A Case for Cessationism

With all of this as a backdrop (see part 1 in this series), the question is reduced to this: Is God giving authoritative revelation on par with that which He has given in the past, much of which has been inscripturated, or is He not? If He is, then the church of Christ needs to take note and come into compliance with the modern prophecy movement, following its revelations as it would Scripture. But if the Lord is not revealing His inspired word today, then we need to reject the claims of the modern prophets and expose these supposed revelations for what they are. This means the position taken by most on prophecy—cautious but open—is untenable. The cautious but open crowd is skeptical of the claims coming from the prophetic movement and they are suspicious of the many “words from God” that so many evangelicals are claiming. Still they hesitate to embrace cessationism. They are concerned about limiting God or, as it was mentioned above, “putting God in a box.” To this let me make two replies:

  • It is okay to put God in a box if God, in fact, is the One who put Himself in that box. In other words, God can do anything He wants to do, but we expect God to do what He says He will do. If God has put Himself in the cessationist box we can embrace and proclaim it.
  • Taking the open but cautious view really does not hold up. Either God is speaking today apart from His Word or He is not. If He is speaking, how do we determine which of the multitude of messages people claim are from Him and which are bogus? If, with Grudem, we have eliminated the tests of Deuteronomy 13 and 18, how are we to evaluate all these revelations? How do we know to whom we should listen and whom we should ignore?

On such an important area as divine revelation it is indefensible to believe that God’s people cannot know with certainty whether such is taking place. Surely we should expect that the Scriptures themselves would lay out the guidelines for us to determine if divine, authoritative, inspired revelation is being given today. I believe it does and that we can be confident, from the witness of Scripture itself, that God has ceased speaking to mankind during this age apart from the Bible. Let’s take a quick look at what the Word has to say.

A cessationist view begins with a careful look at what God actually did in Scripture. We find, when we search carefully, that God was not speaking to everyone all the time. His revelation, even in biblical times, was rare and when He did speak it was always supernaturally with an audible voice, never through inner voices or impressions. The assumption held by many that God spoke to most of his children in biblical times is simply not true. The average believer in either Testament never received a personal word from God and even the majority of key players never heard the voice of God personally. When God did speak in Scripture it almost always dealt with the big picture of what He was doing in the outworking of His redemptive program or the life of His people in general. You will search in vain to find God instructing someone to take a job, purchase a number of donkeys, or buy a house—except as it related to the bigger issue of God’s dealings with His people. Beyond a few individuals, finding a non-prophetic person in Scripture who heard directly from God becomes a difficult task. The contention that God spoke to almost everyone all the time, leading, guiding and directing, simply does not stand the test of careful examination of the Scriptures. Even those to whom God spoke in the Old Testament, to only Noah, Abraham, Moses (considered to be a prophet), Jacob, Aaron, Joshua, David and Solomon, did He speak more than twice in their lifetimes?

But what about the New Testament? We find that most records of God speaking to individuals after Pentecost are found in the book of Acts. But even here we find only thirteen distinct times in which God spoke directly to individuals (two of these through angels): Acts 8:26-29; 9:4, 10; 10:3, 11-16; 12:7-8; 13:2-4; 16:6,9-10; 18:9; 21:4, 11; 22:17-21; 23:11. Eight of these occasions were to Paul or Peter, leaving a total of five other individuals or groups to whom God spoke directly in the first 30 years of church history.

The positive evidence

So far, we have examined what might be called negative evidence. That is, if we are looking for a pattern of how God spoke to individuals in scriptural times, that pattern reveals a scarcity of individual revelations. The Lord chose to speak primarily through His prophets and the apostles. Following that pattern we should expect the same today. Let’s now move to more positive evidence that the Lord has ceased speaking today apart from Scripture.

Beginning with Ephesians 2:20, we find that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” Since Christ is the cornerstone of the church, this verse has to be speaking of the witness concerning Christ that the apostles and prophets provided to the church. It is only to be expected that this witness would be passed along to the future generations of believers via the instrument of Scriptures that those men were inspired to write. As Ephesians 3:5 tells us, the “mystery of Christ” has been “made known to the sons of men through the revelation given to Christ’s holy apostles and prophets.” In the next chapter, Paul teaches that the Lord has provided gifted men to the church for its perfection or maturity. The apostles’ and prophets’ role in that process was laying the foundation of the church, as we have seen (Eph 2:20; 3:5). How? Through the teaching of New Testament truth, the apostles’ doctrine. The early church gathered together to devote “themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42), for it was the apostles who would provide New Testament revelation.

The book of Hebrews enhances our understanding by detailing two periods in human history in which the Lord has spoken to mankind. Hebrews 1:1 proclaims that the first period was “long ago to the fathers and prophets in many portions and in many ways.” This is an obvious reference to the revelations given during the times of the Old Testament. In verse two the author of Hebrews cites the second period of divine revelation by simply saying that “in these last days [God] has spoken through His Son.” But as we know Jesus Himself did not write down anything that He said. That was left to His followers and so, the author of Hebrews adds: “After it was first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard” (Heb 2:3) i.e. the apostles. This however raises a practical problem. How did the people know that the communication they were receiving from the apostles was true? After all, many individuals made claim to being an apostle during the first century. The Lord would authenticate His true apostles by giving them the ability to perform “signs and wonders, and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit” (Heb 2:4). When the Corinthians challenged Paul’s apostleship and authority, he pointed them to the “signs of a true apostle… [which were] signs and wonders and miracles” (2 Cor 12:12), just as the author of Hebrews confirmed. The book of Acts verifies repeatedly that miraculous gifts were taking place through the apostles for this very reason (Acts 2.43; 5:12, 13; 9:38-41; 14:3, 8-9; 15:12; 19:11; 20:10; 28:8, 9). The only exceptions were Stephen (6:8), Philip (8:6-7) and possibly Barnabas (15:12), all very closely associated with the apostles. We find no examples of the average Christian in the New Testament either performing miracles or receiving authoritative revelation. Miracles were for the purpose of authenticating the office of the men who would lay the foundation of the church. Once the foundation of the church was in place, the role of the apostles was no longer needed. With the death of John, the last of the apostles, gifts authenticating the apostles were no longer necessary and they ceased.

But did that necessarily mean revelation ceased as well? I believe the evidence of Scripture would indicate that it did. We start with 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, which clearly tells us that the day comes when prophecy and supernatural knowledge will be done away, and tongues will cease. Specifically Paul writes that “when the perfect comes the partial will be done away.” All Bible believers are ultimately cessationists, for this passage is clear that revelatory knowledge will cease at some point (that point being when the perfect comes). Many believe that the “perfect” refers to the coming of Christ or the eternal kingdom. That is a possible interpretation but the context is contrasting partial knowledge and revelatory gifts with that which is perfect. The best explanation in such a context would be that the perfect (or complete) would be the completion of Scripture.

In other words, when the revelation for this dispensation as recorded in the New Testament is completed the need for partial words of knowledge and prophecies would cease. That is, because the final, full revelation of the Lord for this dispensation has arrived, there is no need for additional messages from God. This seems reasonable, but did it happen?

This understanding of the perfect in 1 Corinthians 13 is reinforced later in the New Testament by Peter, Jude, Paul and John. When the apostle Peter pens the inspired epistle we call Second Peter, he is desirous of reminding them of many things, especially that they “remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles” (3:2). Peter did not point his readers to new or fresh revelation but to the words spoken previously by the prophets and apostles. Jude offers similar understanding when in verse three he urges his readers to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” A message had been given, a foundation laid once for all that had to be defended. How did they know what that message was? In verse 17 Jude answers, “But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The faith in verse three that was handed down to them, the faith that was to be defended and proclaimed, had been given to them by none other than the apostles.

As the apostle Paul writes virtually his last inspired words to his friend Timothy he points him to the Scriptures that are able to make the people of God “adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17). In light of this lofty claim for the God-breathed Scriptures, Paul gives Timothy a final charge “to preach the word…” (4:1-5). There is no hint in Paul’s charge that Timothy is to seek additional revelation, listen to the prophecies or words of knowledge of fellow believers or preach his own dreams or visions. He is to preach the Word handed down to the saints through the apostles. As the New Testament canon nears its close the divinely inspired authors unite in pointing their readers to the apostles as the inspired human source of New Testament truth.

The apostle John joins the chorus as he closes down the New Testament with a solemn warning against adding to or subtracting from this final revelation from God. He writes, “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book” (Rev 22:18-19). Since this is the last chapter in the last book of the last Testament it is only reasonable to deduce that from that point on any addition of any prophecy would be adding to Scripture. With the death of John shortly thereafter, the last of the apostles had faded from the scene and with him the final word of revelation for this age. In addition there is no indication either the twelve apostles or the New Testament prophets were ever replaced (Rev 21:14).

Conclusion

The witness emerging from the Scriptures themselves is that God has chosen to communicate with mankind throughout history in specific and unique ways. He has chosen certain men at certain times to be prophets and apostles to speak and record divine revelation (Heb 1:1-2; 2:3-4). When God’s revelation was complete for this age, the ministry of the prophets and apostles was finished and we would expect no further communication at this time. This expectation is verified through the statements found in the Bible itself. What we are seeing today is not new revelation from God but subjective experiences and, at times, deception.

[node:bio/gary-gilley body]

16279 reads

There are 47 Comments

Ed Vasicek's picture

Alex, help me out.  Paul says if a prophet gets a revelation, the other (I assume prophet) who is speaking is to stop and let him speak.  Do we agree on this?

 

If one prophet is to interrupt another prophet (who is to give way), then what the interrupted prophet was saying must not be as important as what the second prophet is going to say because he had a revelation. Therefore, the first prophet must not have had a revelation.

 

I am not trying to be stubborn, I am trying to understand where we are not communicating.

"The Midrash Detective"

Alex Guggenheim's picture

That us an assumption on your part which frankly is contrary to the text. The text says let 2 or 3 prophets speak. It simply gives an order which is to be silent while the other speaks. And then weigh it. So more than one is speaking just not interrupting one another or wrongly valuing their revelation as superior thus warranting talking over one another which was the problem with prophecies and tongues at Corinth, their indiscriminate use.

Ed Vasicek's picture

Alex Guggenheim wrote:
That us an assumption on your part which frankly is contrary to the text. The text says let 2 or 3 prophets speak. It simply gives an order which is to be silent while the other speaks. And then weigh it. So more than one is speaking just not interrupting one another or wrongly valuing their revelation as superior thus warranting talking over one another which was the problem with prophecies and tongues at Corinth, their indiscriminate use.

 

Thanks, Alex, for your patience.  I guess we simply read this text differently.

"The Midrash Detective"

Alex Guggenheim's picture

You are welcome but it required no patience though the compliment is appreciated. It was apparent from the onset that we read the passage differently. I think what us of greatest issue is the why there we differ on the interpretation, i.e. hermeneutics. You offered an interpretation and I rebutted it yet upon gaining clarity of my explanation you offered no cross examination of my argument or demonstration of its error. You seem simply satisfied with holding to an interpretation while being offered a rebuttal which holds an argument that counters yours which offers both points as to where and why yours errs and its own case which appears you are either unwilling or unable to counter. If anything it ought to lead to a neutralization of your certainty about the passage until you are able to deconstruct my arguments. But then maybe you do not wish to go so far in the discussion but that would beg the question of go only half way. Nevertheless, thanks as well.

Ed Vasicek's picture

Alex, I am trying to be a gentlemen.  I understand your opinion, but I think it is a strained reading of the text.  Mine seems much more natural.  A prophet is talking, but has not had a revelation. Another prophet gets a revelation, so the first man yields the floor to the second because of this.  Normally prophets are not receiving revelations, so they simply stagger themselves by taking turns.  My viewpoint is that NT prophets rarely had revelations, but often had leadings or felt burdened to say something.  My viewpoint is that it is this latter aspect of prophecy that is probably with us today, while revelations or legitimate visions are rare.

 

I am reading into the text, obviously, but the text makes no sense to me if one prophet has a revelation and is sharing it, meanwhile another prophet gets a revelation and the first must now sit down.

 

Since you have not convinced me of your interpretation nor I or mine, we are simply at an impasse and should agree to disagree in a respectful manner.  That is what I am trying to do.

"The Midrash Detective"

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Ed,

You explained you are reading into the text. What is the basis for your inference. I still do not see anyplace in the NT that demonstrates, describes, explains, commands or teaches about these inner burdens, as you call them. 

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Alex Guggenheim's picture

Ed Vasicek wrote:

Alex, I am trying to be a gentlemen.  I understand your opinion, but I think it is a strained reading of the text.  Mine seems much more natural.  A prophet is talking, but has not had a revelation. Another prophet gets a revelation, so the first man yields the floor to the second because of this.  Normally prophets are not receiving revelations, so they simply stagger themselves by taking turns.  My viewpoint is that NT prophets rarely had revelations, but often had leadings or felt burdened to say something.  My viewpoint is that it is this latter aspect of prophecy that is probably with us today, while revelations or legitimate visions are rare.

 

I am reading into the text, obviously, but the text makes no sense to me if one prophet has a revelation and is sharing it, meanwhile another prophet gets a revelation and the first must now sit down.

 

Since you have not convinced me of your interpretation nor I or mine, we are simply at an impasse and should agree to disagree in a respectful manner.  That is what I am trying to do.

I believe you have been respectful as I have. But we are debating and in a debate if you cannot demonstrate the error of your opponent's view it is rather primary facie that you forfeit claims of certainty regarding your own.

You have as well simply "read into" the text
which is a violation of elementary hermeneutics and this does not disturb you in the least it seems not sufficiently for you to realize this is not a valid interpretive method thus tempering you certainty.

Finally we certainly disagree and can agree to disagree but if you believe such an agreement must be predicated upon no one pressing the other for more details or pointing out their failure to rebut and to do so is not gentlemanly then may I suggest you get out if the practice of debating and discussing theology because such suggestions are only moralizing and posturing tactics which pour water on things.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

if you cannot demonstrate the error of your opponent's view it is rather primary facie that you forfeit claims of certainty regarding your own

FWIW, this is actually not valid reasoning. For example, if someone took the position that a year ago today, I wore pink leather pants to my office, I'd be hard pressed to prove his claim is incorrect. Nonetheless I am absolutely certain I didn't do that.

In any case, there's rarely much to gain from debating about debating... And granting an opponent the right to be certain if he wants to be doesn't strengthen his thesis or weaken your own.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Ed Vasicek's picture

Alex, I do not think your position has anything to commend it.  My position might be wrong, but it at least works with the text.  Yet it is a deductive approach, postulating an idea that at least allows for a natural reading.

 

If prophecy only equals revelation, then prophets should take turns speaking.  No prophet should have to yield to any other prophet.  If prophecy includes more than receiving a revelation, and if revelations are the exception, then the prophet speaking (without a clear revelation) should yield to a revelation being given to another prophet.  That makes perfect sense to me.  Your position creates the very chaos Paul is trying to avoid, people interrupting one another and the resultant confusion.

 

My position could be wrong, IMO, but, IMO, yours has to be.

Ben Witherington suggests something similar, though I take it a bit further:

Verse 30 suggests that the prophet stood while prophesying and others sat. If a revelation suddenly came to one sitting, the one standing was to stop speaking, the implication being that it was more crucial to get this fresh word from God while it was being transmitted to one sitting.  This, too, suggests that Christian prophecy, which involved words of comfort, exhortation, challenge, and edification, was not of such a crucial nature that one would not dare interrupt or judge it...

 

"The Midrash Detective"

Dan Miller's picture

Quote:
We start with 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, which clearly tells us that the day comes when prophecy and supernatural knowledge will be done away, and tongues will cease. Specifically Paul writes that “when the perfect comes the partial will be done away.” All Bible believers are ultimately cessationists, for this passage is clear that revelatory knowledge will cease at some point (that point being when the perfect comes). Many believe that the “perfect” refers to the coming of Christ or the eternal kingdom. That is a possible interpretation [b]but the context is contrasting partial knowledge and revelatory gifts with that which is perfect[/b]. The best explanation in such a context would be that the perfect (or complete) would be the completion of Scripture.
But if you look carefully, I think perhaps you'll see this slightly differently.
Paul is talking about tongues* ceasing and why they will cease. He give the analogy of youth and childish things. Here's the analogy and where tongues fit in:
State of Youth -----> childish things ; Manhood -----> Stop childish things.
Partial knowledge -----> tongues ; Full knowledge -----> Stop tongues.

Paul's message: When "to teleion" is come, "to ek merous" will be discontinued.
Analogy: When I became a man, I gave up childish things.
In the analogy, the exchange is not of like things. That would be "When I became a man, I ceased to be a child." Or "When I did manly things, I stopped childish things." The state of adulthood brings about the loss of the features of childhood. We should expect that the analogy corresponds to the message. Therefore, we should expect that the state of "to teleion" brings about the loss of the features of "to ek merous."
And indeed, the difference is actually there in the message. When "to teleion" is come, "to ek merous" will cease. Not the "merous"; not the partial. But the "ek merous"; the "out of (or from) partial." "Out of" can be origin of place (I'm out of Iowa), biological (I'm out of James), or logical (I bang my keyboard out of frustration; my frustration is the source of the banging). In v. 10, merous is the logical origin of the referent. "Merous" is the logical origin of that about which Paul is speaking. If I then say, "When I calm down, things done out of frustration will stop" You know I'm saying that a new state brings an end to the features of the old state.
1 Corinthians 13:8-12 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when [to telion] comes, "to ek merous" will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

For Paul, "to telion" means that he will know fully. He won't understand things in a fuzzy way like looking in a poor mirror - but clearly as when you look at the real thing face to face. He will know fully - just as he has been fully known. This, to me, seems like a higher level of knowledge than what we have in our hands right now. That's why I believe that "to telion" is "the completion." It's the end and summing up of all things.
* I'll use "tongues" for miraculous gifts in general.

Quote:
In other words, when the revelation for this dispensation as recorded in the New Testament is completed the need for partial words of knowledge and prophecies would cease. That is, because the final, full revelation of the Lord for this dispensation has arrived, there is no need for additional messages from God. This seems reasonable, but did it happen?
This understanding of the perfect in 1 Corinthians 13 is reinforced later in the New Testament by Peter, Jude, Paul and John.
 When the apostle Peter pens the inspired epistle we call Second Peter, he is desirous of reminding them of many things, especially that they “remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles” (3:2). Peter did not point his readers to new or fresh revelation but to the words spoken previously by the prophets and apostles. Jude offers similar understanding when in verse three he urges his readers to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” A message had been given, a foundation laid once for all that had to be defended. How did they know what that message was? In verse 17 Jude answers, “But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The faith in verse three that was handed down to them, the faith that was to be defended and proclaimed, had been given to them by none other than the apostles.
This doesn't follow. You seem to be arguing that these authors believed tongues* had ceased at the time of their writing. But…
1. You're arguing from what they didn't say.
2. Since canon was not finished, their writing could not possibly be supporting cessation based on them believing "to telion" was completed canon and that it was fulfilled.

 

By the way, I'm still practically a cessationist.

Alex Guggenheim's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:

if you cannot demonstrate the error of your opponent's view it is rather primary facie that you forfeit claims of certainty regarding your own

FWIW, this is actually not valid reasoning. For example, if someone took the position that a year ago today, I wore pink leather pants to my office, I'd be hard pressed to prove his claim is incorrect. Nonetheless I am absolutely certain I didn't do that.

In any case, there's rarely much to gain from debating about debating... And granting an opponent the right to be certain if he wants to be doesn't strengthen his thesis or weaken your own.

Apple, meet orange.

The context to which you refer is one that cannot be demonstrated, its context is historical and assumes there are no historical pieces of evidence with which to argue such as photographs, thus it is a "he said she said" case. The context which we are debating is one that can be proven, namely a specific Biblical text which remains with us constantly. Hence, your analogy is not valid.

Alex Guggenheim's picture

Ed Vasicek wrote:

Alex, I do not think your position has anything to commend it.  My position might be wrong, but it at least works with the text.  Yet it is a deductive approach, postulating an idea that at least allows for a natural reading.

If prophecy only equals revelation, then prophets should take turns speaking.  No prophet should have to yield to any other prophet.

Who says? This appears to be a rule you have just made up to explain away your view of the function of prophecy.
Ed Vasicek wrote:
If prophecy includes more than receiving a revelation, and if revelations are the exception, then the prophet speaking (without a clear revelation) should yield to a revelation being given to another prophet.
"If" is an assumption and it begs a very big question, what more than "revelation" would prophecy be? That makes little theological sense. Is there something "more than revelation" with regard to receiving divine communication? Revelation is the sum of divine communication, there is something more? But let's again look at what the text says.

29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged,

If there is to be more, you have your work cut out for you because God, through Paul, uses the word revelation to rather emphatically and exclusively refer to prophecy. Yes, it is a certain kind of revelation as the Bible reveals, but categorically revelation without question and certainly viewed this way by Paul in the text. Indeed, it might comfort and encourage but that is a by-product or result of revelation and revelation remains as new information yet revealed by God.

Ed Vasicek wrote:
That makes perfect sense to me.  Your position creates the very chaos Paul is trying to avoid, people interrupting one another and the resultant confusion.
No, my position is simply quoting Paul as to how to go about exercising prophecy. Your problem is not with me but with the order that God, through Paul, said. Paul told one to be silent, that is give way to the other. It does not necessarily mean there is an interruption of the first, you are assuming this. So? Maybe you don't like that but it is not chaos, it is one voice at a time. Yes, it might leave a question or two but it is not a case of chaos, it is simply unfamiliar to you and unexpected, thus unreasonable

Ed Vasicek wrote:
My position could be wrong, IMO, but, IMO, yours has to be.

Ben Witherington suggests something similar, though I take it a bit further:

Verse 30 suggests that the prophet stood while prophesying and others sat. If a revelation suddenly came to one sitting, the one standing was to stop speaking, the implication being that it was more crucial to get this fresh word from God while it was being transmitted to one sitting.  This, too, suggests that Christian prophecy, which involved words of comfort, exhortation, challenge, and edification, was not of such a crucial nature that one would not dare interrupt or judge it...

Dare interrupt? If God has given an order for prophecy then it is not interrupting, it is giving way to God's protocol. It helps Witherington to frame it this way in order to evoke dramatic offense that someone "dare" interrupt but Witherington's problem is with God, not people interrupting because God does not consider it interrupting, rather as the ordained method of prophecy, and again, to insist there is interrupting in mid-stream is just that, an interruption. But even if there is an interruption, ultimately this construct is of divine prescription. Just because it does not appeal to our senses does not give us the warrant to say it simply cannot be.

Now, because the gift is not given nor operates today we do not have the luxury of seeing just how this phenomenon operated in the prescribed manner given.  But concluding that it could not function in the method plainly stated because or that it is not revelation, certainly requires one to ignore the default context and assumption and understanding by the readers who would receive this letter and practiced prophecy at that time, that to prophesy was to receive divine revelation (which we already observed in the use of the words "revelation" and "prophecy" antecedently).

So we have Paul using the words antecedently, prescribing an unfamiliar method for a spiritual gift that no longer operates. Sure, there are questions but proposing with "ifs" and arguing from silence or saying it just can't be so thus, some other explanation must predominate, simply isn't convincing and definitely is the lesser of hermeneutics.

I understand inference and have no problem with them. I can also state what I believe is inferred by this and other texts combined to form reasonable conclusions but I cannot by ignore what is clear to appeal to what ifs that are far less weight, if any.

But thank you for the effort Ed.

 

Ed Vasicek's picture

Alex, my friend and respected brother, we have done a lot of writing but gotten nowhere.

For example, you comment:

Revelation is the sum of divine communication

You are assuming what you are trying to prove.  Prophets are speaking and one sitting receives a revelation.  You are reading into the text that the ones speaking have also received a revelation.  The text does not say that, at least I don't think it does.

Paul, uses the word revelation to rather emphatically and exclusively refer to prophecy.

You are arguing in circles.  This is a logical fallacy.  Because Paul says that sometimes a prophet receives a revelation does not mean that they all always do.  That the guy who is seated received a revelation at that time is a given.  But the prophets speaking are not said to be speaking because they have received a revelation.  Your inference may or may not be correct, but it is not so stated in the text.

Paul, for example, received the Gospel by revelation, but when he shared the Gospel, he was sharing what he had received by revelation years ago, and he further expanded upon what was revealed. 

Galatians 1:18

For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Yet Paul did not label himself a prophet, as far as I know.  So receiving a revelation does not necessarily make one a prophet.  I am not sure exactly what does.

In I Corinthians itself, the idea of a revelation is intermixed with other speaking type happenings:

1 Corinthians 14:6  Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?

1 Corinthians 14:26  What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.

Perhaps all these things were consider prophecy of sorts?

1 Corinthians 14:30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent.

Nowhere is I Corinthians or anywhere I have read in the Bible is Revelation defined as the exact equivalent of Prophecy, although there is a close relationship. The OT prophets are said to receive a word from the Lord. But we do not know that this was the case for the members of the schools of the prophets who prophesied, possibly without an audience.   You are reading your definition into the text.  Your definition may be correct (just as I believe my interpretation is correct), but it should be held as a theory or suggestion, not a fact.  It is important to be upfront when proposing solutions to difficult verses and to distinguish these proposals (which are deductive) from inductive study.

Love you, brother, but I wonder if we could use our time more effectively on some other thread.

"The Midrash Detective"

Alex Guggenheim's picture

Ed,

Thanks and if anything the exercise has done two things:

1. Forced each of us to articulate, if only within ourselves, more precisely our view

2. Given readers things to weigh and planted seeds which may sprout and take root over time, one way or the other.

Ed Vasicek wrote:

Alex, my friend and respected brother, we have done a lot of writing but gotten nowhere.

For example, you comment:

Revelation is the sum of divine communication

You are assuming what you are trying to prove.  Prophets are speaking and one sitting receives a revelation.  You are reading into the text that the ones speaking have also received a revelation.  The text does not say that, at least I don't think it does.

Well this is what he says:

29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged,

You do see that revelation and prophecy are used antecedently. When the prophets speak Paul writes with the understanding it is defacto revelation. It is incumbent upon you to prove otherwise. The text not only uses it antecedently it does so without qualification. That is, it is so understood that prophecy is revelation that it is referred to synonymously as such without having to explain its use.

Just as verse 27 says, "if someone speaks in a tongue" has in view that is what is going on, verse 30 have in view that when one prophesies, he is expressing revelation.

Ed Vasicek wrote:
You are arguing in circles.  This is a logical fallacy.  Because Paul says that sometimes a prophet receives a revelation does not mean that they all always do.  That the guy who is seated received a revelation at that time is a given.  But the prophets speaking are not said to be speaking because they have received a revelation.  Your inference may or may not be correct, but it is not so stated in the text.
Ed, I do not see the word "sometimes" in the text. It appears you have inserted this. Again, the text assumes to prophesy is to have received and to be speaking revelation and does so without qualification. It is incumbent upon you, who objects and claims there is something else in view, to produce it from the text.

Ed Vasicek wrote:
Paul, for example, received the Gospel by revelation, but when he shared the Gospel, he was sharing what he had received by revelation years ago, and he further expanded upon what was revealed. 

Galatians 1:18

For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Yet Paul did not label himself a prophet, as far as I know.  So receiving a revelation does not necessarily make one a prophet.  I am not sure exactly what does.

Never minding the sub-topic of apostolic gifts, I agree with you in principle that to receive revelation does not a prophet make but to receive prophecy is to receive revelation. Prophecy is a class of revelation but still revelation.

Ed Vasicek wrote:
In I Corinthians itself, the idea of a revelation is intermixed with other speaking type happenings:

1 Corinthians 14:6  Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?

1 Corinthians 14:26  What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.

Perhaps all these things were consider prophecy of sorts?

Perhaps but I did notice that Paul, in referencing his earlier comment in verse 6 conglomerates the revelatory gifts (revelation, knowledge and prophecy) under one heading, namely revelation but still distinguishes it from tongues, teaching or hymns which are not revelatory in nature. And this speaks to the understanding that while not all revelation is prophecy, all prophecy is revelation as is was the gift of knowledge.

Ed Vasicek wrote:
Nowhere is I Corinthians or anywhere I have read in the Bible is Revelation defined as the exact equivalent of Prophecy, although there is a close relationship.
I do not disagree in the respect that not all revelation is prophecy but all prophecy is revelation. Prophecy is a sub-class of the major class called revelation.

Ed Vasicek wrote:
Love you, brother, but I wonder if we could use our time more effectively on some other thread.

Ed, as I said earlier I believe the time was well spent for ourselves and others but I understand your concern. Rigorous exercises are at times a bit painful but I believe they bear the best fruit.

Ed Vasicek's picture

Ed, as I said earlier I believe the time was well spent for ourselves and others but I understand your concern. Rigorous exercises are at times a bit painful but I believe they bear the best fruit.

There is no pain here.  I just think we keep repeating ourselves.  You say the text says the prophets already speaking received revelation and I say the text only refers to the one sitting receiving revelation. I see Scripture that says "Jesus said I am the way...no one comes to the Father but by me"   I see no Scripture saying prophecy is only revelation.  I see no Scripture that SAYS the prophets prophesying are sharing a revelation. 

 

The verse use quoted only referred to the seated prophet.  No matter how many times you repeat your assertion, brother, the text does not STATE what you are claiming it states.  This reminds me of Presup Apologetics, "shout louder."

 

So we can go no further, I am afraid, so let's call it an end.

"The Midrash Detective"

Richard Pajak's picture

To pgerard

I'd describe it as a word of knowledge. Cessationists HAVE to dispute this or undermine their theory.

 

Richard Pajak

Pages

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