The Cessation of Special Revelation: A Humble Argument for the Cessation of NT Prophecy and Tongues, Part 8
Posted by deangonzales on March 17, 2009
In Part 6, we noted that continuationist theologian Wayne Grudem argues for a distinction between OT canonical prophecy and NT congregational prophecy. In contrast with OT prophecy, which is divine, infallible, and fully authoritative special revelation, the NT gift of prophecy is, according to Grudem, semi-revelational, potentially fallible, and only relatively authoritative. Grudem’s arguments can be summarized as follows: (1) the NT apostles alone are the counterparts to the OT prophets. Only the NT apostles uttered infallible revelation. (2) the NT seems to contain examples of fallible prophecy uttered by NT believers or prophets. (3) NT prophecy was subject to evaluation and criticism, which seems to imply fallibility and lesser authority. These are Grudem’s three primary arguments for a distinction between canonical prophecy and NT congregational prophecy.[1]
What shall we think about this distinction? In the previous post (Part 7), I sought to demonstrate (1) that OT prophets spoke the very words of God (Exod. 7:1-2; Deut. 18:15-19; 2 Pet. 1:20-21), (2) that the Bible assumes an essential continuity between OT and NT prophecy (compare Acts 2:4-18 with Joel 2:28-32), and (3) that several NT passages treat NT prophecy as inspired and on a level with OT prophecy as canonical revelation (Acts 13:1-4; Eph. 2:20; 3:1-5; 1 Cor. 13:2; 14:1-3; Rev. 1:3; 22:7, 10; 18-19). If the observations I highlighted above are valid, then Grudem’s first point, namely, that the NT apostles alone (and not the NT prophets) are the counterparts to the OT prophets is without biblical support.
In this present post, I’d like to address Grudem’s remaining two arguments.
Grudem’s examples of so-called fallible prophecy are inconclusive.
Let’s look again at Acts 21:4. We’ll read the verse in its context, beginning with verse one of the chapter:
Now it came to pass, that when we had departed from them and set sail, running a straight course we came to Cos, the following day to Rhodes, and from there to Patara. And finding a ship sailing over to Phoenicia, we went aboard and set sail. When we had sighted Cyprus, we passed it on the left, sailed to Syria, and landed at Tyre; for there the ship was to unload her cargo. And finding disciples, we stayed there seven days. They told Paul through the Spirit not to go up to Jerusalem.
The key sentence for Grudem’s thesis comes at the end of verse 4: “[the disciples] told Paul through the Spirit not to go up to Jerusalem” (emphasis added). According to Grudem, the disciples uttered a prophecy which Paul disobeyed. Since Paul disobeyed this prophecy, he must not have viewed it as absolutely authoritative and equal with Scripture.[2]
Did Paul disobey canonical (fully inspired) prophecy? Or was this NT prophecy non-canonical (i.e., semi-inspired)? J. A. Alexander offers a third alternative: “This was not a divine command to Paul, but an inference of the disciples from the fact, which was revealed to them, that Paul would there be in great danger.”[3] In other words, the phrase “though the Spirit” may simply be shorthand for “because of or in connection with the Spirit’s prophecy.”[4] Even Grudem seems to allow for this when he offers the following conjecture:
Suppose that some of the Christians at Tyre had some kind of “revelation” or indication from God about the suffering which Paul would face at Jerusalem. Then it would have been very natural for them to couple their subsequent prophecy (their own report of this revelation) with their own (erroneous) interpretation, and thus warn Paul not to go. (emphasis added).[5]
In other words, Paul recognized the difference between the inspired revelation given by the Holy Spirit and the fallible interpretation placed upon the prophecy by his brethren. Consequently, he rejected their advice. The interchange probably went something like this: the Spirit revealed to the disciples, as He had to Paul and others, that Paul faced great danger and suffering in Jerusalem. The disciples then inferred from that inspired prophecy that Paul should refrain from going to Jerusalem (cf. vv. 10-12). However, Paul had already received direct revelation from the Spirit and from the Lord Jesus Christ that he should go Jerusalem as Christ’s witness despite the danger of persecution. The reader should note, for example, the account of Paul’s conversion in Acts 9. Christ has revealed himself to Paul on the road to Damascus. Paul has been smitten with blindness. Christ calls a disciple named Ananias to take the gospel to Paul and to lay his hands upon Paul’s eyes. Ananias at first objects because he has heard of Paul’s reputation as a persecutor of the church. But notice Christ’s response in verses 15 and 16:
But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.”
And in Acts 20:22-23, we may have an instance of the Spirit confirming Christ’s words:
And now, behold, bound in spirit [better: ‘constrained by the Spirit,’ ESV], I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me.
Now we’re ready to turn to Acts 21:10-11. Let me quote Grudem’s argument once more:
Then in Acts 21:10-11, Agabus prophesied that the Jews at Jerusalem would bind Paul and “deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles,” a prediction that was nearly correct but not quite: the Romans, not the Jews, bound Paul (v. 33; also 22:29), and the Jews, rather than delivering him voluntarily tried to kill him and he had to be rescued by force (v. 32).[6]
We may offer the following responses to Grudem’s argument: first, it’s possible that when the Jews seized Paul, they bound him, perhaps with his own belt! (vv. 27-30). Second, prophetic predictions need not be interpreted in a hyper-literal fashion—as if every detail must be fulfilled. For example, in Acts 2:16ff “all mankind” did not prophesy, only the handful of disciples at Pentecost. To be more technical, they did not “prophesy” but spoke in tongues. And it’s clear that at that time the sun was not literally darkened nor the moon literally turned to blood![7] Third, Paul himself seemed to view Agabus’ prophecy as fulfilled:
After three days Paul called together those who were the leading men of the Jews, and when they came together, he began saying to them, “Brethren, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans” (NAS).
Finally, as one commentator has pointed out, “It is common to speak of the responsible party or parties as performing an act even though he or they may not have been the immediate agent(s).”[8] For instance, in Acts 2:23 Peter says that the Jews crucified Christ whereas the Romans actually did it.
In summary, Grudem’s examples of so-called fallible prophecy cannot withstand close scrutiny. But what about the examples of Paul directing the NT church to evaluate NT prophecy?
The fact that NT prophecy was subject to evaluation does not demand the view that true prophecy could be fallible.
Paul tells the Corinthians, “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment” (1 Cor. 14:29). According to Grudem, these exhortations assume that true NT prophecy could be fallible.[9] In response, O. Palmer Robertson suggests, the Greek word translated “pass judgment” (diakrinetosan) may simply refer to the process of discriminating whose turn it was to speak (cf. vv. 27-29a).[10] There are good reasons, however, for interpreting Paul’s exhortation as a command to evaluate the prophet and his message. To begin with, most lexicons assign the meaning of careful evaluation to the word as it is used in this passage.[11] Thus, when Paul refers to passing judgment, he’s not telling them to decide whose turn it is to speak; he’s exhorting them to evaluate the prophet who is speaking. It might be argued that Paul was not commanding them to evaluate the prophecy itself but rather the interpretation that accompanied the prophecy (cf. Acts 21:4, 12). But the overall context suggests that Paul had the prophet and the prophecy in view as the object of their evaluation.[12]
Furthermore, Paul uses a cognate form of the verb “to pass judgment” in 1 Corinthians 12:10, where he refers to individuals who have been endowed with the gift of “discerning of spirits.” Most commentators agree that the gift in view is the ability to distinguish a false prophet from a true prophet.[13] And this interpretation finds a parallel in 1 John 4:1, where the Apostle John exhorts believers, “do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” In other words, the process of evaluating prophecy is not a process of sifting out some true words from among false words but rather a process of determining whether the prophet’s claim to be a genuine reliable spokesman for God is valid or invalid. It would be analogous to the process of distinguishing counterfeit currency from genuine currency. The object is not to determine whether portions of the currency are genuine. The point is to determine whether the whole currency is the real thing or whether the whole currency is counterfeit. The evaluation has an all-or-nothing objective. I believe that’s how we should understand Paul’s exhortation in 1 Corinthians 14:29.
I also believe that’s how we should interpret Paul’s words in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21, “Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.” Paul is not telling the Thessalonians to sift good words from bad words in any given prophetic utterance. Rather he is calling them to discern the true prophecies from the false, to embrace the former and to reject completely the latter. And this is precisely the way the people of Israel were to assess OT prophets and prophecy. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:20-22 are key passages in this regard. Let’s read these two passages and note their bearing upon the NT injunctions to evaluate prophecy:
If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, “Let us go after other gods” — which you have not known — “and let us serve them,” you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice, and you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of bondage, to entice you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall put away the evil from your midst (Deut. 13:1-5).
But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, “How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?” — when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him (Deut. 18:20-22).
Most OT scholars find at least three major criteria for validating a genuine prophet of Yahweh given in the Old Testament. First of all, was the prophet an agent of miraculous signs and wonders? God’s performing mighty and miraculous acts through Moses certainly had the effect of validating Moses’ as God’s spokesman (Exod. 4:1-9; 7:3; 10:1-2). This was also true of Christ who was the Greater Moses (John 2:11, 23; 3:2; 6:2, 26; 9:16; 11:47; 12:37; 20:30). But as Deuteronomy 13 makes clear, the ability to perform “signs or wonders” was not to be the chief criterion in judging a prophet (vv. 1-2). Indeed, God sometimes granted false prophets the ability to perform signs and wonders as a test to see whether His people would adhere to the truth (v. 3; Matt. 24:24).
Second, there was the question of whether the prophet’s predictions about future events came true? This seems to be the major criterion in the second passage where Moses says in verse 22, “when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pas, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him” (cf. Num. 16:29; 1 Kings. 22:23-28; 2 Kings. 1:10, 12; Isa. 44:26; Jer. 28:8-9).
The third and most important criterion was whether the prophet’s message conformed to already-established canonical revelation. Note especially the point of focus in Deuteronomy 13 is whether the prophet is speaking any message to draw God’s people away from Jehovah and His revealed will, verse 5, “to entice you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk.” In the words of Isaiah 8:20, if he did not speak in conformity with “the law and the testimony,” there is no light in him. This was the most crucial test for distinguishing a true prophet from a false prophet. And this was the very test to which the Jews in Berea subjected the Apostle Paul when he came preaching the gospel in their synagogue. We’re told in Acts 17:11, “These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.” They were trying to discern whether Paul were a true spokesman for God or not. And Paul did not object to this kind of scrutiny. In fact, he tells the Galatians, “if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (1:8).
The point I’m trying to make is that there seems to be a parallel between the commands to evaluate Old Testament prophecy and the commands to evaluate New Testament prophecy. In both cases, the objective is not merely to sift the good words from the bad words in any given message. This cannot be the case in those OT passages since in both cases, God demands the false prophet be put to death (Deut. 13:5; 18:20). While the NT passages do not demand the death sentence for false prophets, they do demand the church refuse to allow false prophets to become members and to excommunicate them if they are members (Rom. 16:17-18; Gal. 1:8, 9; 1 Tim. 6:3; 2 Tim. 3:5; Titus 3:10; 2 John 1:10). Thus, the man who claimed to be a prophetic agent of New Covenant revelation had better be telling the truth. If his words did not conform to the earlier revelation of the Old Testament and the inspired witness of the chosen Apostles, he would not only be censured for speaking falsehood, but he would likely have been put out of the church as a false prophet.
Grudem’s arguments for two levels of prophecy do not have the support of Scripture. Paul’s commands to evaluate NT prophecy do not distinguish New Testament prophecy from Old Testament prophecy. On the contrary, they serve to highlight the continuity between both institutions. Both OT prophecy and NT prophecy—if true—are to be viewed in their entirety as the inspired, infallible, authoritative word of God. Anything less, does not deserve to be called “prophecy” at all, at least in the biblical sense of that term.
It’s time to bring our argument to a conclusion. After introducing this series in Part 1, we attempted to demonstrate, as our major premise, that all pre-parousia divinely 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 argues for a distinction between OT canonical prophecy and NT congregational prophecy. In contrast with OT prophecy, which is divine, infallible, and fully authoritative special revelation, the NT gift of prophecy is, according to Grudem, semi-revelational, potentially fallible, and only relatively authoritative (Part 6). But in our two last posts (Part 7, Part 8), we have found Grudem’s arguments flawed and inadequate to support his thesis. On the contrary, the biblical data portrays NT prophecy and tongues as forms of pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation, which is our minor premise. Accordingly, it is difficult to resist the following conclusion: if pre-parousia special revelation has been completed and has ceased (major premise) and if NT prophecy and tongues are forms of that pre-parousia special revelation that has ceased (minor premise), we must conclude that NT tongues and prophecy fulfilled their function and have ceased (conclusion). This appears to be the conclusion reached by the majority of our Puritan forefathers:
Therefore, it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in diverse manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; 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; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased [emphasis added] (LBCF 1.1; cf. WCF 1.1).
Of course, I recognize that other biblical texts and theological considerations are sometimes raised in order to resist or refute the cessationist conclusion reached above. Therefore, to be fair to my continuationist brothers, I’ll attempt to address these objections in the posts that follow (Part 9, Part 10). Finally, I’ll end the series with a few lines of practical application (Part 11).
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
[1] Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1996), 1039-58.
[2] Systematic Theology, 1052.
[3] A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (reprint, Banner of Truth, 1984), 260.
[4] The Greek preposition dia with the genitive may indicate cause (Rom. 12:1) or attendant circumstances (Acts 14:22).
[5] The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Crossway, 1988), 94.
[6] Systematic Theology, 1052.
[7] The prophecy of Isaiah may furnish us with an OT example. Isaiah 45:13 prophecies that Cyrus would decree not only the rebuilding of the temple, but also the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. In the unfolding of history, it was actually Artaxerxes I who gave the specific decree regarding the city (Neh 2:1-8; cf. Dan 9:25). This fact does not invalidate Isaiah’s prophecy since it was Cyrus’ decree that provided the favorable context for Artaxerxes’ later decree. In any case, we have an example of inspired prophecy with a “loose” but infallible fulfillment.
[8] Robert Thomas, “Prophesy Rediscovered? A Review of The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today,” Bibliotheca Sacra 149:593 (1992), 91.
[9] Systematic Theology, 1054-55.
[10] The Final Word (Banner of Truth, 1993), 101.
[11] Joseph Henry Thayer, The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Hendrickson Publishers, 1979, 1981), 138; Walter Bauer, William Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2nd edition (University of Chicago Press, 1979), 185; Louw & Nida, Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd edition (United Bible Societies, 1989), 1:364 [30.109].
[12] The whole chapter is mainly about prophecy; the verse itself identifies the speakers as prophets; and there is no clear reference to interpretations being added to the message.
[13] Charles Hodge, for example, writes, “It was therefore of importance to have a class of men with the gift of discernment, who could determine whether a man was really inspired, or spoke only from the impulse of his own mind, or from the dictation of some evil spirit.” 1 & 2 Corinthians (reprint, Banner of Truth, 1988), 248.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:10 am
[...] the Cessation of NT Prophecy and Tongues (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8), we have tried to demonstrate from the Scriptures that tongues and prophecy are forms of that [...]
March 25th, 2009 at 10:18 am
First, 1 Cor. 14:29 says the others (probably led by the elders) are to “weigh what is said”, not simply distinguish between true and false prophets (although that’s a needed service too especially when it comes to visiting speakers). Again, it is what is “said” (not the messengers themselves) who are weighed in this passage. Most of the time the people offering prophesies would be the resident members of the church.
Second, you don’t really engage Grudem or other continuist. You very briefly state some of Grudem’s conclusion, with little or no elaboration, and then set to knock that down. Usually, your conclusion that they are wrong follows immediately after you cite Grudem’s arguement. (You’ve not dealt at all, that I can see, with the other continuists, and don’t even mention Jack Deere who has published on the subject.) Your methodology is not that of serious academic work. This enables you to, for example, create the straw-man of on-going prophesy and tongues as equivalent to canonical special revelation (something no serious continuist believes). Once you’ve created that straw man, your conclusion is foregone, which is why your articles are sprinkled with conclusions before you even prove them.
Third, in contrast to your statements about the Puritans, cessationism is not an historical doctrine of orthodox believers. (My area of PhD was church history.) As for the Puritans, Cotton Mather, in his Magnalia Christi Americana, cites a case of a Indian chief who had what he claimed was a dream of the great missionary John Elliot preaching to him. The Puritan pastors wanted to discern whether the dream was from God or not. They did not assume that there was no special revelation. Instead they asked what Elliot supposedly preached in the dream. The chief said Elliot preached to him to stop getting drunk, stop pow-wows, and keept the Sabbath whereupon the Puritan pastors concluded that dream was not from God because Elliot would not preach mere law but the gospel. Another case is much more well-known: the witch-craft trials. They centered on so-called “spectral evidence”: reports of visions. That the spectral-evidence was (regrettably) accepted shows that they were not cessationists. Although Christian theologians may not the lack of super-natural gifts at their times (others, like Augustine, do wrote otherwise), the formal elaboration of cessationism as a doctrine is the work, as far as I know, of BB Warfield and thus a creation of recent theology (and hence likely influence by the modern worldview with its mechancial view of the universe).
Fourth, there is no passage of scripture, or collection of passages, that teach cessationism. That you are on your eighth part and have yet to suggest a scripture that supports your position should give you pause. Your arguments heretofore have been entirely offensive: taking the pasages cited by continuists and trying to interpret them otherwise. You have not produced a single scripture that says, “When the canon comes, the imperfect prophesies will pass away.” Therefore it is not an exegetical conclusion. And therefore to foist it upon the church is to violate Sola Scriptura. Doing so in the quest of up-holding Sola Scriptura is an irony.
Fifth, you’ve not dealt with a key scripture: 1 Cor. 13:10. It is when the “perfect” (i.e. Christ) comes that the imperfect (i.e. tongues and prophesy) will pass away. Not 2,000 years (and counting) before that. The implication of that text is that the gifts will not pass away until the Perfect comes. And the perfect, clearly from the context, is Christ, not the canon (although I do believe the canon is perfect).
Sixth, even if cessationism is our theologically considered opinion, we must admit (if indeed your argument is to be “humble”) that the Bible doesn’t teach it. Hence, teaching cessationism is not teaching the Bible. Therefore teaching cessationism as a necessary theological conviction, on acreedal level, is adding something that the Holy Spirit did not see fit to inspire in scripture. Hence, teaching cessationism is to at least imply that scripture is insufficient. To put it another way, if we confine ourselves to what scripture teaches (i.e. practice sola scriptura not simply hold it as an abstract principle), we will not have any ocassion to teach cessationism, even though that may be our opinion.
April 6th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
[...] and tongues of the NT have ceased (see Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8). The various objections raised by continuationists have not proven conclusive enough to overturn [...]
April 7th, 2009 at 8:50 am
[...] What shall we think about this distinction? I have five lines of response to Grudem’s arguments by which I want to argue that the Scriptures do not support Grudem’s distinction between OT canonical prophecy (infallible) and NT congregational prophecy (potentially fallible). In contrast, the data of Scripture seems to place NT prophecy in the same divine and authoritative category as OT prophecy. We’ll consider the first three below and the final two in our subsequent post. [...]
April 7th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
You don’t actually seem to be engaging me or those you read (like Grudem). Just repeating your conclusions is not wrestling with different ideas.
If prophesy in the NT church was considered equivalent to scripture, why didn’t they write it down?
April 7th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
John,
I’m sorry I haven’t yet responded to the objections you’ve peppered throughout the various posts on this series. In all honesty, I’ve been extremely busy with other seminary, church, and family responsibilities and haven’t had the time. I do, however, have the desire to engage you in a gentlemanly discussion about the subject and attempt to respond to some of your objections.
Perhaps one of your strongest criticisms is that I’ve not actually engaged Wayne Grudem’s arguments. I can at least say I’ve tried. I actually took the time to present his arguments (I trust fairly), Part 6, and provide responses to them, Part 7, Part 8. You may not assess my responses as adequate or cogent. But I personally find it odd that you’ve read through all my posts on the subject and conclude that I’ve not engaged Wayne Grudem.
Finally, you ask, “If prophesy in the NT church was considered equivalent to scripture, why didn’t they write it down?” Well, I can’t give you the ultimate answer to that question because I’m not God. What I can say is that the Holy Spirit was sovereignly selective concerning what oral prophecy became inscripurated in both testaments. For example, in John 20:30-31, the apostle writes,
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
What John says of Christ’s works can also be said about Christ’s words. Both were revelatory, yet not all Christ’s words and works were recorded in the canon of Scripture. Only those that God deemed necessary to constitute the canon for the NC community. The fact that some of Jesus’ teachings were not recorded in Scripture does not make those “non-canonical” sayings less inspired or authoritative. All of Jesus’ teaching about God, man, sin and salvation was to be received as the Word of God without qualification.
Similarly, when an apostle spoken in the capacity of an official witness to the person and work of Jesus or matters pertaining to the life, order, and mission of the church, he spoke as Christ’s official spokesman with Christ’s delegated authority (Matt 10:40) and his words, whether oral or written, were to be received and obeyed as inspired revelation from God (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:14). Accordingly, it is not there mere inclusion of special revelation in the canon that elevates it to the status of full-blown divine revelation. The moment Isaiah spoke to the people the word of Yahweh (even before it was recorded in writing), it was to be received and obeyed as God’s word. Similarly, when a genuine NT apostle or a true NT prophet declared, “Thus says the Lord,” their word was to be received as divine revelation.
So I don’t believe the Bible teaches that all special revelation must be written down in order to be inspired, inerrant, and divinely authoritative.
Hope this helps.
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
April 8th, 2009 at 9:12 am
You make a very good point when you note that all of the Lord Jesus’ teachings were inerrant and fully inspired but not all were written down. He was, of course, perfect. However, you err when you transpose the same argument to NT prophets: “Similarly, when a genuine NT apostle or a true NT prophet declared, “Thus says the Lord,” their word was to be received as divine revelation.” That’s simply, demonstrably false. The prophets are to be judged. We are told in 1 Corinthians 14 that their prophesies were to be evaluated, presumably the whole church but especially by the elders. Why did you write something that is so clearly contrary to what the NT teaches?
April 8th, 2009 at 11:29 am
John,
Two points here.
1.) The Old Testament prophets were tested as well, so the fact that the New Testament prophets were tested doesn’t mean they were fallible. In fact, the test of a true Prophet is his infallibility, OT or NT.
2.) The Scriptures do teach cessationism, as the Canon was completed (yes, even Revelation) by 70 AD. (Daniel 9:24, Rev. 22:18)
April 14th, 2009 at 7:31 am
One more point is regard to Grudem’s first objection.
(1) the NT apostles alone are the counterparts to the OT prophets. Only the NT apostles uttered infallible revelation.
In that case, we need to remove the gospels of Mark and Luke as well as the book of Acts from the Canon, as they were not written by apostles and thus would be fallible.