(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.

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)

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

If prophesy in the NT church was considered equivalent to scripture, why didn’t they write it down?

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.