The Cessation of Special Revelation: A Humble Argument for the Cessation of NT Prophecy and Tongues, Part 4
Posted by deangonzales on March 7, 2009
In Part 1 of this series, we noted that many believers today debate the question of whether God is continuing to confer on the NT church the gifts of prophecy and tongues. We plan to develop an argument in favor of “cessationism” in the form of a logical syllogism:
Major Premise: All pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation has been completed and has, therefore, ceased.
Minor Premise: NT prophecy and tongues are forms of pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation.
Conclusion: Tongues and prophecy have ceased.
Our major premise rests on the assumption that the inscripturated revelation of the Old and New Testaments are the final form and goal of redemptive revelation. Therefore, with the completion of the canon of Scripture, pre-parousia special revelation has ceased. In Part 2, we identified a completed OT canon. In Part 3, we identified the parameters of a NT canon. We must now make the case that the completed Old and New Testament canons are the final form and goal of redemptive revelation. Since the canon of Scripture, which is the final form and goal of pre-parousia special revelation, is complete, we may speak of the cessation of canonical or pre-parousia special revelation. To this argument, we now turn.
The Cesssation of Pre-Parousia Special Revelation After the Completion of Scripture
The proposition that all pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation has been completed and has, therefore, ceased calls for immediate clarification. After all, does not God still reveal Himself to men? And if so, is it really biblical to speak of the cessation of special revelation? I believe it is biblical and even necessary to speak of the cessation of special revelation provided that we clarify what is meant. Negatively, the “cessation of special revelation” does not mean God has ceased to reveal Himself to men. Not only does God continue to reveal Himself to men through creation, providence, and conscience, but He also continues to reveal himself through Scripture (Ps. 19:7; Heb. 4:12). And so, God still reveals Himself through special revelation. In what way, then, has special revelation ceased? Positively, by the “cessation of special revelation,” we are arguing that the process whereby God imparts new revelation has ceased. In other words, God has said everything He needs to say for the salvation of sinners and for the good of the church, and therefore, we should not expect any new revelations from God until Jesus Christ returns. That’s what we mean be “pre-parousia” special revelation. Stated as a formal proposition, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the final form and goal of pre-parousia redemptive revelation. Therefore, with the completion of Scripture pre-parousia special revelation has ceased.
According to the Bible, special revelation is a process that consummates in a final form and a historical goal.[1] The final form of special revelation is Scripture and the historical goal of special revelation is Christ. Allow me, first, to provide an illustration of this two-fold proposition (below). Then I’ll attempt to argue the case from Scripture.
The Cessation of Special Revelation Illustrated
(Note: if you’d like a full PDF version of the illustration above, simply request and leave your email in the comments section below.)
The Cessation of Special Revelation Demonstrated
The illustration above represents final form of special revelation as Scripture and the historical goal of special revelation as Christ. Let’s consider the biblical evidence for this portrait.
Special revelation reaches its covenantal form in the canon of Scripture.
The word about Christ has not always been revealed to man in written form. Alluding to Hebrews 1:1, the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith states in chapter one, paragraph one: “Therefore, [because general revelation is insufficient to save] it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in diverse manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church.” Allow me to identify some of these “diverse manners” of special revelation:
(1) Direct verbal speech (eg., Gen. 3:15)
(2) Symbols (e.g.s., circumcision; temple; baptism)
(3) Theophanies
(4) Dreams and visions
(5) Urim and Thummim
(6) Prophetic utterance and oral tradition
But the Confession tells us that it also pleased the Lord “afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing.” Thus, the Confession of Faith portrays Scripture as the end of a process.
One might think, by way of illustration, of the final form of an edited film. When making a movie, scenes are acted out and speeches are delivered. But the final form of all that acting and speaking is selectively captured upon the film. So too, in the case of special revelation. There are miracles, dreams, visions, theophanies, and prophetic speeches. Then the Holy Spirit guides the Biblical writers to select from those various revelations and include them in Scripture as the final form for the covenant community. Does the Bible represent Scripture as the final product or form of a process? I believe it does.
1. The Bible portrays Scripture as a divinely selected deposit of saving truth.
The apostle John makes this point when he writes,
Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; [cf. 21:25] 31 but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:30-31).
There were many things revealed, said, taught, done, and even written that constituted divine, authoritative revelation and which are not included in our canon. We must assume that God guided the writers of Scripture to include just what was necessary for the salvation of sinners.
2. The Bible portrays Scripture as a means whereby special revelation is preserved for subsequent generations.
Prophets and apostles may die, but their inscripurated words will abide. The Apostle Peter was aware of this reality, and this is one of the things that motivated him to leave an inspired, written account of what he had learned from Christ:
Therefore, I shall always be ready to remind you of these things, even though you already know them, and have been established in the truth which is present with you. And I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder, knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure you may be able to call these things to mind (2 Pet. 1:12-15).
Again, Peter writes, “This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles (2 Pet. 3:1-2). Hence, Scripture is a means to preserve special revelation for subsequent generations. (cf. Deut. 6:4-9; Ps. 78:1-9; Luke 1:1-4).[2]
3. The Bible portrays Scripture as especially suited to be the ultimate and final canon for the covenant community.
Scripture was first given when the old covenant community formed at Mt. Sinai (Deut. 4:10-14; cf. 5:22-33; 31:24-26). The previous ways of God’s revealing himself were no longer adequate by themselves. Therefore, God decided to inscripturate His Word as the final and ultimate form or mode or deposit of special revelation. In this form, Scripture was given to be the touchstone by which any further prophecy would be judged (Deut. 13:1-4; Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11). In a sense, Scripture is to be accorded the highest authority of all modes of revelation. This does not mean that one form of divine revelation has less authority than another form. God’s word is just as authoritative whether he speaks through creation or conscience or dream or prophet or Scripture. But because Scripture is more easily accessible and because the church has already recognized its authority, Scripture naturally sits as judge over any new claims to revelation. Accordingly, Scripture was given to be the sufficient, authoritative standard of faith and life for the covenant community (Deut. 31:9-13; Pss. 19:ff; 119; Rom. 15:4; 2 Tim. 3:15-4:2). Therefore, we ought to be perfectly content with the Scripture.[3] We should not feel discontent with the Bible and demand that God give us dreams, visions, and miracles. Rather, we should adopt the attitude of Martin Luther:
I have made a covenant with God that he send me neither visions, dreams, nor even angels. I am well satisfied with the gift of the Holy Scriptures, which give me abundant instruction and all that I need to know both for this life and for that which is to come.[4]
Of course, this does not by itself prove the cessation of special revelation. Throughout redemptive history, Scripture has existed while God continued to reveal himself in new ways. Therefore, we need a complementary argument to establish the cessation of special revelation.
Special revelation reaches its redemptive goal in the person and work of Christ who is the Incarnate Word of God.
There are three premises:
1. God’s ultimate and final revelation has come in the person of His Son.
The book of Hebrews is a book of contrasts. Throughout the book, the writer contrasts the Old Covenant with the New Covenant. It shouldn’t surprise us, therefore, to find the writer opening his treatise with a contrast between the Old Covenant revelation and the New Covenant revelation.
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son (Heb 1:1-2a).
Note that both the Old and New revelations are spoken of as completed (the aorist tense suggests a past, completed action). Note also that the “speaking of the Son” is portrayed as the final stage in God’s process of redemptive revelation (i.e., the “fulfillment” of special revelation). The OT revelation is represented as a succession of various modes of revelation spoken through a succession of various different prophets. In contrast, the NT revelation is spoken through the Son. Muslims view Mohammed as the last great prophet. But Christianity confesses Jesus Christ to be God’s final great prophet!
Furthermore, the OT revelation came “long ago,” or better, “in former days;” whereas, the NT revelation of God’s Son has come in “the latter days,” which is another way to refer to that time immediately preceding “the end of the age.” Thus, Walt Chantry is correct when he tells us, “The passage breathes unreserved finality. Christ, the Son of God, is the grand finale of revelation.”[5] Not only is he the final High Priest and the final Sacrifice. But He is also the final Word! One may compare special revelation to the process of rain, rivers, and oceans. Much rain falls from heaven, runs downhill in the form of streams and rivers (divers manners of special revelation) which in turn flow together until they reach the ocean (Christ, the final revelation of God).
The rest of Scripture supports this conclusion. For example, the Gospel of John presents Christ as “the Word of God” (John 1:1). Not “A Word from God,” but “The Word of God”—that is, the ultimate Word—the final Word. The Law came through Moses. But that full and final revelation of God’s grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (1:14, 17). “No man has seen God at any time,” says John, “but the only begotten Son [Gk., theos], who was in the bosom of the Father, has come to reveal him.” This is precisely what Christ has done—He has given us a full and final disclosure of the Father.
So, when it was time for Him to leave this earth, Jesus could say to the Father: “I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do” (John 17:4). And He identifies one very important facet of that work in verse 8: “for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me.” Christ, the Son of God, has revealed to us God the Father’s final word. Our first premise, then, is that God’s ultimate and final revelation has come in the person of His Son (Heb. 1:1-2a; John 1:1-18).
2. The revelation of Christ (our NT canon) has been mediated to us through the apostolic witness.
This point is highlighted by the author to the Hebrews when he writes,
For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it. For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will (Heb. 2:1-4).
The apostle Peter also draws a connection between Christ’s word and the testimony of the apostles, linking them both to the Scriptures of the OT:
This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles (2 Pet. 3:1-2).
We’ve developed this point in some detail in our treatment of NT canon in Part 3. For now I am simply reminding you of the obvious fact that Christ Himself did not write any of the NT books of Scripture. Instead, He chose certain individuals who would mediate His revelation to the church.
3. This Apostolic witness to the revelation of Christ has been completed.
We have argued that Jesus Christ is God’s final word. All revelation prior to Christ pointed to Him. We have also argued that Jesus chose certain men in order to mediate this final revelation to the church and the world. Now we are arguing that this apostolic witness to the person and work of Christ has been completed. In other words, we should not look for any new word from God. I believe this conclusion is implied in a passage like Ephesians 2:20, which reads, “[The church has] been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone.”
The term “foundation” can refer either (1) to the basis upon which something rests or it can refer (2) to the initial stage in a process. For example, if I told you that I had “laid the foundation for my house,” I would either be stressing the base upon which my house will be built, or I would be stressing the beginning of the process of building. Thus, when we speak of “the foundation of the church,” we may have in mind the doctrinal basis upon which the church is founded, or we may have in mind the historical beginnings when the church was first established. Biblically, both ideas are true. The NT apostles and prophets are the authoritative basis upon which the church is build. And their activity represents the initial stage in the process of the church’s construction. But the important question is which of these does Paul have in view?
In this context, I believe that the second meaning is primarily in view. I say this because, in the context, Paul is discussing the church in terms of its place in the history of redemption:
Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands – remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ…. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built [aorist passive- past] on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing [present active] into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together [present passive] into a dwelling of God in the Spirit (Eph. 2:11-13, 19-22).
The “having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” is a reference to early church history. The “being fitted together,” and “growing into a holy temple,” and “being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit” are a reference to ongoing church history. The reader should also note the redemptive historical emphasis in the subsequent context of Ephesians 3:1-10. Thus, we can infer from this passage that the apostolic stage of church history has been completed. The apostles are dead, and we should expect no new apostles (Acts 1:21-22; 1Cor. 15:7-8). We must conclude that the apostolic witness to Christ, who is God’s final word, has been completed.
In summary, God’s stream of special revelation has reached its historical destination—the revelation of Jesus Christ. This final revelation has been mediated through the apostolic witness (and NT prophets). And this apostolic witness to Christ has been selectively deposited into the final form of special revelation, namely, the Scripture (John 20:30-31). It is for this reason that Protestants correctly affirm that the canon of Scripture is now closed. Even a continuationist like Wayne Grudem unhesitatingly affirms the cessation of Scripture-quality revelation. Writes Grudem,
The New Testament writings contain the final, authoritative, and sufficient interpretation of Christ’s work of redemption. The apostles and their close companions report Christ’s words and deeds and interpret them with absolute divine authority. When they have finished their writing, there is no more to be added with the same absolute divine authority. Thus, once the writings of the New Testament apostles and their authorized companions are completed, we have in written form the final record of everything that God wants us to know about the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, and its meaning for the lives of believers for all time. Since this is God’s greatest revelation for mankind, no more is to be expected once this is complete. In this way, then, Hebrews 1:1-2 shows us why no more writings can be added to the Bible after the time of the New Testament. The canon is now closed (emphasis added).[6]
Unfortunately, Grudem does not classify NT prophecy or tongues in the same category as Scripture-quality revelation. We believe he is mistaken and shall argue that point in our next post.
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
[1] This dual consummation of special revelation may also be referred to as the “modal goal” and the “historical goal.”
[2] See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992), 1:58: “It was necessary for a written word to be given to the church that the canon of true religious faith might be constant and unmoved; that it might easily be preserved pure and entire against the weakness of memory, the depravity of men and the shortness of life; that if might be more certainly defended from the frauds and corruptions of Satan.”
[3] A cursory reading of Psalm 119 leaves the clear impression that the Psalmist was perfect satisfied and content with the written word of God.
[4] I have taken this quote from a pamphlet and have not yet located it in Luther’s writings.
[5] Walter Chantry, The Signs of the Apostles (The Banner of Truth, 1973), 31. Chantry continues, “So complete is [Christ] as God’s revelation, and so sufficient was his work as a prophet that the apostles and their New Testament books are viewed in Hebrews 2:1-4 as merely confirming what the Great Prophet had already said….The sun of revelation shone in Jesus Christ. The apostles’ writings were not new beams of light, but reflections of the glory that shone in the Son of God.”
[6] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994), 64.
15 Responses to “The Cessation of Special Revelation: A Humble Argument for the Cessation of NT Prophecy and Tongues, Part 4”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 7th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I really enjoyed this part!!
March 8th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Will you be publishing any of this in book form?
March 8th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Haven’t really thought about it. Seems like there’s already plenty of good books out there on this topic. Thanks for your interest.
Bob G.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Thank you Dr. Sweetie for your clear and gracious presentation of this subject. I am especially looking forward to your developing the minor premise. It seems that the major premise is a mark of orthodoxy, but the minor premise is where good men disagree. I must confess I still wonder if prophecy is still going on, but not at the authoritative level of the cannon. It may be that the reason I am still wondering this is because when you taught this subject in Sunday School, I was keeping the nursery!
March 9th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Hello, my love. Thanks for reading your husband’s blog. I think all parties would agree that prophecy today is not to be accorded the same level of authority as “the cannon.” I’d be much more inclined to submit if someone put a “cannon” to my head than if Oral Roberts prophetically asked me for money.
Your loving husband,
Bobby
March 9th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
OOPS!!! Very funny. Next time I better proofread my comment before I push the submit comment button. This is what I get for always noticing other people’s grammatical and spelling mistakes!
(You can laugh at me, as long as you are very loving.)
March 9th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
[...] with the cessationists though we acknowledge good men in the other camps. In Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4, we sought to establish our major premise, namely, that all pre-parousia divinely authoritative [...]
March 11th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Hello Dr. Gonzales
Your syllogism establishes that canonical special revelation (the foundation of the church) has ceased. But does that mean non-canonical special revelation also ceases? I think you need to show grounds for the belief that God’s mind the expiry of the one necessarily implies the expiry of the other. As you may know, I have argued at some length on the Puritan board that there are insufficient grounds to lump non-canonical special revelation in with canonical revelation.
Tim Cunningham
March 11th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Thanks, Tim. The burden of my minor premise will be to demonstrate that the NT gifts of oral prophecy and tongues belong to the same category of revelation of which the present canon of Scripture is the end product of a modal and historical goal. Since oral prophecy and tongues were means to an end and since that end has been accomplished, I see no warrant for their continuance. Moreover, if the prophecy and tongues of the NT is the same kind of revelation as OT prophecy, it would carry an equal quality of inspiration and authority as the Bible. This, of course, is not the position of men like Grudem, Piper, and C. J. Mahaney (men whom I, BTW, highly respect despite my not being won over by their arguments). Hopefully, some of my subsequent installments may address your distinction between non-canonical and canonical prophecy. If I don’t persuade you, that’s okay. I highly respect you and hope we’ll remain good friends.
Your brother in Christ,
Bob Gonzales
March 18th, 2009 at 7:47 am
[...] authoritative special revelation has been completed and has, therefore, ceased (Part 2, Part 3, Part 4). This point is affirmed by most continuationists like Grudem (Part 5).Nevertheless, Wayne Grudem [...]
March 20th, 2009 at 6:10 am
Thank you for this indepth examination of this issue. I particular liked your treatment of the NT Canon in Part 3. I am familiar with the endorsement of Paul’s writings by Peter from scripture and the statement that the apostolic (eyewitnesses) writings were accepted by the church as inspired because they were eyewitnesses of Jesus or the apostles but this is the first time I have read where someone delved into the scriptural grounds for believing that the apostolic and non-apostolic writings are inspired. Like you said, the reliance seems to be on church tradition. I would like a pdf copy of your diagram please pdhebner@hebnerfam.us
March 25th, 2009 at 9:18 am
You wrote, “oral prophecy and tongues were means to an end and since that end has been accomplished”. The “end” has been accomplished? Really? So, the church is perfect?
According to the Apostle Paul the “end” of tongues and prophesy is “that the church may be built up” (1 Cor. 14:5)– not special revelation.
April 12th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
John,
I might word it this way: the end and goal of special revelation is that the sinners might be saved and that the church might be brought to Christ-like maturity (Eph. 4:11-16). Before the completion of the canon, Paul’s oral teaching as well as his written epistles served this function. Once the NT canon was completed and accessible to the universal church, however, the need for ongoing oral prophecy (or other non-Scripture forms of special revelation. The completed canon of the Old and New Testaments have become the all-sufficient norm by which the church and the Christian may be equipped unto every good work.
Bob Gonzales
June 16th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Bob,
I have just finally gotten back to reading this series of articles, and I hope to really give them some close attention this week and next as I move through the rest of them.
I have at times described myself as a Continuationist, along the same lines as Grudem. But actually I would probably better fit the “open, but cautious” description. I have thought through and studied these matters much over the years, but I sense the need to come at it all afresh now. And I think this is coming from the Lord.
I look forward to reading through the rest of your posts and hope to be able make any observations or ask any questions I might have along the way. In my view, Grudem and Carson have been the two most able defenders of what I would consider a more careful Cessationist position, and I will be especially interested in your responses to them.
Thanks for being willing to take on this issue, brother. And thanks for challenging me — even if it you didn’t know God was using you to do it!
Keith
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Would love a pdf copy please.