Cessationism, Revelation & Prophecy

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
Gary Gilley's picture
Offline
Since
Fri, 8/21/09
Posts: 13
Cessationism, Revelation & Prophecy

Tags: 

From Voice, Nov/Dec 2012. Used by permission.

Despite the fact that the majority of conservative evangelical Christians since the Reformation have held to a cessationist position with regard to divine revelation, true cessationists are rapidly disappearing. In the articles and books I have written nothing has evoked as much criticism and anger as my position that God is speaking to His people today exclusively through Scripture. Due to the influence of a multitude of popular authors, theologians and conference speakers, cessationism is barely treading water, even within the most biblically solid churches and organizations.

As a matter of fact, among those who claim to be evangelicals there are five identifiable views prevalent today on the matter of revelation:

Pentecostal/Charismatic/Thirdwave

All miraculous gifts exist today, including the gift of prophecy. God speaks through prophets and to His people both audibly (through dreams, visions, words of knowledge), and inwardly (inaudibly in the mind or heart). Representatives of this position are Jack Deere, John Wimber, the Kansas City Prophets, the Assemblies of God and the Word of Faith movement. Charismatic author Tommy Tenney, in his popular book The God Chasers, writes,

God chasers…are not interested in camping out on some dusty truth known to everyone. They are after the fresh presence of the Almighty… A true God chaser is not happy with just past truth; he must have present truth. God chasers don’t want to just study the moldy pages of what God has done; they are anxious to see what God is doing.1

Classical Mysticism/Spiritual Formation

Through the use of various disciplines and spiritual exercises, God will speak to us both audibly and inaudibly. Dallas Willard and Richard Foster are two such examples. Willard, a leader within the Spiritual Formation Movement, recently updated a previous book renaming it Hearing God, Developing a Conversational Relationship with God. The thrust of his book is that we can live “the kind of life where hearing God is not an uncommon occurrence, [for] hearing God is but one dimension of a richly interactive relationship and obtaining guidance is but one facet of hearing God.”2 In other words, the maturing Christian should expect to hear the voice of God on a regular basis, independent from Scripture, and that voice will reveal God’s individual, specific will for his life. Such personal communication from the Lord, we are told, is absolutely essential because without it there can be no intimate walk with God.3 And it is those who are hearing from God today, in this way, who will redefine “Christian spirituality for our time.”4

Evangelical Mysticism

God is speaking to Christians regularly, mostly inaudibly through inner voices, hunches, promptings, feelings and circumstances (examples: Henry Blackaby and Beth Moore). Southern Baptists ministers Henry and Richard Blackaby wrote Hearing God’s Voice to “teach God’s people not only to recognize his voice but also immediately to obey his voice when they heard it.”5 They promise that “as you spend time with Jesus, you will gradually come to recognize his voice more readily than you did at first…You won’t be fooled by other voices because you know your Lord’s voice so well.”6 And, once you have figured out when God is speaking to you, “write it down in a journal so you can refer back to it as you follow him.”7

In this category could be placed the New Calvinists or Calvinistic Charismatics such as John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Mark Driscoll and C. J. Mahaney. Their followers are sometimes called the young, restless, and Reformed.

Mark Driscoll, who often claims extra-biblical revelation, dreams, and visions from the Lord, documented four such events in his recent book Real Marriage. He writes, “…when God spoke to me, I had never experienced anything like that moment. God told me to devote my life to four things. He told me to marry Grace, preach the Bible, train men, and plant churches. Since that day in 1990, that’s what I have been pursuing by God’s grace.”8

Cessationist

All miraculous gifts, including prophecy, have ceased (examples: the IFCA International, John MacArthur and Charles Ryrie). The Westminster Confession states well the historic cessationist position,

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: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.9

Cautious, but Open

Those holding this position are skeptical of prophetic claims and the majority of inaudible experiences. But they do not want to “put God in a box” and therefore are cautiously open to the possibility of additional revelation from the Lord today, although they are not certain how this works or how to identify God’s voice. Nevertheless, they are afraid to limit the power of God and fear that they might be missing out on a close personal relationship with the Lord if they do not allow for the possibility of God speaking today apart from Scripture (examples: most Christians).

Modern Revelations

Continuationists, those who believe that the miraculous sign gifts, including prophecy, are still available to believers today, define their supposed revelations in different ways. There are two broad categories that could be acknowledged, the first of which claims prophetic messages from the Lord. Such messages would be direct, clear words from God or angels, perhaps in dreams or visions or through audible voices. Such claims have long been common in Pentecostal and charismatic circles and are increasing among non-charismatic evangelicals. Extremely popular conference speaker and author Beth Moore is well known for her claims of hearing from God. In a DVD she states, “Boy, this is the heart of our study. This is the heart of our study. Listen carefully. What God began to say to me about five years ago, and I’m telling you it sent me on such a trek with Him, that my head is still whirling over it. He began to say to me, ‘I’m going to tell you something right now, Beth, and boy you write this one down and you say it as often as I give you utterance to say it.’”10 Such statements coming from evangelicals are far too common to need much documentation. Moore is claiming a direct word from the Lord that sets the future agenda for her ministry. The source of authority is her own experience.

From a more doctrinal base we turn to theologian Wayne Grudem, who has had a massive impact on the evangelical world concerning modern prophecies. Grudem has written the definitive book on the subject, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, in which he claims that church age prophecy is different than Old Testament prophecy. While the Old Testament prophet was held to the standard of infallibility when speaking a word from the Lord (Deut 18:20-24), prophecies beginning with Pentecost are fallible and imperfect. He writes, “Prophecy in ordinary New Testament churches was not equal to Scripture in authority, but simply a very human—and sometimes partially mistaken—report of something the Holy Spirit brought to someone’s mind.”11 Modern prophecy then is impure and imperfect. By way of example and documentation Grudem quotes the Anglican charismatic leaders Dennis and Rita Bennet who claim,

We are not expected to accept every word spoken through the gifts of utterance…but we are only to accept what is quickened to us by the Holy Spirit and is in agreement with the Bible…one manifestation may be 75% God, but 25% the person’s own thoughts. We must discern between the two.”12

One of the most disconcerting aspects of Grudem’s position is his uncertainty as to how we can distinguish between our own thoughts and those supposedly from God. This is such an important and disturbing feature of the conservative continuationist’s system that I will quote Grudem at length.

But how would a person know if what came to mind was a “revelation” from the Holy Spirit? Paul did not write specific instructions; nonetheless, we may suppose that in practice such a decision would include both an objective and subjective element. Objectively, did the revelation conform with what the prophet knew of the Old Testament Scriptures and with apostolic teaching?13

With this quote cessationists partially agree. The Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself and anything allegedly spoken by the Holy Spirit which is in disagreement with Scripture is naturally spurious. The continuationists, however, are rarely claiming new doctrines that supplement Scripture; they are claiming specific, personal words that guide them in decision making or knowledge of the future. It should be mentioned in passing that contrary to what is often stated by continuationists, many espousing modern prophecies do in fact add numerous doctrines not found or taught in the Bible such as specific demonic warfare techniques, insights on heaven or hell, “word of faith” authority that releases the power of God, dominion theology, novel views on the atonement, inspiration and ecclesiology. While more conservative continuationists such as Grudem, Piper, and Mahaney would not be guilty of such theological additions, many others are.

Turning back to Grudem we read of his subjective element of prophecy,

But there was no doubt also a subjective element of personal judgement: did the revelation ‘seem like’ something from the Holy Spirit; did it seem to be similar to other experiences of the Holy Spirit which he had known previously in worship…Beyond this it is difficult to specify much further, except to say that over time a congregation would probably become more adept at making evaluations of prophecies, and individual prophets would also benefit from those evaluations and become more adept at recognizing a genuine revelation from the Holy Spirit and distinguishing it from their own thoughts.14

When we contrast Grudem’s view of prophecy with Scripture we find nothing remotely resembling what Grudem teaches. Nowhere in the Bible is one receiving a message from God left to wonder if God is speaking to him (with the temporary exception of the young boy Samuel). No one had to ask if what they were hearing “seemed like” the Holy Spirit or matched previous subjective experiences that also “seemed like” the Holy Spirit. They knew without question when God was speaking to them. This is essentially the same teaching that Dallas Willard exerts in Hearing God: “How can you be sure God is speaking to you? The answer is that we learn by experience.”15 Therefore subjective experience becomes the test of authority concerning revelation from God. This is a far cry from what we find in Scripture.

The second half of Grudem’s quote moves into the realm of the incredible. After two thousand years of church history, the best this world-class theologian can offer is that “over time a congregation would probably become more adept at making evaluations of prophecies…” This is a statement of speculation and hope that at some point the church will begin to figure out when a word of revelation is actually coming from the Holy Spirit and when it is the imagination of the speaker.

Let’s put Grudem’s hypothesis to a test. Sister Sally stands up in church and says the Holy Spirit has just revealed to her that an earthquake will flatten much of the city sometime within the next eight weeks. The congregation needs to add earthquake insurance to their properties, pack all their belongings, leave their jobs behind and head to the countryside. What is to be done? Given Grudem’s theory, the congregation knows that at best this prophecy is impure and most likely contains elements that are not from God. The people are then left to evaluate the validity of the revelation just received based on their own experience or other purely subjective means. In the Bible, if a true prophet of God warned of an impending earthquake there would be no doubt as to what to do, but Grudem’s New Testament prophet is unreliable. I have to ask, of what value is such a prophecy? It has no authority or certainty, and may actually lead to bad and even disastrous decisions. These modern prophecies do not have the ring of “thus says the Lord.”

When the different views on modern revelation and prophecies collide, continuationists attempt to pacify cessationists by assuring them that their messages from the Lord are not on par with Scripture. Grudem quotes George Mallone saying:

Prophecy today, although it may be helpful and on occasion overwhelmingly specific, is not in the category of the revelation given to us in the Holy Scripture…. A person may hear the voice of the Lord and be compelled to speak, but there is no assurance that it is pollutant-free. There will be a mixture of flesh and spirit.16

Since almost no one within Christianity (save the cults) is claiming revelation that is equivalent to the Bible, we are left with a dilemma. Is it possible for God to speak in a non-authoritative way? Is it possible for Him to speak something less than His inspired word? The continuationists seem to have invented a novel type of divine revelation, one that contradicts Scripture and defies reason. In the Bible, and logically, either God is speaking or He is not. There is no such thing as partially inspired revelation or the true words from the Lord polluted by the misunderstanding or imagination of the prophet. This is not to say that all of God’s divine words are found in Scripture. John is careful to inform us that Jesus did many things, and certainly said many things, that are not recorded in his Gospel (John 20:30), or the other New Testament books for that matter. Yet all that Jesus said were the words of God. He never expressed an impure or untruthful thought. He spoke with authority. Undoubtedly the Spirit also spoke through various men and women in biblical times whose words were not recorded in the Bible. The point, however, is that, while the Holy Spirit has not included every prophecy that He spoke through humans in Scripture, everything that He inspired people to say carries with it the infallible authority of the Word of God. Nothing that He said through people is less than God’s word. A polluted or partial revelation from the Holy Spirit has never been uttered.

This means that modern prophecies, words of knowledge, and other claims to hearing the voice of the Lord, if they are truly from the Holy Spirit, must be equal to the Scriptures in both inspiration and authority. God cannot speak with other than purity and inerrancy. Modern claims of the Lord speaking but with a “mixture of flesh and spirit” simply are not possible and are never attested to in Scripture. Those who are claiming divine revelation today must wrestle with the fact that what they are supposedly hearing must carry the same authority of the divinely inspired authors of Scripture.

(Next week: Part 2—“A Case for Cessationism”)

Notes

1 Tommy Tenney, The God Chasers (Shippensburg, Pa: Destiny Image, 2000), unnumbered pages in introduction (emphasis his).

2 Dallas Willard, Hearing God, Developing a Conversational Relationship With God, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), pp. 12,13.

3 Ibid., pp. 26, 31, 67.

4 Ibid., p. 15.

5 Henry and Richard Blackaby, Hearing God’s Voice (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers), 2002, p. 234.

6 Ibid., p. 235.

7 Ibid., p. 236.

8 Mark and Grace Driscoll, Real Marriage, the Truth about Sex, Friendship and Life Together (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2012), p. 8. For more of Mark Driscoll’s claims of extra-biblical revelations see his book Confessions of a Reformission Rev, Hard Lesson from an Emerging Missional Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), pp. 39, 74-75, 97, 99,128, 130.

9 The Westminster Confession, chapter 1, section 6.

10 Quoted from Beth Moore’s DVD “Believing God.”

11 Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, (Wheaton: Crossway,1988), p.14.

12 Ibid., p.110.

13 Ibid., p.120.

14 Ibid., pp. 120, 121 (emphasis mine).

15 Dallas Willard, p. 9 (emphasis mine).

16 Wayne Grudem., p. 111.

[node:bio/gary-gilley body]

Steve Davis's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 7/25/09
Posts: 284
Room for another position?

This is a good overview of various positions. One subcategory of the cautious but open position might be what I call soft cessationism or missiological position. I agree with the author "that God is speaking to His people today exclusively through Scripture." However in pioneer missionary regions where there is no Scripture I do believe God has and does work in ways analogous to first century times. That is, I do not believe God speaks apart from Scripture where Scripture is accessible. Once Scripture has penetrated a region/culture/people then there is no longer a need for God to communicate through any medium besides Scripture. When I wrote on this is the past I was accused of being open to Charismatics and present-day prophets which is laughable. But I can't be what the author calls a "true cessationist" because I think that position in seeking to counter error goes to far in the other direction.

Jim's picture
Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 6483
Excellent article

My own view = "Cessationist" 

 

 

James K's picture
Offline
Since
Sun, 8/29/10
Posts: 892
I love the claim that

I love the claim that cessationists are treading water.  Truth is determined by votes and the majority after all.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

SBashoor's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 1/18/11
Posts: 103
Circular Cessationism

Steve Davis wrote:

One subcategory of the cautious but open position might be what I call soft cessationism or missiological position.

Steve, other names for your view are "Perimeter Cessationism" and "Circular Cessationism" as opposed to traditional Cessationism which could be viewed as chronologically linear, expiring in the early centuries.  I think it's called "perimeter" or "circular" because it sees cessation as being in place once the perimeter of the Gospel and/or Scriptural revelation expands to previously unreached places and peoples.

 

 

M. Scott Bashoor Happy Slave of Christ

Steve Davis's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 7/25/09
Posts: 284
By any other name

SBashoor wrote:

Steve Davis wrote:

One subcategory of the cautious but open position might be what I call soft cessationism or missiological position.

Steve, other names for your view are "Perimeter Cessationism" and "Circular Cessationism" as opposed to traditional Cessationism which could be viewed as chronologically linear, expiring in the early centuries.  I think it's called "perimeter" or "circular" because it sees cessation as being in place once the perimeter of the Gospel and/or Scriptural revelation expands to previously unreached places and peoples.

Thanks Scott. I hadn't heard of those names but they seem to fit well and I like your explanation. 

Steve

 

 

James K's picture
Offline
Since
Sun, 8/29/10
Posts: 892
Althought Grudem and Piper

Althought Grudem and Piper are popular on this issue, no one can produce a single instance where the NT ever saw a "prophet" with the gift legitimately get something wrong.  You can't be wrong with the gift, but both of those guys allow for it.  It is an argument outside of Scripture and therefore not something you can authoritatively prove.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

SBashoor's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 1/18/11
Posts: 103
I heard Grudem address this once

He was guest lecturing on biblical manhood and womanhood, and in the course of Q&A over several days, he was asked if he was going to reply to David Farnell's 4 part BibSac critique of his views on fallible prophecy. He admitted that Farnell's articles were impactful and deserved a response. But with self-noted amusement, he said he hadn't responded yet because he hadn't yet felt led to by the Spirit.

 

M. Scott Bashoor Happy Slave of Christ

Offline
Since
Sat, 2/13/10
Posts: 9
"God Chasers" -- what a great...! Oh, wait

Here's irony for you.

 

I read that title "God Chasers," and the subsequent quotation, and I thought, "Yes, great. That's a perfect title!" And I thought the quotation was right-on, too. I've often lamented the mindset of the sad Charismatic, whose discontentment with Christ and the Gospel and the Word impels him constantly to run about here and there, after the latest fad or outpouring...

 

Trouble is, I didn't realize that the author was an advocate, not a critic; and that he was making this statement affirmatively, rather than disapprovingly.

 

Well, that explains how it was a million-seller.

 

Sigh.

Alex Guggenheim's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 1585
SBashoor wrote: Steve Davis

SBashoor wrote:

Steve Davis wrote:

One subcategory of the cautious but open position might be what I call soft cessationism or missiological position.

Steve, other names for your view are "Perimeter Cessationism" and "Circular Cessationism" as opposed to traditional Cessationism which could be viewed as chronologically linear, expiring in the early centuries.  I think it's called "perimeter" or "circular" because it sees cessation as being in place once the perimeter of the Gospel and/or Scriptural revelation expands to previously unreached places and peoples.

Made-up terms so that one can pretend to still be in the group with a "new tag" which says they are still part of the group, though they are not. This reminds me of political columnists or people like Colin Powell who claim to be Republican but think and act like a Democrat. Maybe it is important for some to keep telling themselves they are some kind of cessationist when they are not.

But to this "pioneering missionary", "unreached places" or "missiological" view of the apostolic sign gifts. Never minding the stupendous logical  inconsistencies in its proprietary approach as it arbitrarily sets never before seen boundaries and definitions in the Bible for things like when, where and why tongues occur or the meaning of NT prophecy and/or the gift itself but the hermeneutic basis for its construction is consistently irreconcilable with itself. That is the principles upon which these claims are made are contradicted, regularly, by textual contexts otherwise.

Take Davis' statement:

However in pioneer missionary regions where there is no Scripture I do believe God has and does work in ways analogous to first century times. That is, I do not believe God speaks apart from Scripture where Scripture is accessible. Once Scripture has penetrated a region/culture/people then there is no longer a need for God to communicate through any medium besides Scripture.

Okay, so he believes this...because? This is not derived by way of rigorous exegesis and an arduous hermeneutic, rather it is borne from one of the most common sources of such errant conclusions, namely rationalism.

And here is a good case of heavy rationalism which, in turn, uses the Bible to then support its views. Thus it is a deduction of reason, not a theological deduction because this view does not come from Biblical texts in which this is explicated or implied.  Rather it is merely a rationalistic determination. In other words, "Hey, this makes sense so it must be and my further exploration and interpretation of the Scriptures will affirm this".

No doubt some passages will be appealed to but none of them ever contain what is asserted nor when compared to one another do they genuinely produce this overarching theme, rather this must be read into passages which is the second basis for this theory, eisegesis. And where you find rationalism you will find eisegesis.

And thirdly, where you find rationalism and eisegesis you will find and undue reliance upon empiricism. To those who hold to the above this is the trifecta which replaces what we referred to above as essentials to sound theology, a rigorous exegesis and arduous hermeneutic which, as a vetting mechanism, chews up and spits out bad or unsound theology.

So let us look at the claim, "However in pioneer missionary regions where there is no Scripture I do believe God has and does work in ways analogous to first century times. That is, I do not believe God speaks apart from Scripture where Scripture is accessible. Once Scripture has penetrated a region/culture/people then there is no longer a need for God to communicate through any medium besides Scripture.".

One of Many Examples of the Inconsistency of Its Approach

How did God work in first century times? Right, among the Jews the Scriptures were pouring out of  their mouths and into their ears yet, the apostolic sign gifts where there in full force. Above, while Davis asserts that God works like he did in the first century and describes first century times where Scripture had not penetrated a "region/culture/people" the facts exist to starkly contrast this foundational part of his theological postulate because in the first century, when and where the apostolic sign gifts were operating, the Scriptures had permeated a "region./culture/people".

This is but one blatant and rather stark inconsistency which Davis and others who hold to this paper lion theory face.

Let me add to this "one example" something important. Davis asserts that Scripture must permeate a "region/culture/people". Maybe to some this sounds good, I don't know but to a person trained to ask question I would immediately inquire what hermeneutic permitted him to determine and conclude this heterodox "region/culture/people" permeation threshold? The answer is found in what was described above, it is a rationalistic threshold, not one derived from Scripture or modeled  in Scripture and contradicted, immediately and exhaustively, by the example above.

No doubt with this objection what normally follows is a honing and an attempted clarification of the precise context of what was meant which really ends up causing those who hold to this unsustainable view to paint themselves further into a corner when pressed by rebuttals regarding this more defined context.

Then, when all the assertions are vetted and found failing, they either ignore counter arguments as if they do not exist, respond in a non seqitur manner, select irrelevant portions or minor points not as germane as the core of the rebuttal and interact only with those to avoid having to confront the evidence, introduce ad hominems or disappear from the vetting process to the comforting arms of companions who share their theological miscalculation.

However, my "prophecies" regarding their probable actions in any setting where such arguments are to be made should be taken just as that, Grudem prophecies and subject to error. Heh heh.

Very clear and well written article by Gilley.

Offline
Since
Wed, 7/22/09
Posts: 22
Good rebuttal post.  I would

Good rebuttal post.  I would agree.  God reaches the unreached when He desires, and does so by bringing them a person who brings them the truth of Scripture.  Romans 10:14-15  How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?  15 How will they preach unless they are sent?

The obvious implied response is that people will not hear the word of God without a person bringing it to them.  Hence the roll of the missionary.  Not by some revelatory gift. 

Too many people rationalize answers to questions such as this one, "What about the natives in deepest, darkest Africa?  God wouldn't send them to hell when they have never heard the gospel, would He?  That wouldn't be fair!"  It's appalling that we feel that we need to "apologize" for God's methods by rationalizing an unbiblical response so that the unsaved or untaught can feel better about who God is and how God chooses to act. 

Romans 9:21-23  Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?  22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?  23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,

 

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.