts of 1 Cor 12, the canon is closed. The strength of this proof is why some charismatic leaders reject the possibility of the continuing Apostolate and accept that the canon is closed.

But before a charismatic will accept the claim that the NT "spiritual gifts are not "a 'new testament' function" only present until the NT began functioning "according to its perfection" he or she will need to be presented with an equally strong proof consisting of either direct Scriptural evidence for that claim or a chain of reasoning which reaches that conclusion by deductions from Scripture that truly are good and necessary consequences thereof. And unfortunately, it can be shown a) no direct Scriptural statement makes such claims and b) that all of the currently available attempts to derive such a conclusion by GNC deductions have one or more logical errors in their case.

There had to be a divinely inspired record of, and theology of, the redemptive historical events of Christ's life, death and resurrection, hence, Pentecost and prophetic revelations as was promised by our Lord in the Upper Room Discourse.

Once the complete thing had come their was no more need for the piecemeal (I Cor13).

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[timmopussycat]

The fact that there were biblically accredited prophets giving genuine and uninScripturated prophecies (i.e. Philip's daughter's, the Corinthian prophets 1 Cor 12:10) after the coming of the one like Moses and thus functioning like candles after the rising of the sun presents a problem for this argument.

It presents as many problems as the early Christians continuing to pray in the temple -- NONE. It was a transition period. If one took time to note the function of prophecy in the history of redemption, and did not rely on a casual observance of a few scattered phenomena, it would be as clear as day that prophecy was a part of the transition period before "the perfect" came.

The early Christians continued to pray in the temple because they recognized that Jesus was the Messiah and the fulfillment of the Messianic and new covenant promises. It was therefore natural for them to continue worshipping in the temple. There was and is nothing in the Scripture that commanded them to stop worshipping in the temple at any point and in fact the decision not to allow Christians to worship in the temple was made by others and not by themselves. Since the Christians' understanding of Scripture played no direct role in the matter of the ending of their temple worship, the comparison with the question of whether or not non-canonical prophecy continues, in which believers' Scriptural understandiings are definitely involved, is invalid.

That the years from Christ's crucifixion to the destruction of Jerusalem formed a transition period is not in dispute. What is in question is the nature and extent of the transitions that took place during those years. And while it is one thing to assert logically insufficient arguments for the cessationist view within a reformed circle, it is another thing to engage in debate with charismatics. In that situation, it must be recognized, as I have already noted that . . .

. . . before a charismatic will accept the claim that the NT "spiritual gifts are not "a 'new testament' function" only present until the NT began functioning "according to its perfection" he or she will need to be presented with an equally strong proof consisting of either direct Scriptural evidence for that claim or a chain of reasoning which reaches that conclusion by deductions from Scripture that truly are good and necessary consequences thereof. And unfortunately, it can be shown a) no direct Scriptural statement makes such claims and b) that all of the currently available attempts to derive such a conclusion by GNC deductions have one or more logical errors in their case.

Certainly the notion that Paul in 1 Cor. 13: 8-13 set a "terminus ad quem" for the gifts coterminus with the finalization of Scripture won't do it, for even though we have Scripture in its fullness today, "the perfect" has clearly not come with its completion for nobody living knows the Lord "fully" in any sense that is "just as I have been fully known."

Until an anti-charismatic case can be made based on a a chain of reasoning which reaches that conclusion by deductions from Scripture that truly are good and necessary consequences thereof, the better part of wisdom when dealing with charismatics is to show how their own teachers too often fail to follow the biblical standards for managing the alleged "gifts." That approach has two benefits: it is indisputedly biblical and it will warn people away from the worst of the charismatic excesses.

 

[MW]

Certainly the notion that Paul in 1 Cor. 13: 8-13 set a "terminus ad quem" for the gifts coterminus with the finalization of Scripture won't do it, for even though we have Scripture in its fullness today, "the perfect" has clearly not come with its completion for nobody living knows the Lord "fully" in any sense that is "just as I have been fully known."

Using the word "testament" in its redemptive-historical significance, we live under the new testament without any overlap of the old testament to Israel. The perfect has come. Rejoice, ye Gentiles! Christians should be on their guard against anything that would threaten the perfection and completeness of their charter of liberties.

 

[Afterthought]

If the word "canon" means a rule for faith and life, and a congregation or denomination uses a prophecy as a rule for faith and life, then they have canonized that prophecy whether they want to admit it or not. Their doctrine seems, at best, inconsistent.

Ah, I see what you're saying now. I suppose they either are inconsistent, as you say, or they understand "canon" along the lines as something meant for all in the church.

 

[KMK]

If the word "canon" means a rule for faith and life, and a congregation or denomination uses a prophecy as a rule for faith and life, then they have canonized that prophecy whether they want to admit it or not. Their doctrine seems, at best, inconsistent.

Ah, I see what you're saying now. I suppose they either are inconsistent, as you say, or they understand "canon" along the lines as something meant for all in the church.

Right, which smacks of self-righteousness because they have their own special Word of God which is not for everyone.