The Cessation of Special Revelation: A Humble Argument for the Cessation of NT Prophecy and Tongues, Part 3
Posted by deangonzales on March 5, 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 the gifts of prophecy and tongues. In Part 2, we began to develop an argument in favor of “cessationism,” the view that the gifts of prophecy and tongues are forms of “pre-parousia”[1] special revelation and that special revelation has ceased until Christ returns. We are developing our case for 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 premises 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 our previous post, we identified a completed OT canon. Now we must make a case for a completed NT canon.
The Inspired Canon of the New Testament
We considered several New Testament passages of Scripture that identify or allude to a completed OT canon (e.g., Matt. 5:17-19; 23:34-35; 2 Tim. 3:15-16). But we look in vain for passages that identify a completed NT canon. This should not surprise us since during the writing of any NT book to which we might appeal, the NT canon as an organic whole had not yet been completed. But this fact raises an important question: if the Bible does not bear witness to a completed NT canon, how shall we develop a biblical argument for the NT canon? The NT bears witness to a completed OT canon. Where must we look for a witness to a completed NT canon?
The Roman Catholic Church has an answer to that question. It says we must look to ecclesiastical tradition. What the Catholic Church declares is the NT canon is the NT canon. Indeed, this is one of their arguments for the co-dependency and co-authority of Scripture and tradition. The authority of the church is grounded in Scripture, but the authority of Scripture, they say, depends upon the authority of the church. For this reason, Catholics argue we must base our doctrine of a completed NT canon upon the testimony of church tradition.[1]
Is that true? Must we base our doctrine of the OT canon upon Scripture and our doctrine of the NT canon upon church tradition? Dr. Ned Stonehouse, one of the early professors of Westminster Seminary, is attuned to this difficulty when he writes,
The attestation of the canonicity of the New Testament, in the nature of the case, cannot be provided by Jesus in the manner that his words offer a ratification of the authority of the Old Testament. The writings themselves came into existence after the ascension of our Lord. And their collection and acknowledgement as canonical were not finally accomplished even at the close of the first Christian century. The attestation of the canonicity of the New Testament, in contradistinction from that of the Old Testament, might seem to have to depend exclusively upon an ecclesiastical affirmation. If this were true, it might appear that the New Testament is at a most serious disadvantage, lacking the high sanction that the Old Testament enjoys.[2]
This seeming dilemma has led some evangelicals to agree with the Roman Catholic Church and to base their doctrine of a NT canon primarily upon church tradition.[3] However, while the church’s testimony plays a part in identifying the NT canon, it should not be our primary witness. I believe the Bible itself provides the foundational witness to the NT canon. And though there are no explicit references in the Bible to a completed NT canon, there are, nevertheless, several passages and teachings from which we may infer a NT canon.[4] Contrary to Rome, we must begin with the Bible itself, not church tradition, in seeking to establish a NT canon. With this conviction before us, I would like to develop the biblical witness to the NT canon under two general propositions: (1) the OT canon anticipates and presupposes a NT canon, and (2) the apostolic witness to Christ is that NT canon.
The Old Testament canon anticipates and presupposes a New Testament canon.
Earlier I spoke of two great events in Redemptive history. The first was God redeeming His people from Egypt by the hand of Moses. That great event marked the inception of an Old Covenant canon. However that first great redemptive event would pale in comparison to the second great redemptive event. In fact, the first great event was merely a shadow of the second great event. Now God would redeem His people from their sins by the hand of one greater than Moses (cf. Deut. 18:15ff.; Heb. 3:1-7). The Son of God would come and ratify a New Covenant with His own blood. After 400 years of silence, God was going to reveal Himself once again to His people. Only this revelation would be the greatest revelation God ever made:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:1, 14).
The coming of the Son of God is the coming of the Word, literally, the Divine message or communication. Jesus Christ is the climax of Divine revelation. And notice how John further underscores this fact in verse 17: “For the Law was given through Moses; [but] grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.”
What do you suppose John means by this contrast? I believe that the first half of the verse introduces us to Moses as the mediator of the Old Covenant canon. The OT was given through Moses. The second half of the verse, however, introduces us to a new mediator and a new covenant: “Grace and truth [came about] through the mediation of Jesus Christ.” In other words, what we have here are two mediators, two covenants, and TWO CANONS! The “law” is the OT canon completed. “Grace and truth,” refer to a New Covenant canon, not yet completed but anticipated and presupposed.
Let me develop this point further. Why do you suppose John is contrasting the OT as law with the NT as grace and truth? Does John mean to say that there was no “grace and truth” in the OT? Does he mean to say that under the Old Covenant men were saved by works, whereas under the New Covenant men are saved by grace? We know that’s not the case, because the God who gave the law to Moses revealed himself to Moses as “Jehovah, full of grace and truth” (Exod. 34:5-6). And after Moses saw God’s glory, he descended from Mt. Sinai with his face radiating the same glory that had been revealed to him on the mount. Grace and truth were shining from Moses’ face! Thus the OT as well as the NT revealed God’s saving grace.
Why then is John making a contrast? I believe John’s purpose in this passage is to highlight the superiority of the New Covenant and its mediator. The Old Covenant contained grace and truth. However, that grace and truth was promissory in form. God’s people could not look directly at His glory, but they could only see it as it was reflected from Moses’ face. Even then there was a veil over his face, because God’s people were not ready for the full revelation of God’s glory.
But in the fullness of time God sent forth His Son, the Word. Now the veil will be taken away from the Law of Moses. Now God’s people are ready to see God’s glory in all of its fullness. Look again at verse 14: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Now grace and truth are no longer in the promissory form of the OT. Now they’re in the fulfillment form of the incarnate Son of God—the Mediator of a better covenant. Instead of sending Moses down from the mountain in order to reflect His glorious grace and truth, God Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ, has come down from the mountain. Note the declaration of verse 18: “The only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained [i.e., revealed] Him.”[5]
Jesus Christ Himself is the New Covenant word from God.[6] And is this not the teaching of Hebrews 1:1-2? In verse one, the author of Hebrews alludes to the OT canon: “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways.” Then in verse two, he identifies the NT canon: “[God] in these last days has spoken to us in His Son.” Here we have two administrations of speaking. The first time God spoke, He spoke by way of promise. What does a canon of promise anticipate and presuppose? It anticipates and presupposes a canon of fulfillment. And that canon of fulfillment is God speaking to us in the person of His Son. As Moses initiated the Old Testament body of sacred Scripture, so Jesus Christ would initiate the New Covenant body of sacred Scripture. Thus, we may conclude, the Old Testament canon anticipates and presupposes a New Testament canon.
That brings us to our second main assertion regarding the NT canon. Whereas Moses authored the first five books of the Old Covenant; Jesus Christ never wrote any canonical books or letters. How then do we make the jump from the New Covenant canonical word of Christ to the 27 books of our New Testament?
The Apostolic Witness of Christ is our New Testament canon.
I will develop this assertion under four propositions:
1. Christ commissioned official messenger-representatives to bear witness of His work and to proclaim His teaching.
The resurrected Christ said to his disciples, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things” (Luke 24:46-48). Jesus has just revealed to them what the OT canon promised concerning His person and work. Now, the Lord commissions them to be his official “witnesses” of His person, work, and words.
When Christ commissions them to bear witness of Him, He is not using the word ‘witness’ in the way we often use the term. We often speak of “witnessing” in the simple sense of sharing the gospel. Christ, however, is using the term “witness” in a more technical sense, much like when we speak of an official witness in a court case. And this is why Christ has designated these men “apostles.” The term “apostle” was often used to refer to an official messenger-representative. It has legal and political overtones. An official apostle had “power of attorney” with reference to the person he was representing.[7] His office was like that of an ambassador.
This is why Jesus says to Peter in Matthew 16:19, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” Christ gives his apostles “power of attorney.” Their judgment was to be treated as the judgment of heaven! And this is why Christ tells His disciples in another place, “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me, receives Him who sent me” (Matt. 10:40).
How do we get to the Father? Through Christ! Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father except through Me” (Jn. 14:7). He is, according to Hebrews 3:1, the Father’s “Apostle.” His word must be treated as the Father’s word. But how do we get to the Son? How do you and I come into contact with Christ’s word? Christ’s official apostles provide the answer to that question. And these apostles bear witness to and proclaim Christ’s word. Thus, it is correct to say that after His ascension into heaven no man comes to the Son except through the apostolic witness to Him (cf. Heb 2:1-4; 1 Jn. 4:6).
But perhaps someone will object that these men were sinners. How do we know for certain that these men did not distort or corrupt Christ’s New Testament canonical word? Notice verse 49 of our text in Luke 24: “and behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” That brings us to the second heading under the apostolic witness.
2. Christ promised these apostles that His Spirit would insure the integrity and trustworthiness of their witness and proclamation.
At this point I would like to cite several passages in Christ’s farewell discourse (John 14-16) and then summarize the key ideas related to our proposition.
These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. 26 “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you (John 14:2-26).
When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning (John 15:26-27).
I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you (John 16:12-15).
In summary Christ promises the disciples that the Holy Spirit would (1) teach them all things, (2) bring to remembrance all that Christ had said to them, (3) bear witness to Christ, (4) guide the apostles into all truth, (5) speak to them only the words of Christ, and (6) disclose to them hidden things. Often this passage is applied to what the Holy Spirit does for all Christians, namely, illuminating the Scriptures and guiding us in decision making.[8] However, the larger and immediate contexts support a different interpretation. Christ is speaking to His chosen apostles, and He is promising them that the Spirit would enable them to recall things he “had said” to them (14:26), as well as to reveal “what is to come” (16:13). In other words, Jesus promises the apostles that God’s Spirit would do for them what He did for the OT prophets: “but know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1:20-21). The Holy Spirit insured that what the apostles preached and what the apostles wrote was like the prophetic word of the OT. It was trustworthy. It was “inspired by God”! That leads us to our next proposition.
3. The apostolic witness to Christ is the New Covenant canon.
Now this is a significant assertion. We know that the OT is canon. Christ Himself appealed to the OT as the authoritative word of God. But are we to put the words of Peter, John, and Paul on an equal par with Moses and the prophets? The following passages answer affirmatively:
(a) Hebrews 2:1-4
For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard [i.e., the gospel], 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 phrase “so great a salvation” is referring to the gospel of the New Covenant, which these Hebrew Christians had heard and believed. This New Covenant gospel was, says the writer, “first spoken by the Lord.” But how did it reach the Hebrew Christians? The last part of verse three tells us the answer: “it was confirmed to us by those who heard,” which is a reference to the apostles. The apostles were first hand witnesses to the gospel and they bore witness to the gospel. And notice that the writer to the Hebrews places that apostolic witness on a canonical level with the OT which was mediated by angels!
(b) 2 Peter 3:1, 2
Peter, like the writer to the Hebrews, clearly places the apostolic witness on a level with 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, 2 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 have two canons, says Peter, the OT canon—namely, the holy prophets; and the NT canon—namely, the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles. And since Peter introduced himself in this letter as one of those chosen apostles, then that means Peter is claiming canonicity for His own teaching! But Peter not only claims this authority for himself and the other eleven. Notice what he says about the Apostle Paul in a third passage:
(c) 2 Peter 3:15-16
And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:15-16).
Clearly, when Peter compares Paul’s letters to “the rest of the Scripture,” he is putting Paul’s writings into the category of canon.[9] And this is no surprise since the Apostle Paul viewed his own writings this way:
(d) 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6, 14
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us (2 Thess. 3:6).
If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame (2 Thess. 3:1).
A local church should not discipline someone just because that person disagrees with the pastors of the church. The opinions and sermons of pastors are not canonical. However, a NT church should exercise church discipline when someone refuses to submit to the traditions and teachings of Paul, because Paul’s words are Christ’s words and because Christ’s words are God’s words. Therefore, you and I are to receive the words of the Apostle Paul in the same way that the Thessalonians did at the beginning of Paul’s ministry.
For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe (1 Thess. 2:13).
Do not these passages teach us that the apostolic witness to Christ was to be treated as divinely authoritative and canonical? Do they not place the words of Peter and Paul on par with the words of Moses and the prophets? Consider also the Apostle John’s testimony:
(e) 1 John 4:1, 5-6
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world…. They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
In this passage John is contrasting his witness with the message of the “many false prophets” who “have gone out into the world” (v. 1). According to John one the marks of genuine Christian experience is the recognition of and the submission to the true apostolic word—”he who knows God listens to us” (v. 6). On the other hand, if any one refuses to recognize and submit to the apostolic word, that person is “not from God.”
In summary these passages indicate that the apostles viewed and expected others to view their inspired witness to the person and work of Christ as divinely authoritative. Just as Moses and the prophets gave us the OT canon, so Jesus and his apostles have given us the NT canon. But there lacks one more link in the chain of our argument:
4. The apostolic witness was recorded in Scripture.
Just as the OT words of Moses and the prophets were written down for the benefit of God’s people and for the preservation of God’s word, so also, the NT words of Jesus and His apostles were written down for the benefit of the Christian church. Consider the following texts:
Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these have been written so 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).
These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life (1 John 5:13).
It seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught (Luke 1:3-4).
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us (2 Thess. 2:15).
And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:15-16).
Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches (Rev. 1:11).
And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” And He said, “Write, for these words are faithful and true (Rev. 21:5).
We have sought to argue for a NT canon on the basis of Scripture. First, we pointed out that the OT canon anticipates and presupposes a NT canon. Second, the NT identifies Jesus Christ as both the source and subject matter of that NT canon. Furthermore, the Bible indicates that Christ’s NT canon would be mediated to the church through the inspired teaching and writings of the apostles. Therefore, according to Scripture, the “inscripturated” apostolic witness to Christ is the church’s New Testament canon.
Before we close this post, there are two lose ends that need to be tied:
(1) We have established that the NT canon consists of the written apostolic witness to Christ. What about the NT books written by non-apostles (e.g., Mark, Luke, Acts, Jude)?
Traditionally, the church has accepted the writings of Mark, Luke, James and Jude on the basis of their close connection either with Christ or with the Apostles. For example, many of the early fathers identify Mark as Peter’s assistant who wrote the 2nd Gospel under the Apostle’s supervision.[10] Luke’s close association with Paul is documented in the first person plural pronouns throughout Acts, as well as several references by Paul in the epistles (Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11; Philemon 24). James and Jude were brothers of Christ (Jude 1) and closely associated with the apostles (1 Cor 5:7; 9:5).[11] Thus, the theory is that these men wrote under the close supervision of one or more of the apostles. I believe this theory is probably correct. However, by itself it does not answer the question of inspiration. We accept the apostle’s writings because we believe they were inspired writers. But do we have any biblical evidence that there were other inspired writers besides the Apostles?
I believe we do. In his first epistle to Timothy, the Apostle Paul equates a passage in Luke’s Gospel with “Scripture.” After instructing Timothy that elders are worthy of financial remuneration (5:17), Paul gives two citations in 5:18, which he identifies as “Scripture”:
For the Scripture says, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim. 5:18).
The first citation is from Deuteronomy 25:4. But the second citation is a saying of Christ and is found in the Gospel of Luke 10:7. Since Paul does not cite the saying as oral teaching but as Scripture, he evidently viewed Luke’s gospel as a product of inspiration. And traditionally, the church has assessed the writings of Mark, James, and Jude in the same way.
This raises the question of exactly how did the Holy Spirit superintend the writing of these non-apostles. One way we might answer this question is to view these men in the capacity of an amanuensis (i.e., a secretary employed to take dictation). We have precedent for such a role in certain NT Epistles such as Romans and 1 Peter. Although the human authors of these epistles are identified as the Apostle’s Paul and Peter, neither of these Apostles actually wrote the letter. According to Romans 16:22 a man named Tertius actually wrote the Epistle to the Romans. And according to 1 Peter 5:12, Peter actually dictated the contents of his letter to a man named Silvanus. Thus, we may say that Tertius and Silvanus were inspired writers of NT Scripture. But in their case, we would probably apply the Spirit’s work of inspiration in a more indirect way. The Spirit inspired them indirectly through the Apostles who supervised them.
The question is whether we should view the Spirit’s mode of inspiring Mark, Luke, James and Jude in the same way. Did the Spirit inspire these men indirectly through one of the Apostles? That is, did these men merely function in the capacity of an amanuensis to the apostles? Or did they exercise more independence and enjoy a more direct influence of the Spirit’s supervision?
I believe there are good reasons for viewing the Spirit’s work of inspiration as operating in a more direct way upon these men. First of all, writings are not normally attributed to the amanuensis but to the actual author. If Mark and Luke merely functioned as secretaries to Peter and Paul, it seems strange that tradition would append their names to writings that were authored by Apostles. Second, Luke’s preface to his Gospel does not depict the process of writing in terms of dictation but in terms of Luke’s own research (Luke 1:1-4). Third, according to passages like Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 14, the gift of NT prophecy was granted to others besides the Apostles (cf. Acts 13:1-4; 21:10, 11; 1Cor 11, 12 ). Fourth, according to Ephesians 2:20 and 3:5, the church is built, historically and doctrinally, not only upon the foundation of apostolic teaching, but also upon the foundation of “the prophets”—a reference to NT prophets.[12] For these reasons, I believe we are warranted to conclude that Mark, Luke, James and Jude exercised the prophetic gift and authored inspired Scripture under the direction and supervision of the Apostles.
(2) We have established that the NT canon consists of the written apostolic witness to Christ. But how do we determine which NT writings are authentic and apostolic?
Admittedly, here is where the question of the NT canon becomes a bit more complicated. With the OT we had an identifiable collection of Jewish books called the “Law” and the “Prophets” and the “Writings,” which Jesus Christ endorsed as canonical. But the NT writings were completed and gathered together long after Christ’s ascension to heaven. We know from our study that the OT presupposes and anticipates a NT canon. We know that the New Covenant gospel of Christ is to be that NT canon. And we know that the apostles were commissioned to transmit that NT canon. But how do we know which of the first century books and letters bearing witness to the gospel actually belong in the NT canon? To state it differently; why has the Christian church traditionally accepted the 27 books in our NT as canonical?
Church theologians have attempted to answer these questions by producing a list of criteria by which the NT books were accepted into the canon. Sometimes these lists of criteria differ in length and terminology. But I prefer to organize them under three general headings. These three headings are distinct yet interrelated and, in a certain sense, inseparable.
(a) Does this book in any sense claim to be the word of God?
This is the question of “self-attestation.” Does this book or epistle make any claims to be divine revelation? That doesn’t require a verse that asserts, “This is divine revelation.” However, if the book claims in somewhat to be prophecy or if it claims to be apostolic witness, then it is claiming to be canonical. This is why the early church traditionally employed the criterion of “apostolicity” in seeking to determine whether a book should be included in the NT canon. And, as we saw above, that criterion was expanded to include some of the close associates of the apostles like Mark and Luke.
(b) Does this book bear the marks or qualities of divine revelation?
This is the question of “self-authentication.” Does a NT writing exhibit the qualities and characteristics of divine revelation? Traditionally, this has been called the criterion of “orthodoxy.” Unfortunately, the term orthodox (meaning, ‘straight teaching’) is a little too ambiguous. Orthodox compared to what? For this reason, we need to develop a longer list of criteria in order to define what we mean by “orthodoxy.”
I prefer to address the question this way: the Bible claims to be “God-breathed,” divine revelation” (2Tim. 3:16). What kind of qualities should characterize divine revelation and in particular, NT revelation?
• Divine NT revelation should be truthful and consistent
• Divine NT revelation should be theological
• Divine NT revelation should be Christ-centered
• Divine NT revelation should be redemptive in focus
These are some of the qualities that characterize divine revelation. It is important to view these qualities in connection with the self-attesting claims of the NT. Both are inseparable components of NT canonicity. Moreover, there is a third criterion:
(c) Is the authenticity and authority of this book confirmed by the Holy Spirit?
This is the question of the Spirit’s authentication of Scripture. In one sense, this is the final or ultimate criterion. To use the language of our own Confession of Faith, chapter 1, paragraph 4:
Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority [of Scripture], is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
It is vital to note that our Spirit-produced conviction does not make the Bible the Word of God. It’s not that the Spirit somehow makes the Bible God’s word for you and for me. The Bible is God’s word whether we believe it or not. But it is the Holy Spirit who enables us to recognize fully and to embrace completely the books of Scripture as God’s sacred word.
Here is where the testimony of the Church plays an important part in identifying the canon of the NT. We may view the Church’s testimony concerning the NT canon as the collective manifestation of the Holy Spirit’s work in the hearts of believers enabling them to recognize the word of God. Christ promised to be with His church and to build His church until the end of the age (Matt 16:18; 28:20). Furthermore, Jesus promised to give His people “the anointing” of His Spirit so that they might discern the truth (1John 2:20, 27). Thus, the Apostle John can write, “We [the Apostles] are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us” (1 Jn 4:6). Therefore, we would expect the church to come to a consensus regarding which NT books bear the marks of canonicity. In the words of Roger Nicole, “The consensus of the churches on the NT is an index and evidence of the Holy Spirit’s guidance.”[13] For this reason, we should give proper importance to the testimony of the church.
We are not arguing that the church makes the NT books canonical. The church does not confer canonical status upon the NT, anymore than a court Bailiff confers judicial status upon a judge when he announces, “Here comes the Judge.” The Bailiff does not make him the judge by some authoritative declaration. He simply announces or acknowledges an already self-evident fact: “the judge is coming.” In the same way, the church does not make the books of the NT canonical. The church simply recognizes and acknowledges an already self-evident fact, namely, “Here are the books of the NT canon.”
That leads us to enquire whether the church has come to a general consensus regarding which NT books bear the marks of canonicity. Not surprisingly, a comprehensive survey of church history demonstrates that the church as a whole has come to a general consensus. The Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Protestant churches have virtually been unanimous in their view of the NT canon.[14]
Having identified a completed OT canon and NT canon, we’ll argue in our next post that this inspired corpora is the final form and goal of pre-parousia redemptive revelation. Then we’ll focus on our minor premise, namely, that NT prophecy and tongues are forms of pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation.
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
[1] This continues to be the Catholic Church’s position as affirmed at Vatican II: “Through the same [ecclesiastical] tradition the full canon of the sacred books becomes known to the Church …” (Dei Verbum, 1:6).
[2] Ned Stonehouse, “The Authority of The New Testament,” The Infallible Word, 2nd ed. (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1967), 104-05.
[3] By making their primary appeal to the testimony of the early church fathers and church councils rather than to the testimony of Scripture, Protestants inadvertently give support to the Catholic position. See F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (InterVarsity, 1988).
[4] The Westminster Confession supports this indirect method of argumentation when it asserts, “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” [emphasis mine].
[5] The Greek word is exegeomai, from which we derive the English “to exegete.
[6] See Donald A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Eerdmans, 1991), 131-34.
[7] Herman N. Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1963), provides an excellent description of the nature of the apostolate: “Recent research has shown that the formal structure of the apostolate was derived from the Jewish legal system, where one person could be given the legal power to represent another person. The representative who had such power of attorney was called a shaliach (apostle), and so unique was his relationship to the one he represented that the shaliach was regarded as that person himself” (14).
[8] For example, see F. B. Meyer, The Life of Love (Fleming H. Revell, 1987), 312-13; Everett F. Harrison, “John,” in the Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Moody Press, 1962), 1110.
[9] D. Edmond Hiebert, Second Peter and Jude (Unusual Publications, 1989), gives the following NT passages where the term translated “other” (loipos) means “of the same category: Acts 2:37; Rom 1:13; 2 Cor 12:13; Gal 2:13; Phil 4:3 (175).
[10] Origen is quoted by Eusebius as saying that it was “Mark who wrote [the second Gospel] in accordance with Peter’s instructions.” Eusebius also quotes Clement of Alexandria who writes, “The occasion for writing the Gospel according to Mark was: after Peter had publicly preached the word in Rome and by the Spirit had proclaimed the gospel, those present, being many, urged Mark, as one who had followed [Peter] for a long time and remembered what he had spoken, to write down what [Peter] had said. He did this and distributed the Gospel among those who had asked him [for it]. When Peter learned about it, he neither strongly forbad it nor promoted it.” Eusebius traces this tradition to Papias who was a disciple of the Apostle John. Tertullian asserts that “[t]he Gospel which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was.” Finally, Ireneaus also confirms that “Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Cited in William Hendricksen, The Gospel of Mark (Baker, 1975), pp. 10-13.
[11] It is also possible that James actually qualified to be an apostle (1 Cor. 15:7).
[12] As a result, it would probably be better to speak of the “apostolic and prophetic New Covenant witness.”
[13] “The Canon of the New Testament,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:2 (June 1997).
[14] See the following historical surveys: B. F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (London, 1874); R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible: An Historical and Exegetical Study (Zondervan, 1969); Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (InterVarsity, 1988). Of course, Luther’s doubts about the Epistle of James are something of an anomaly. In his Preface to the New Testament (1522), he writes, “In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it” (Luther’s Works, 35:362). Later, in 1542, Luther participated in a discussion concerning the Roman Catholic arguments against the doctrine of justification by faith alone. In an apparent fit of frustration or crude humor, Luther asserted, “That epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest. Up to this point I have been accustomed just to deal with and interpret it according to the sense of the rest of Scriptures. For you will judge that none of it must be set forth contrary to manifest Holy Scripture. Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove [!], as the priest in Kalenberg did” (Luther’s Works, 34:317).
March 7th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
[...] 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 [...]
March 7th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Excellent material, Dr. Gonzales.
I’m inclined to believe that an argument can be made for the completion of special revelation prior to the parousia from Christ’s promise to his apostles that the Spirit would “guide them in *all the truth*” (John 16:13). As you point out above, divine revelation is in view in this passage. Christ says that he has “many things to say to [the apostles]“, but that it will be left to the Spirit to guide them in ALL the truth.
It’s not a watertight argument, but has some momentum, especially when taken in connection with your other arguments concerning the foundational role and position of the apostles and prophets to the church.
March 7th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Scott,
Thanks for the encouraging words. And I do think you’re on target with your observations. “All the truth” (pasan ten aletheian) cannot mean that the Spirit would endow the disciples with omniscience. Nor is it referring to the kind of knowledge they would attain in the future eschaton. In the context, Jesus is referring to the Spirit’s work of superintending and bringing to fullness or completeness the apostolic witness to Christ. So, as you note, taken with the other observations above, this text seems to portend a completed NT canon.
Thanks for your input!
Bob G.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
[...] We side 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 [...]
March 18th, 2009 at 7:45 am
[...] 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 [...]
March 25th, 2009 at 9:13 am
I think you’ve made this more complicated that necessary (though you are on the whole right). The canon of scripture is centered on the Lord Jesus who personally endorsed all the OT and comissioned apostles to write the NT (some of whom delegated that, that is, some authors, like Luke wrote with delegated apostolic authority). Since there are no more living apostles (commissioned by the Lord Jesus to write scripture) there cannot be more books in the Bible. Simply, Jesus tells us what the canon is. Of course, some may argue that this is circular reasoning, as we find out who Jesus is from the Bible. But there is nothing unacceptable about two witnesses who authenticate one another.
By the way, this whole argument is a non-sequitor in the cessationism debate because evangelical continuist do not try to add to the canon.
April 7th, 2009 at 8:46 am
[...] “A Humble Argument for 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 [...]
April 12th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
[...] tuned for our next installment where we’ll identify the canon of the New [...]
April 12th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
John,
I acknowledge that, in a sense, I’m preaching to the choir when arguing for a closed canon of Scripture. Nearly all continuationists (excepting groups like the Mormons) and cessationists together affirm that Scripture-quality revelation has ceased. So why belabor the point?
First, because it’s the major premise in my overall argument. When I taught on this subject in another context, I knew my audience agreed on this point, so I simply cited Wayne Grudem’s affirmation of the cessation of Scripture-quality revelation and moved on to the minor premise. But on this forum, however, I’m addressing a larger audience. There may be some who read this blog that may wonder how a person argues for the closing of the canon when we have no one NT proof text that identifies or alludes to a closed NT canon. That brings me to another reason:
Second, because the argument for the cessation of Scripture-qualify revelation in some respects is analogous to the argument for the cessation of some NT gifts, like the gift of an apostle and, according to my view, the gift of a NT prophet. You think I make the matter a bit too complicated. In your mind it’s quite simple:
The canon of scripture is centered on the Lord Jesus who personally endorsed all the OT and comissioned [sic] apostles to write the NT (some of whom delegated that, that is, some authors, like Luke wrote with delegated apostolic authority). Since there are no more living apostles (commissioned by the Lord Jesus to write scripture) there cannot be more books in the Bible. Simply, Jesus tells us what the canon is.
I agree that Jesus identifies a completed OT canon. However, Jesus does not directly refer to a completed NT canon for the simple fact that such a canon was in process during and after his earthly ministry. Yes, as you and I both agree, Jesus commissioned apostles to bear witness under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to his person, words, and works. You assert, “Since there are no more living apostles (commissioned by the Lord Jesus to write scripture) there cannot be more books in the Bible.” I might play the devil’s advocate and ask you why can’t there be living apostles today? If the post-resurrected Christ could appear to Paul and commission one, who did not accompany Christ during his earthly ministry, to become an apostle “born out of due time,” then why can’t he do that today? The Mormons seem to think he can. I can think of many helpful and pragmatic reasons for such a scenario. My answer to that question (and I think yours too) is that the apostles served a foundational role in the redemptive historical formation of the church (Eph. 2:20). Thus, their witness to Christ (who’s the goal of all special revelation) is God’s final canonical word (Hebrews 1:1-2a). I wanted to give my readers a feel for how a Protestant would construct a biblical argument for the cessation of (1) Scripture-quality revelation, and (2) the gift of NT apostles. Which leads me to the third reason for belaboring this point:
Third, because I’d like both sides to see that we’re all cessationists at some level. Of course, I’ll be quick to add that we’re all continuationists at some level too. Both sides believe in supernaturalism. Both sides believe in the ongoing work of the Spirit in terms of regeneration, filling, guiding, empowering, reviving, etc. The sticking point for both sides has to do primarily with the particular gifts of NT prophecy, tongues, and the gift of healing. This is the burden of my second premise.
So I don’t believe this is, as you put it, “a non sequitor [sic] in the cessationist debate.” First, it’s necessary to establish my first premise. Second, it establishes the cessation of a certain kind of revelation and certain NT gifts (i.e., apostles). Third, it prepares the reader for the second premise, which seeks to demonstrate that the NT prophets like the NT apostles played a foundational role in the church and that their prophecy belongs to the same basic species as canonical or Scripture-quality revelation. I acknowledge that this minor premise is our real point of disagreement, so I’ll move on to address your questions related to the formulation of my second premise.
Appreciatively yours,
Bob Gonzales