# Revelation Different from Inspiration: Continuationist argument



## Afterthought (Jul 22, 2015)

*Revelation Different from Inscripturation: Continuationist argument*

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? If so, couldn't a continuationist argue that they do believe in a closed canon: they just believe that the canonizing of inspiration and revelation has ceased? The cessationist could then no longer argue that a closed canon means there is no more new revelation from God.

Thoughts?


----------



## TrustGzus (Jul 22, 2015)

Supposing we grant the first sentence you wrote for the sake of argument. Does anyone else speak inspired words other than apostles? The conclusion you give would require either living apostles today or people who are not apostles speaking inspired words.


----------



## KMK (Jul 22, 2015)

TrustGzus said:


> Supposing we grant the first sentence you wrote for the sake of argument. Does anyone else speak inspired words other than apostles? The conclusion you give would require either living apostles today or people who are not apostles speaking inspired words.



1. I agree that the heart of the issue is whether the gift of Apostleship continues today. 

2. What good is prophecy without canonization? If today's prophecy has some kind of authority over a church, then that church ought to canonize it. Why wouldn't they?


----------



## Afterthought (Jul 24, 2015)

TrustGzus said:


> Does anyone else speak inspired words other than apostles? The conclusion you give would require either living apostles today or people who are not apostles speaking inspired words.


Prophets and prophetesses. And those who were given the gift of tongues, as in the Corinthian church.



KMK said:


> What good is prophecy without canonization? If today's prophecy has some kind of authority over a church, then that church ought to canonize it. Why wouldn't they?


Perhaps the prophecy is too tied to some individual (perhaps on a congregational level) circumstances to be binding on the entire church or for the whoever it is binding on to write it down? If there were prophecy that was not written down before the canon was completed, why not the same now?


----------



## TrustGzus (Jul 25, 2015)

There is canonized material that is tied to individual circumstances. So that wouldn't exclude it from being canonized. When is the last time you greeted Rufus (Romans 16:3)?


----------



## KMK (Jul 25, 2015)

TrustGzus said:


> There is canonized material that is tied to individual circumstances. So that wouldn't exclude it from being canonized. When is the last time you greeted Rufus (Romans 16:3)?



I would say almost all canonized Scripture is tied to individual circumstances in the past. Just because an utterance of God is tied to individual circumstances does not preclude it from being part of the rule of faith and life.


----------



## KMK (Jul 25, 2015)

If prophecy is indeed given today, and a congregation or denomination is persuaded that it is the infallible Word of God, and it has authority over that congregation or denomination, then why stop short of making it a rule for the faith and life of that church or congregation?


----------



## God'sElectSaint (Jul 25, 2015)

I would agree that either words are inspired of God or they are not. I don't see how we can have "slightly" inspired revelations of God. I offer this verse: "Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"


----------



## timmopussycat (Jul 27, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> 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? If so, couldn't a continuationist argue that they do believe in a closed canon: they just believe that the canonizing of inspiration and revelation has ceased? The cessationist could then no longer argue that a closed canon means there is no more new revelation from God.
> 
> Thoughts?



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). Cessationists may try to argue that any statement from God must be authoritative and thus canonical, but this is not necessarily so. This can be proved by a thought experiment: consider God's command to Israel to take the Promised Land at the time of the Exodus. That command would have had no validity for the Ammonites, even though the Ammonites were national cousins of Israel. 

The real issue is testing purported prophetic claims. Since the Bible tells us that not all that claims to be from the Holy Spirit truly originates with Him, any statement claiming to be a prophecy, requires to be tested according to the Scriptural requirement for all claimed prophecies. The vast majority of prophetic claims will not pass such tests.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (Jul 27, 2015)

timmopussycat said:


> The real issue is testing purported prophetic claims. Since the Bible tells us that not all that claims to be from the Holy Spirit truly originates with Him, any statement claiming to be a prophecy, requires to be tested according to the Scriptural requirement for all claimed prophecies. The vast majority of prophetic claims will not pass such tests.



If I may give an example. I do not know if this is in line with the OP, but having an example helps me at this point. Also Mr. Cunningham, my question is not directed at you. I quoted your criteria, because I think it is the only right criteria.

What if a person says they had a vision of Christ Jesus. Did not see the actual Person. Just had a vision of Him. How might this be tested by scripture?


----------



## KMK (Jul 28, 2015)

timmopussycat said:


> Cessationists may try to argue that any statement from God must be authoritative and thus canonical, but this is not necessarily so.



This doesn't seem to be the issue. The issue is whether a continuationist can truthfully argue that the canon is closed when prophetic gifts continue. 



Afterthought said:


> If so, couldn't a continuationist argue that they do believe in a closed canon: they just believe that the canonizing of inspiration and revelation has ceased?



My question is, if they believe that prophetic utterances today are at all a rule for faith and life why would they want a closed canon? Aren't they limiting the Holy Spirit?


----------



## timmopussycat (Jul 28, 2015)

KMK said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > Cessationists may try to argue that any statement from God must be authoritative and thus canonical, but this is not necessarily so.
> ...



The reason why many continuationists argue for a closed canon is because of the role God designed the canon to fill as the foundation of the church. 

As in a building, once a properly designed foundation is laid correctly, there is no need to add anything to the canon since it is ready to support the building for which it was designed and built. Those advocating the view that applying such a parallel to the church "limits the Holy Spirit" have not realized that any claim that the Spirit needs to rebuild the church's foundations at any later date that the NT necessarily portrays the Holy Spirit as being less than competent at his assigned task of glorifying Christ. In addition if such a view is adopted, it will, in the long run, inevitably destroy any real confidence we may have in God's competence to save us, for it is not possible to trust a builder to complete the house if he couldn't get the foundation right the first time.


----------



## KMK (Jul 28, 2015)

timmopussycat said:


> The reason why many continuationists argue for a closed canon is because of the role God designed the canon to fill as the foundation of the church.



If they are fully persuaded and assured of the infallible truth, and divine authority of today's prophetic utterances, what makes those utterances different than those that are foundational to the church? If today's prophetic utterances become a rule for faith and life for a particular congregation or denomination, then aren't they by definition 'foundational' to that congregation or denomination?

Perhaps they see the closed canon as the foundation of their relationship with the universal church, but their own prophetic utterances as foundational to their relationship within their denomination or congregation?


----------



## timmopussycat (Jul 28, 2015)

Nicholas Perella said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > The real issue is testing purported prophetic claims. Since the Bible tells us that not all that claims to be from the Holy Spirit truly originates with Him, any statement claiming to be a prophecy, requires to be tested according to the Scriptural requirement for all claimed prophecies. The vast majority of prophetic claims will not pass such tests.
> ...



I know this wasn't directed at me, but let me reply anyway. 

Scripture tells us to test every claimed prophecy because not all that is claimed to be prophecy has its origin in God. There were false prophets, explicitly labelled as such in the OT and 1 Thess. 5:20, 21 is enough to show that the NT church faced the same problem. So how do we carry out the testing?

Before doing anything else, wee ask is there any part of what has been presented that we know cannot be true. In the case under discussion, we can confidently reject the possibility that an actual appearance of the Lord was involved. Such an appearance could qualify someone to be an Apostle and, as I have previously noted, a key part of their work was building the canonical foundation of the church. Since we know that God is not a God of confusion but of peace, we know he is not the source of anything that will confuse the issue of the church's authority i.e., the extent of Scripture.

Now to the tests of the vision itself: 

First test. Did the vision say anything? If the answer is "no," the point is moot. We have no data upon which to judge. 

Second test. If the vision said something, was the message foretelling i.e., something that can be proved true or false by events? If yes, we note the claimed prophecy and wait for the event to come to pass or fail to do so. If it does not come to pass we know we are dealing with a false prophecy and a false prophet and we react accordingly i.e., ignore the message and educate and, if necessary, discipline the messenger. Even if the prophesied event does come to pass, we know that we may be dealing with true prophecy from God or from a lucky guess by the devil since God warns us in Deut. 13:1,2 that the real test is whether the "prophet" subsequently leads God's people astray. So we mark it down as prediction fulfilled by events. In addition, since we don't at this point know where the message came from, we keep an eye on the "prophet's" future theological trajectory.

Third test. Was the claimed prophecy an example of "forthtelling," i.e., a word that is without event foretelling and without claimed direction for individuals or churches. Here the test is for congruency with Scripture. If congruent, we accept the word as a congruent restatement and/or application of Scripture in much the same way as we do sermons and commentaries where the authority of the message derives from its congruency to God's word. If not, we appropriately educate and, if necessary, discipline the messenger.

Fourth test. Does the claimed prophecy include an element of direction for individuals or particular churches? To test these sorts of messages, those involved follow the example of the church in Antioch in Acts 13: 2, 3 and wait on the Lord to confirm or deny the message that they have received. 

Note that a common feature of all these tests is that even though we might not get a "yes" or "no" to the question: "is this message a divine prophecy?" the tests do free God's people from the real problem of being under "prophetic bondage" i.e., a fatalistic submission to claimed prophecies.


----------



## timmopussycat (Jul 28, 2015)

KMK said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > The reason why many continuationists argue for a closed canon is because of the role God designed the canon to fill as the foundation of the church.
> ...



Some people within the charismatic movement do make such erring claims for their "prophecies." Other charismatics correctly see that there are biblical reasons to reject such. 

Anyone who wants to claim that the prophecies they experience in their circle are as authoritative as the canon should be pressed with the question: what do you need to add to the well-laid foundation of an existing building? Applied to the realm of the church, I have never seen an attempt to justify the erring claims of the sort you mention that does not ultimately rest on circular reasoning that first presumes the divine origin and authorization for claimed "prophecy" and/or "prophets" without the tests implied by 1 Thess. 5:21:22.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 28, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> 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? If so, couldn't a continuationist argue that they do believe in a closed canon: they just believe that the canonizing of inspiration and revelation has ceased? The cessationist could then no longer argue that a closed canon means there is no more new revelation from God.
> 
> Thoughts?



True revelation involved inspiration, but not necessarily inscripturation - writing down revelation as part of the canon of Scripture . Thus your title should be "Revelation different from Inscripturation".

But the Bible teaches that prophecy and the office of prophet have ceased, not just that the canon has been closed.

Christ speaking in His Word, by His Spirit, is our Prophet. Christ likewise is our Priest and King, these three mediatorial offices in the Church having been taken up by Him in a new way in the better New Covenant.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (Jul 28, 2015)

timmopussycat said:


> Fourth test. Does the claimed prophecy include an element of direction for individuals or particular churches? To test these sorts of messages, those involved follow the example of the church in Antioch in Acts 13: 2, 3 and wait on the Lord to confirm or deny the message that they have received.



Who did the Holy Spirit speak to in that text? It is "they". Is "they" from verse 1 "Barnabas, and Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaen" who were also considered "prophets and teachers"? If so, then does the person claiming prophecy have to have another prophet to affirm that claim?

Acts 13:1-3



> 1 Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.


----------



## timmopussycat (Jul 28, 2015)

Nicholas Perella said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > Fourth test. Does the claimed prophecy include an element of direction for individuals or particular churches? To test these sorts of messages, those involved follow the example of the church in Antioch in Acts 13: 2, 3 and wait on the Lord to confirm or deny the message that they have received.
> ...



The point is that others (not Barnabas and Saul and not the giver of the prophecy) prayed and fasted to seek the Lord's cofirmation before laying hands on B&S and sending them off.


----------



## Ken (Jul 28, 2015)

The first question might be, what is the definition of Hebrew Prophecy: Prophets and Prophecy

Some might not feel comfortable looking to a Jewish source for the definition of how the Jews view prophecy; though, thinking of God's prophets as just predicting the future is not the full Hebraic understanding.

Here are a couple of excerpts from Bible dictionaries:

The new Unger’s Bible dictionary:
The Nature of Prophecy. The predictive element was a frequent part of the content of the prophet’s message. But this is not the only element. The prophets frequently appeared in the role of social and political reformers, stirring preachers of righteousness and religious revivalists in addition to being predictors of judgment or blessing, as the occasion demanded. The prophet’s message was ever religious and spiritual, announcing the will of God to men and calling for complete obedience. Often the prophetic element shone out in the prophet’s preaching and writing.

Baker encyclopedia of the Bible:
Prophecy. Term, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words which, in pagan Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of divine inspiration.

It might make sense to study the meaning of the word before jumping to conclusions, a preachers sermon can be under dive inspiration; thus, prophetic.

We read our Bibles and come under inspiration as the Holy Spirit speaks to us; thus, we receive a prophetic word form God.

Think of Hebrew Prophecy, not Greek or pagan fortune telling, before answering the question if prophecy no more comes forth from God to His elect.

God bless you and keep you,
ken


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 28, 2015)

*Ken*


> We read our Bibles and come under inspiration as the Holy Spirit speaks to us; thus, we receive a prophetic word form God.



This is called illumination in reformed theology, to distinguish it from being confused with inspiration and prophetic revelation.

The Westminster Confession (and London Baptist Confession 1689) are clear on the subject of the sufficiency of Scripture and new "revelations"



> Chapter One - Of the Holy Scripture
> VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed


----------



## Nicholas Perella (Jul 28, 2015)

timmopussycat said:


> The point is that others (not Barnabas and Saul and not the giver of the prophecy) prayed and fasted to seek the Lord's cofirmation before laying hands on B&S and sending them off.



The confirmation came in the form of the Holy Spirit speaking to them. If I understand you correctly, then would we just use the first three criteria you noted in order to confirm the laying of hands and sending men off? The Holy Spirit speaking now-a-days with words outside scripture is what I am not grasping from the use of Acts 13:2-3. Yet that brings us back to square one, which is not a problem, because then criteria's 1-3 would confirm or not if the Holy Spirit was really confirming whether or not to lay hands and send men out, correct?


----------



## Ken (Jul 28, 2015)

Peairtach said:


> *Ken*
> The Westminster Confession (and London Baptist Confession 1689) are clear on the subject of the sufficiency of Scripture and new "revelations"



I hope what I posted was not implying that scripture is not sufficient, that there is a need for further canonization based on revelation beyond the scriptures we have today?

My intent was to clarify the broadness of the Biblical gift of prophecy, that people are inspired of God today, that the gifts of the spirit have not ceased.

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 28, 2015)

The teaching of the Bible and the Confession is that with the closing of the canon certain gifts have ceased. 

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MW (Jul 28, 2015)

timmopussycat said:


> 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."


----------



## Afterthought (Jul 28, 2015)

TrustGzus said:


> There is canonized material that is tied to individual circumstances. So that wouldn't exclude it from being canonized. When is the last time you greeted Rufus (Romans 16:3)?





KMK said:


> My question is, if they believe that prophetic utterances today are at all a rule for faith and life why would they want a closed canon? Aren't they limiting the Holy Spirit?


As I understand it, the point is that the canon is the revelation of God to the Church as a whole. Other revelations of God are not for the Church as a whole and so were not canonized then and need not be canonized now. Some revelation may be individual, but it was also intended for the Church as a whole for one reason or another. But others, which we admit existed and were not recorded, were clearly not.




Peairtach said:


> True revelation involved inspiration, but not necessarily inscripturation - writing down revelation as part of the canon of Scripture . Thus your title should be "Revelation different from Inscripturation".


Fair point. I'll try to change it. I think I used "inspiration" because that was the term that stuck in my mind after reading the argument.




Peairtach said:


> But the Bible teaches that prophecy and the office of prophet have ceased, not just that the canon has been closed.


So this means that (a) the continuationist can believe in a closed canon, (b) proving that the canon is closed (such as by appeal to Heb 1:1) is not sufficient to prove revelation has ceased, and (c) the office of prophet needs to be shown to have ceased too. Right?


----------



## KMK (Jul 28, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> As I understand it, the point is that the canon is the revelation of God to the Church as a whole. Other revelations of God are not for the Church as a whole and so were not canonized then and need not be canonized now.



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.


----------



## SeanAnderson (Jul 29, 2015)

Richard Baxter seems to sum up the cautious continuationist position regarding this kind of prophecy:



> 4. It is possible that God may make new revelations to particular persons about their particular duties, events, or matters of fact, in subordination to the Scripture, either by inspiration, vision, or apparition, or voice; for he hath not told us that he will never do such a thing. As to tell them, what shall befall them or others; or to say, Go to such a place, or, Dwell in such a place, or, Do such a thing, which is not contrary to the Scripture, nor co-ordinate, but only a subordinate determination of some undetermined case, or the circumstantiating of an action.
> 
> 5. Though such revelation and prophecy be possible, there is no certainty of it in general, nor any probability of it to any one individual person, much less a promise. And therefore to expect it, or pray for it, is but a presumptuous tempting of God.



I'm not sure what to make of this.


----------



## timmopussycat (Jul 29, 2015)

MW said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > 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).
> ...



"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.


----------



## timmopussycat (Jul 29, 2015)

Nicholas Perella said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > The point is that others (not Barnabas and Saul and not the giver of the prophecy) prayed and fasted to seek the Lord's cofirmation before laying hands on B&S and sending them off.
> ...



I'm not sure I understand what you are asking of me.


----------



## MW (Jul 29, 2015)

timmopussycat said:


> 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.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 29, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> 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 (Jul 29, 2015)

timmopussycat said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > timmopussycat said:
> ...



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 (Jul 30, 2015)

MW said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 . . . 



timmopussycat said:


> . . . 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 (Jul 30, 2015)

timmopussycat said:


> 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 (Jul 31, 2015)

KMK said:


> 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 (Jul 31, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------

