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

[KenPierce]

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?


As did prophecy in the OT. We agree.


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.


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.

Rich,

Just to be clear: I don't think that YOU are erecting straw men, etc. I think that WE as cessationists sometimes don't give a fair hearing to our non-cessationist brethren.

Just to go back to an earlier point. Most continuationists who have Biblical moorings would put revelatory gifts on the level of the inspiration of a sermon, subject to the Word of God. So, let's let them speak for themselves what they believe about the inspiration.

As a preacher, I understand God "speaks" to his people in the proclamation of the Word. To some he speaks condemnation. To others conviction. To some he speaks challenge, and to others encouragement. Some hear a call to full time ministry. Others to missions. Some hear a call to teach Sunday school. All of this is from God; none of it is on the level of Scriptural authority, and all of it is judged by Scripture.

I am called to ministry. But that internal call is subject to external evaluation and Biblical standards. What I believe to be God's call to me is subject to the judgment of the Word and the church. But, the call is still from God. And, as you say, for me to disobey would be disobedience to God.

I guess it could be a straw man to say that because some charismatics treat the revelation as "take it or leave it," that one must necessarily do it.

So why, theoretically, could that not apply to some personal message from God, verbally, to an individual?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

Yes, I know. That's my point. I don't know if you detected the rhetorical nature of the question or not.

Of course God can do whatever He wants but that's hardly an argument for what He's actually revealed that He does and that's my point. It's the typical argument for someone who has no Scriptural footing for a position to jump to the "don't put God in a box" argument.

I never put God in a box as far as what He can do but I do put my own speculation in a box as far as what I conceive He does because I live according to the things revealed.

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).

My thoughts?

Makes me wish there were more people with that gift of discernment in that camp.

Interestingly, somebody asked me how I liked my new ESV Study Bible and I said it was good so far but think I'll probably run into some disagreements when I actually get to portions of 1 Corinthians.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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?


As did prophecy in the OT. We agree.


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.


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".



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.

Rich,

Just to be clear: I don't think that YOU are erecting straw men, etc. I think that WE as cessationists sometimes don't give a fair hearing to our non-cessationist brethren.

Just to go back to an earlier point. Most continuationists who have Biblical moorings would put revelatory gifts on the level of the inspiration of a sermon, subject to the Word of God. So, let's let them speak for themselves what they believe about the inspiration.

As a preacher, I understand God "speaks" to his people in the proclamation of the Word. To some he speaks condemnation. To others conviction. To some he speaks challenge, and to others encouragement. Some hear a call to full time ministry. Others to missions. Some hear a call to teach Sunday school. All of this is from God; none of it is on the level of Scriptural authority, and all of it is judged by Scripture.

I am called to ministry. But that internal call is subject to external evaluation and Biblical standards. What I believe to be God's call to me is subject to the judgment of the Word and the church. But, the call is still from God. And, as you say, for me to disobey would be disobedience to God.

I guess it could be a straw man to say that because some charismatics treat the revelation as "take it or leave it," that one must necessarily do it.

So why, theoretically, could that not apply to some personal message from God, verbally, to an individual?

Ken,

Thanks for the interaction. I'm tired. If I remember to take this up tomorrow then I'll do so. I had a great Lord's day today - met with the Pastor of the PCA we're attending and answered questions in prep for transferring our membership out here to VA.

I hope you had a blessed Lord's Day too.

 

[KenPierce]

Rich,

I did. What church are you joining in Northern VA?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich,

I did. What church are you joining in Northern VA?

Hope of Christ in Stafford. It is a daughter Church of New Life in Christ of Fredericksburg, VA. I used to attend New Life before we moved to Okinawa but not, upon return, I'm much closer to Hope of Christ and want to help establish it.

Incidentally, New Life is a campus location for New Geneva Theological Seminary and I'm going to start taking courses there. Pretty excited.

Let me get back briefly to what you stated above:

Just to go back to an earlier point. Most continuationists who have Biblical moorings would put revelatory gifts on the level of the inspiration of a sermon, subject to the Word of God. So, let's let them speak for themselves what they believe about the inspiration.

As a preacher, I understand God "speaks" to his people in the proclamation of the Word. To some he speaks condemnation. To others conviction. To some he speaks challenge, and to others encouragement. Some hear a call to full time ministry. Others to missions. Some hear a call to teach Sunday school. All of this is from God; none of it is on the level of Scriptural authority, and all of it is judged by Scripture.

I am called to ministry. But that internal call is subject to external evaluation and Biblical standards. What I believe to be God's call to me is subject to the judgment of the Word and the church. But, the call is still from God. And, as you say, for me to disobey would be disobedience to God.

I guess it could be a straw man to say that because some charismatics treat the revelation as "take it or leave it," that one must necessarily do it.

So why, theoretically, could that not apply to some personal message from God, verbally, to an individual?

It seems to me we're equivocating now on what we're talking about.

Either my criticism paints with a wide brush and covers prophets that we find in the Scriptures or it doesn't. If it does, then I don't recognize the prophetic office of the Scriptures as compared above.

How can continuationists claim a continuity in office for the prophet but a discontinuity in how that office functions?

While I note above that prophecy was tested even in the OT, the point of prophecy is that it is immediate revelation from God. It's not, then, just like a sermon where the sermon is exposited and the Spirit works through the Word convicting the hearts and minds of men and women.

I've stated over and over in this thread that I realize that none of the more "orthodox" continuationists believe the prophetic gift stands above the Word or is not tested. Obviously some Charismatics functionally operate this way but that's neither here nor there.

The fact that this new prophecy has to be tested, as I noted, is not new but is commanded by Moses. Even Elijah could not prophesy contra the Law and, had he done so, he would have been rejected as a prophet.

Thus, in letting them "speak for themselves" on the issue of how prophecy is to be tested, I nevertheless find that their claim that they're not adding to the Canon to be fundamentally flawed in its logic.

Unless, as I claim above, they believe that the prophet today has a different office than the prophets we read about in Scripture (and where are we to read about this discontinuity and how prophets supposedly function), then the prophet is still a source of immediate revelation. If this revelation is God-breathed, is authenticated, then it is an addition to the corpus of that which is God-breated - even if it is just for the individual.

Thus, Joe the Prophet has a prophetic gift where he hears God telling him something immediately. Joe's pastor tests it with him (or somebody with the gift of discernment) and it is authenticated. Joe now has a corpus of inspiration: the Canon + what God told him. It might only be his personal body of inspiration but it is stll an addition to the Canon.

Also, the continuationist cannot permit the idea that I would reject Joe's body of inspiration. Why? Because who is Rich to reject what is God-breathed any more than rejecting Jonah?

 

[KenPierce]

Rich,

Let's come at this from a little different angle. What if I see a young man in our congregation who has great character, humility, and a facility for teaching God's word. I begin to pray about that young man --Lord, are you calling him to ministry.

Then, I go to that young man and tell him I think God may be calling him to ministry, and he ought to be in prayer about that, and seek confirmation for it.

If God is in fact calling him, is that revelation, on the level of Scripture? IF someone disagrees that the young man is called, is that person set against God's revelation?

And second, was prophecy limited to the office of prophet? Then what do we make of females prophesying in the congregation?

Could it be that prophet, like evangelist, may have been more a function of gifting than an office?

It seems to me you are making the assumption that prophecy was only done by those in prophetic office (what about Saul?) . Wouldn't this be akin to only evangelists evangelizing?

Just some Monday AM thoughts. It is getting burdensome to play devil's advocate!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'll relieve your burden.

Let's just leave it at the idea that I don't buy that this is "prophetic". It is a re-definition of terms for me.

It's one thing to be guided by the Spirit to be wise in our discernment of the gifting of others and to pray continually for sanctified hearts and minds to lead and shepherd the flock of God and another thing to call our thoughts "prophetic" when we see gifts in another.

My biggest problem is that, generally speaking (and I know exceptions arise), is that charismatics are wont to baptize their impressions and thoughts with a "God is telling me this...."

We had this discussion in another thread. I really think people need to read Calvin on Providence. We don't know where our thoughts originate - even the agency God used that directs our thoughts. In some cases, Satan may be the agent of persecution that is planting a thought that God may even use toward a holy end.

The problem is that too many want to "listen to their hearts" and, in spite of all this claim that they're testing it by the Word, functionally I always see it working out that the Word is used to validate what their heart told them by people untrained in the Word.

Does God direct the thoughts and activities of His people? Yes. Absolutely. What is the agency? It varies but we don't need to be waiting around for somebody to tell us that the Lord told them such and such.

 

[KenPierce]

Amen