Comments on: The Cessation of Special Revelation: Concluding Commendation, Caution, and Exhortation http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/04/the-cessation-of-special-revelation-concluding-commendation-caution-and-exhortation/ The official blog of Reformed Baptist Seminary Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:34:17 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: James http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/04/the-cessation-of-special-revelation-concluding-commendation-caution-and-exhortation/comment-page-1/#comment-3904 James Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:41:38 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=951#comment-3904 I do not recommend Don's book. The Westminster Confession of Faith, which he has vowed to affirm, states that the extraordinary works of God that occured in the apostolic age have now ceased. He tries to make a distinction between two different kinds of revelation, cannonical and non cannonical, but this is not a strong argument. If he believes in the continuation of the revelatory gifts, why has he not practiced them in his ministry? He does not practice it in his ministry (unless he has a private prayer language) because it is not accepted in the Presbyterian Church in America. This view of his is not his own, but has been held by others. It is ironic that Norman Shepherd, who is a federal visionist and has rejected justification by faith alone, was the advisor on Mr. Codling's dissertation. This is the same Shepherd (not to be confused with a true Shepherd) that was dismissed from Westminster for teaching things contrary to the confessional standards. Sometimes these controversies create strange bed fellows. I do not recommend Don’s book. The Westminster Confession of Faith, which he has vowed to affirm, states that the extraordinary works of God that occured in the apostolic age have now ceased. He tries to make a distinction between two different kinds of revelation, cannonical and non cannonical, but this is not a strong argument. If he believes in the continuation of the revelatory gifts, why has he not practiced them in his ministry? He does not practice it in his ministry (unless he has a private prayer language) because it is not accepted in the Presbyterian Church in America. This view of his is not his own, but has been held by others. It is ironic that Norman Shepherd, who is a federal visionist and has rejected justification by faith alone, was the advisor on Mr. Codling’s dissertation. This is the same Shepherd (not to be confused with a true Shepherd) that was dismissed from Westminster for teaching things contrary to the confessional standards. Sometimes these controversies create strange bed fellows.

]]> By: speigel http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/04/the-cessation-of-special-revelation-concluding-commendation-caution-and-exhortation/comment-page-1/#comment-1489 speigel Sat, 18 Apr 2009 08:05:13 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=951#comment-1489 Sentinel Press publishes Codling's book. Codling was a graduate of WTS and is a Presbyterian minister. The book is basically his thesis for seminary, published in a book format. Please note, he argues against cessationism. Also note, that he does NOT endorse Grudem's view on prophecy. The book can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Sola-Scriptura-Revelatory-Gifts-Codling/dp/0971569436 I also hear that Jon Ruthven's book On the Cessation of the Charismata is a pretty good. It's a rebuttal against Warfield's older book, Counterfeit Miracles. I have not finished it. Even if you do not agree with Ruthven's view on the gifts, Ruthven does seem to show the invalidity of Warfield's arguments against the continuation of the gifts. Sentinel Press publishes Codling’s book. Codling was a graduate of WTS and is a Presbyterian minister. The book is basically his thesis for seminary, published in a book format. Please note, he argues against cessationism. Also note, that he does NOT endorse Grudem’s view on prophecy. The book can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Sola-Scriptura-Revelatory-Gifts-Codling/dp/0971569436

I also hear that Jon Ruthven’s book On the Cessation of the Charismata is a pretty good. It’s a rebuttal against Warfield’s older book, Counterfeit Miracles. I have not finished it. Even if you do not agree with Ruthven’s view on the gifts, Ruthven does seem to show the invalidity of Warfield’s arguments against the continuation of the gifts.

]]> By: deangonzales http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/04/the-cessation-of-special-revelation-concluding-commendation-caution-and-exhortation/comment-page-1/#comment-1452 deangonzales Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:16:26 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=951#comment-1452 Brother, I haven't read Don's book. Would you recommend it? Who's the publisher? Bob G. Brother, I haven’t read Don’s book. Would you recommend it? Who’s the publisher?

Bob G.

]]> By: speigel http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/04/the-cessation-of-special-revelation-concluding-commendation-caution-and-exhortation/comment-page-1/#comment-1439 speigel Fri, 17 Apr 2009 06:36:31 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=951#comment-1439 Have you read Don Codling's book Sola Scriptura and the Revelatory Gifts? If you have, what did you think of it? Have you read Don Codling’s book Sola Scriptura and the Revelatory Gifts? If you have, what did you think of it?

]]> By: Reverence&Joy http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/04/the-cessation-of-special-revelation-concluding-commendation-caution-and-exhortation/comment-page-1/#comment-1135 Reverence&Joy Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:43:19 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=951#comment-1135 Oh, and in response to your final point: the only reason for this series is differing opinions on the subject. The fact is, scripture is not as clear on this issue as we might like it to be. I might add that you are defending your position much more dogmatically than Dr. Gonzales. Oh, and in response to your final point: the only reason for this series is differing opinions on the subject. The fact is, scripture is not as clear on this issue as we might like it to be. I might add that you are defending your position much more dogmatically than Dr. Gonzales.

]]> By: Reverence&Joy http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/04/the-cessation-of-special-revelation-concluding-commendation-caution-and-exhortation/comment-page-1/#comment-1134 Reverence&Joy Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:37:43 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=951#comment-1134 John, see Part 7 of this series. John, see Part 7 of this series.

]]> By: John http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/04/the-cessation-of-special-revelation-concluding-commendation-caution-and-exhortation/comment-page-1/#comment-1093 John Tue, 07 Apr 2009 19:24:37 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=951#comment-1093 Hi Bob, Thanks for the response. You're right that the crux of hte issue is whether "NT prophecy and tongues should be included in the same category of revelation as inspired OT prophecy and apostolic witness". Since the early church did not consider those gifts as equivalent, as manifest by thier not writing oral prophesies down or treating those kinds of special revelation as equivalent to scripture, then the answer is obvious. And it is counter to what you've assumed throughout this series. They are not in the same category. While there are some charismatic extremist who would argue that they are (I once confronted a Pentecostal who had made that point in a sermon -- a travesty -- and when he saw that I wasn't just a simpleton who wouldn't fall for his nonsense, he just turned his back and refused to listen to me), all responsible continuists that I know of insist that they are not of the same category. But throughout this you continue to use the term "special revelation" (as it is used in formal theology of the canon) for the gifts of prophesy and tongues and you do so based on nothing other than your determination to prove your point. Perhaps you ought to consider that perhaps Grudem and almost every continuist has been trying to tell you: that these gifts serve another purpose other than "special revelation". I agree that the Bible is the last great revelation. That such special revelations ceased with the closing of the canon (when the last of the apostles, or thier delegates, stopped writing. But there's no evidence that such were the kinds of things that prophesy and tongues were used for. If they were, why didn't they write them down for posterity? That there is a vast difference between the special revelation of scripture and the impartial knowledge of prophesy and tongues and that that difference was immediately understood in the NT church is plain from the fact that they preserved the one but didn't trascribe the other. That they could have done so is seen from the fact that some parts of scripture are transcriptions of originally orally delivered statements. Further, my question is not why do we need an NT. (That was a sleight of hand, red herring, a way of misconstruing what I said in order to avoid answering my question but redefine it in terms you can easily answer.) But it was to get at your point that to believe in continuing prophesy and tongues is to potentially undermine the authority of scripture. Can some misuse "prophesy" to do so? Yes. But obviously the early church didn't reason like that. Remember, the early church had scripture. One of the instructions of Paul to Timothy was to attend to the "public reading of scripture" by which he meant the OT, not oral prophesies that had been transcribed. The early church had scripture and oral prophesies and saw no problem with the existence of them side by side. Then there's the problem that you are seeking to defend scripture (which is admirable aim) with an argument scripture itself doesn't invoke. A critic could easily retort that if scripture is so perfect why does it's integrity rest on our creative theologizing? You cannot defend scripture with an argument scripture does not invoke. Finally, this has all been an implicit denial of sola scriptura while ironically trying to defend sola scriptura. If scripture is sufficient, as both you and I would agree it is, then you should confine yourself to the doctrines it actually teaches. If you did that, you would never have written this series. Hi Bob,

Thanks for the response. You’re right that the crux of hte issue is whether “NT prophecy and tongues should be included in the same category of revelation as inspired OT prophecy and apostolic witness”. Since the early church did not consider those gifts as equivalent, as manifest by thier not writing oral prophesies down or treating those kinds of special revelation as equivalent to scripture, then the answer is obvious. And it is counter to what you’ve assumed throughout this series. They are not in the same category. While there are some charismatic extremist who would argue that they are (I once confronted a Pentecostal who had made that point in a sermon — a travesty — and when he saw that I wasn’t just a simpleton who wouldn’t fall for his nonsense, he just turned his back and refused to listen to me), all responsible continuists that I know of insist that they are not of the same category. But throughout this you continue to use the term “special revelation” (as it is used in formal theology of the canon) for the gifts of prophesy and tongues and you do so based on nothing other than your determination to prove your point. Perhaps you ought to consider that perhaps Grudem and almost every continuist has been trying to tell you: that these gifts serve another purpose other than “special revelation”.

I agree that the Bible is the last great revelation. That such special revelations ceased with the closing of the canon (when the last of the apostles, or thier delegates, stopped writing. But there’s no evidence that such were the kinds of things that prophesy and tongues were used for. If they were, why didn’t they write them down for posterity? That there is a vast difference between the special revelation of scripture and the impartial knowledge of prophesy and tongues and that that difference was immediately understood in the NT church is plain from the fact that they preserved the one but didn’t trascribe the other. That they could have done so is seen from the fact that some parts of scripture are transcriptions of originally orally delivered statements.

Further, my question is not why do we need an NT. (That was a sleight of hand, red herring, a way of misconstruing what I said in order to avoid answering my question but redefine it in terms you can easily answer.) But it was to get at your point that to believe in continuing prophesy and tongues is to potentially undermine the authority of scripture. Can some misuse “prophesy” to do so? Yes. But obviously the early church didn’t reason like that. Remember, the early church had scripture. One of the instructions of Paul to Timothy was to attend to the “public reading of scripture” by which he meant the OT, not oral prophesies that had been transcribed. The early church had scripture and oral prophesies and saw no problem with the existence of them side by side.

Then there’s the problem that you are seeking to defend scripture (which is admirable aim) with an argument scripture itself doesn’t invoke. A critic could easily retort that if scripture is so perfect why does it’s integrity rest on our creative theologizing? You cannot defend scripture with an argument scripture does not invoke.

Finally, this has all been an implicit denial of sola scriptura while ironically trying to defend sola scriptura. If scripture is sufficient, as both you and I would agree it is, then you should confine yourself to the doctrines it actually teaches. If you did that, you would never have written this series.

]]> By: deangonzales http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/04/the-cessation-of-special-revelation-concluding-commendation-caution-and-exhortation/comment-page-1/#comment-1088 deangonzales Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:29:11 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=951#comment-1088 John, As I tried to indicate to you in a private email, I don't believe there is "one Scripture" that proves or disproves cessationism or its counterpart, continuationism. I conceded this point at the outset of my series. I did, however, provide a number of posts arguing for the cessation of "Scripture-quality" revelation (<a href="http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/03/the-cessation-of-special-revelation-a-humble-argument-for-the-cessation-of-nt-prophecy-and-tongues-part-2/" rel="nofollow">Part 2</a>, <a href="http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/03/the-cessation-of-special-revelation-a-humble-argument-for-the-cessation-of-prophecy-and-tongues-part-3/" rel="nofollow">Part 3</a>, <a href="http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/03/the-cessation-of-special-revelation-a-humble-argument-for-the-cessation-of-nt-prophecy-and-tongues-part-4/" rel="nofollow">Part 4</a>). Then I attempted to zero in on the real difference between cessationists and continuationists, namely, their respective views of the nature of NT prophecy and tongues (<a href="http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/03/818/" rel="nofollow">Part 5</a>), and I provided the reader with the primary arguments employed by Dr. Wayne Grudem, a leading continuationist theologian, in favor of viewing NT prophecy and tongues as belonging to a different category than that of OT prophecy or apostolic witness (<a href="http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/03/the-cessation-of-special-revelation-a-humble-argument-for-the-cessation-of-nt-prophecy-and-tongues-part-6/" rel="nofollow">Part 6</a>). In response, I tried to demonstrate from various passages of Scripture that NT prophecy and tongues should be included in the same category of revelation as inspired OT prophecy and apostolic witness (<a href="http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/03/the-cessation-of-special-revelation-a-humble-argument-for-the-cessation-of-nt-prophecy-and-tongues-part-7/" rel="nofollow">Part 7</a>) as well as to respond to the examples of so-called fallible prophecy suggested by Grudem (<a href="http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/03/the-cessation-of-special-revelation-a-humble-argument-for-the-cessation-of-nt-prophecy-and-tongues-part-8/" rel="nofollow">Part 8</a>). Finally, I raised and responded to several common objections to cessationism, including two main passages sometimes used by continuationists to defend their position (<a href="http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/03/the-cessation-of-special-revelation-objections-to-the-cessation-of-nt-prophecy-and-tongues-answered-part-1/" rel="nofollow">Part 9</a>, <a href="http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/03/the-cessation-of-special-revelation-objections-to-the-cessation-of-nt-prophecy-and-tongues-answered-part-2/" rel="nofollow">Part 10</a>). So in my estimation (which is fallible), I did attempt to provide an overall argument that's based on the teaching of Scripture. You're welcome to point out where I'm mishandling or misinterpreting texts of Scripture to support my argument. I do believe there is something we can agree on, namely, the gift of the NT apostle (Eph. 4:11) has fulfilled its purpose and has, therefore, ceased. You seem to agree that there are no more living apostles, that we should not expect any, and that, therefore, we are to expect no more inscripturated revelation. So at some level, you are in fact a "cessationist." Why would prophecy be necessary in the first century NT church? For the same reason the entire NT was necessary: to help the disciples of Christ read the OT in light the Person and Work of Christ and of New Covenant realities. Since it took some time before the all-sufficient NT canon was completed and become available to the churches at large (i.e., some time into the 2nd century), I can see a need for ongoing oral NT prophecy. Once the NT canon, which provides us with God's definite word from the last Great Prophet, Jesus (Deut. 18:15; John 1:17-18; Heb. 1:1-2a), was completed, I see no need for further special revelation, either oral or written. In closing, John, I want to thank you for being open and transparent with me. I welcome criticism. May the Lord bless your ministry. Respectfully yours, Bob Gonzales John,

As I tried to indicate to you in a private email, I don’t believe there is “one Scripture” that proves or disproves cessationism or its counterpart, continuationism. I conceded this point at the outset of my series. I did, however, provide a number of posts arguing for the cessation of “Scripture-quality” revelation (Part 2, Part 3, Part 4). Then I attempted to zero in on the real difference between cessationists and continuationists, namely, their respective views of the nature of NT prophecy and tongues (Part 5), and I provided the reader with the primary arguments employed by Dr. Wayne Grudem, a leading continuationist theologian, in favor of viewing NT prophecy and tongues as belonging to a different category than that of OT prophecy or apostolic witness (Part 6). In response, I tried to demonstrate from various passages of Scripture that NT prophecy and tongues should be included in the same category of revelation as inspired OT prophecy and apostolic witness (Part 7) as well as to respond to the examples of so-called fallible prophecy suggested by Grudem (Part 8). Finally, I raised and responded to several common objections to cessationism, including two main passages sometimes used by continuationists to defend their position (Part 9, Part 10). So in my estimation (which is fallible), I did attempt to provide an overall argument that’s based on the teaching of Scripture. You’re welcome to point out where I’m mishandling or misinterpreting texts of Scripture to support my argument.

I do believe there is something we can agree on, namely, the gift of the NT apostle (Eph. 4:11) has fulfilled its purpose and has, therefore, ceased. You seem to agree that there are no more living apostles, that we should not expect any, and that, therefore, we are to expect no more inscripturated revelation. So at some level, you are in fact a “cessationist.”

Why would prophecy be necessary in the first century NT church? For the same reason the entire NT was necessary: to help the disciples of Christ read the OT in light the Person and Work of Christ and of New Covenant realities. Since it took some time before the all-sufficient NT canon was completed and become available to the churches at large (i.e., some time into the 2nd century), I can see a need for ongoing oral NT prophecy. Once the NT canon, which provides us with God’s definite word from the last Great Prophet, Jesus (Deut. 18:15; John 1:17-18; Heb. 1:1-2a), was completed, I see no need for further special revelation, either oral or written.

In closing, John, I want to thank you for being open and transparent with me. I welcome criticism.

May the Lord bless your ministry.

Respectfully yours,
Bob Gonzales

]]> By: John http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/04/the-cessation-of-special-revelation-concluding-commendation-caution-and-exhortation/comment-page-1/#comment-1083 John Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:10:47 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=951#comment-1083 The fact is that you haven't shown one scripture to prove that the gifts have passed away. You cannot defend the authority of scripture by invoking and argument that scripture does not. If prophesy and tongues were not undermining the authoriyt of scripture in the early church, when they had the OT and a major part of the worship service was reading and expounding scripture, then why do you assume it would do so now. The fact is that you haven’t shown one scripture to prove that the gifts have passed away. You cannot defend the authority of scripture by invoking and argument that scripture does not.

If prophesy and tongues were not undermining the authoriyt of scripture in the early church, when they had the OT and a major part of the worship service was reading and expounding scripture, then why do you assume it would do so now.

]]> By: nickeroo1 http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/04/the-cessation-of-special-revelation-concluding-commendation-caution-and-exhortation/comment-page-1/#comment-1082 nickeroo1 Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:51:44 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=951#comment-1082 Bob, I have enjoyed the dialogue on the 'Cessation of Special Revelation' and I think it would be a sad thing if it is not put into booklet form for posterity. It was a little difficult to follow seeing that it was given piecemeal but never-the-less greatly appreciated. I am a member of Texarkana Reformed Baptist Church and hold the conservative view(the cannon is completed is not changed arbitrarily...by anyone). However, I do like Wayne Grudem's works and understanding that we have some differences, still appreciate so much his great contributions to the Christian community. If this is not printed for posterity, it will be a great loss. Regards, Nickie Bob, I have enjoyed the dialogue on the ‘Cessation of Special Revelation’ and I think it would be a sad thing if it is not put into booklet form for posterity. It was a little difficult to follow seeing that it was given piecemeal but never-the-less greatly appreciated.

I am a member of Texarkana Reformed Baptist Church and hold the conservative view(the cannon is completed is not changed arbitrarily…by anyone). However, I do like Wayne Grudem’s works and understanding that we have some differences, still appreciate so much his great contributions to the Christian community.

If this is not printed for posterity, it will be a great loss.

Regards, Nickie

]]>