Eagerly Desire the Gifts, Especially that you may Write Scripture
Last week I posted the first of three articles examining some of the thinking of American pastor and writer Douglas Wilson. Today, the series continues…
In the fifth of his Eleven Theses on Private Spirits, Douglas Wilson writes the following:
There is no way to maintain that the revelatory gifts are ongoing without jeopardising the integrity of the canon of Scripture. If the word given is a Word from God, and we believe that it is, then we must treat it as though it is. God can dispense with His own Words, as He apparently did in the case of Phillip’s daughters, but we have no authority to throw God’s Words away. We must treat such words as the Word of God, which means that we must treat them as Scripture.
This is an interesting argument, in which Wilson says that all instances of God’s word, since they originate from a perfect God, should be treated as infallible. Any genuine revelatory gift displayed in the New Testament, whatever form, be it the utterances of Agabus, the visions of Peter, or the writing of Galatians, constitutes the Word of God and must be treated in an identical manner.
So if I am reading him correctly, Wilson is saying that anybody who ever prophesied in the New Testament era, essentially spoke with the same authority as the Scripture we have in our hands today; it’s just that God decided that a few of them should have their words written down, and others dispensed with.
I find this intriguing, not least because of the sheer breadth of those who would have essentially spoken the infallible Word of God, just narrowly missing out on publication. Such a list would include: Zechariah (Luke 1:67), Ananias (Acts 9:15), Agabus (Acts 11:28; 21:10), Phillip’s four daughters (Acts 21:9), twelve random guys in Ephesus (Acts 19:6-7) and the biggest surprise of all, the High Priest Caiaphas (John 11:51)! Not to mention the (presumably) many people to whom Romans 12:6 and 1 Corinthians 12-14 were addressed. Paul instructed the Corinthians to eagerly desire the gifts, especially prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:1). Was he really encouraging them, as part of their corporate worship, to speak out with words of the same sort of calibre as those of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Romans or Hebrews? Or was he expecting something a little different?
If the early church saw the common practice of revelatory gifts in church meetings as being of the same category as those of the Old Testament prophets, why did they go all liberal and weak on the judging process? Paul said the church should “weigh” the words (1 Cor 14:29) and “test everything; holding fast what is good” (1 Thess 5:20-21). Nothing is said in either of those passages about what to do to an individual who fails the test. Why did Paul not enforce the Deuteronomy 18:20 principle and chuck a boulder at his brother’s skull? And would, for that matter, Wilson follow through with the courage of his cessationist convictions and bludgeon Driscoll to death on stage at The Grace Agenda in September, were he to dare claim any kind of divine revelation? After all such claims “have a high bar for proof, and high consequences for an accuracy average less than 100% (Dt. 18: 21-22). This scenario is activated when the name of God is invoked.”
I presume not (though I would be fascinated to see him try!). And the reason why we find neither Paul nor Wilson enforcing Deuteronomy 18 is that both surely recognise that the kind of prophecy being encouraged of all believers in Corinth, and practiced today by all but the looney-fringe of charismania, is of an entirely different order. Not Driscoll, nor I, nor I imagine Phillip’s third daughter, nor the random man in the fifth pew at Corinth thought that they were uttering prophecy of the same kind of order as the Major Prophets. None of us, I hope beyond hope, would ever claim to be speaking words on par with Scripture. I’m sure there are some within Christendom who claim to have revelation that trumps the Bible. Give me their addresses and a stone; I’ll hop on the next plane and meet you there…
Wilson writes in thesis 6:
The label of non-cessationism does not really solve any problems. What is it exactly that has ceased or not ceased? All orthodox non-cessationists believe that the authority to write Scripture has ceased. So then something has ceased. What is that, and why has it ceased? I would suggest that this would have to be the revelatory gifts on display in the pages of the New Testament. Someone who believes they have gone away entirely is a cessationist, obviously, but so is a man who believes that they are no longer doing the same thing they used to do.
Yes, orthodox non-cessationists believe that the authority to write Scripture has ceased, but we would disagree that this authority is the kind of “revelatory gift on display in the pages of the New Testament.” Agabus was not exercising his authority to write Scripture when he prophesied a famine; he was outworking the promise of Joel 2 that:
In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. (Joel 2:28-29, quoted in Acts 2:17-18)
The availability of prophecy on a wide and unprecedented scale is due to the fact that the Spirit himself is now available to men and women on an unprecedented scale; dwelling within all who believe for the first time in history.
Only a select few had the authority to write Scripture, and even then, not everything they wrote made the cut; hence the lost letters to the Corinthians. It is this authority, possessed by a few, and utilised sparingly, that we believe has ceased, whilst the more widespread practice of prophesying as someone indwelled by the Spirit under the new covenant continues today.
Nor is it the case that the authority to write Scripture belonged only to the authorised apostles, since we have examples of apostles who never wrote Scripture (Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthias, James, Simon the Zealot, Judas and Barnabas) and Scripture not written by apostles (Mark, Luke, Hebrews? and Jude).
I love God and I love His Word, but I am aware that men are incredibly fallible, and can misunderstand, misrepresent, miscommunicate, embellish or deliberately fabricate prophetic utterances. So I will never take a modern day prophetic word as being on par with Scripture. That doesn’t show a lack of confidence in God’s ability to speak truthfully, but only in man’s ability to hear and transmit faithfully. “We see in part, and we prophesy in part” (1 Corinthians 13:9).
I affirm, with Wilson, that every word God ever says is infallible. I also affirm, with Wilson and the reformed tradition, that man is inherently fallible. When God speaks to a man, God’s word remains perfect, though because it is now mediated through a fallible being, it is open to being poorly transmitted. This in no way lessens God’s truthfulness, only man’s. If I may speculate, I would suggest that when God spoke through men the words that would finally find their way into our canon, He somehow transcended or suspended man’s fallibility, thus communicating His perfect Word in a perfect way. So when Peter wrote “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood” his fallibility was being bypassed by the Spirit, and God’s word was being communicated with a kind of perfect authority that Peter didn’t possess when he said “quick, James’ men are looking, don’t eat near a Gentile!”
Whilst I don’t think that the prophetic gift practiced by every day believers in the New Testament era is at all the same thing as the authority to speak with words on par with Scripture, there is a helpful warning here. I believe we should be careful with our language, lest we sound like we are claiming more than we ought. And I believe we should be extremely careful of actually claiming more than we ought! Spiritual gifts come a distant second to the infallible, never-to-be-added-to Word of God in Scripture. There will be no Bible: Directors’ Cut with extended scenes. When we speak of prophecy today we must make sure we not saying anything that leads people to believe we are claiming for ourselves an inappropriate level of authority.
And the issue of language is the subject of the third and final post.
To be continued…
Comments
By Jack Griffiths on 06/09/2011 at 11:01
Very good Liam. Because I am aware I only see and hear in part (1Cor 13:9) I often start a prophecy by simply saying “I think God might be saying something like…” to try and avoid the confusion of people thinking I am speaking the infaliable words of God. But do you think people in our churches often give more weight to their prophecies than they ought? By saying “Thus sayeth the Lord” or speaking in a way that sounds like God, or do you think this is just something that cessationists like Wilson assume it is like?
By Jennie Pollock on 06/09/2011 at 13:29
Great thoughts, Liam, though I’m not sure that the main reason “why we find neither Paul nor Wilson enforcing Deuteronomy 18 is that both ... recognise that the kind of prophecy being encouraged of all believers in Corinth, and practiced ... today, is of an entirely different order.” We don’t find them stoning people for adultery either, but that’s not because they realise God didn’t mean this kind of adultery.
I agree with your point, just not sure this is the strongest argument for it.
By Dan on 06/09/2011 at 14:25
Can I make just a couple of points as someone who stands on Wilson’s side on this one, but who totally respects you guys who disagree with me?
Firstly, I think there may be a risk of defeating a straw man here. Remember that Wilson’s points were made on his blog, not in a book arguing cessationism (try looking at Gaffen’s book for a more rounded cessationist argument, or even look at what people like Calvin and Edwards thought). For example, it would be incorrect to summarise that cessationists believe “apostles wrote scripture” as it is a little more complicated than that. A better phrase would be that apostles had the authority to preach the very words of God and set doctrine (akin to OT prophets), and through this had the authority to oversee the prophetic utterences in the Church, hense the ability of non apostles to prophesy and to write scripture. The gifts were given in connection with apostolic ministry, not the apostles themselves only.
Secondly, I have a question. Without claiming that the ability to speak/write the very words and will of God was something given to the apostles, or the validity of such words being said was overseen by the apostles, how do you develop a theological understanding of how we get canonical scripture. Saying that only a select few had the authority to write scripture is all well and good, but you must provide a biblical grounding as to who had this authority. The reason the books of scripture were seen as canonical was at least in part due to apostolicity, or the writer was known to have been assocaited with the apostles ministry, hense the letters that they couldn’t veryfy as being apostolic were dropped. Nowhere in scripture does it describe prophesy as anything other than the very words of God (2 Peter 1:19-22), and so modern utterences could only be God’s very words and binding akin to scripture (though I know that charismatics don’t believe that this still occurrs). Agabus, for eg, did not prophesy with “I think God is saying..” but with a resounding “thus sayeth the Lord”. Unless there is a change in the nature of prophesy between the OT and the NT, prophesy which is from God is not inspired by man’s fallenness, but comes from God. Also, the idea of difficult in discerning whether God is speaking or not is odd: do you think that John or Ezekiel were in any doubt that God was speaking to them infallably in their visions? Yes, not all prophesy made scripture, but this doesn’t mean that the words spoken weren’t God’s very words. The risk for charismatics is by saying “I have a word from the Lord” you are saying, even though you don’t mean to and don’t really mean it, that God is speaking, and when God speaks you must obey: God’s words are binding on one’s conscience. If it is not God’s very words, it is really just spontaneous preaching, which in itself is a wonderful gift (and , as the Second Helvetic Confession puts it, “the preached Word is the Word of God” due to its life giving, life changing nature and it being a means of Grace.
I hope this critique comes across lovingly and humbly. I really would like to hear your thoughts.
In Christ
Dan
By John on 06/09/2011 at 20:32
Dan, “A better phrase would be that apostles had the authority to preach the very words of God and set doctrine (akin to OT prophets), and through this had the authority to oversee the prophetic utterences in the Church, hense the ability of non apostles to prophesy and to write scripture.”
Where do you find within scripture this idea that the apostles preached ‘the very words of God’? You seem to be implying that the apostles were infallible in their gifting?
Scripture shows us otherwise, Acts 15, we see a very human discussion taking place among apostles seeking to interpret the new revelation.
As this Blog post showed, Peter was in error and Paul corrected him.
2ndly Apostles did not ‘oversee’ prophetic utterances, the apostles (see 1 Cor 14) told the church to ‘weigh’ or ‘test’ the prophecies.
Also
“Agabus, for eg, did not prophesy with “I think God is saying..” but with a resounding “thus sayeth the Lord”.”
Actually, Agabus was not 100% accurate in his prophesy regarding Paul’s arrest. See F.F Bruce’s commentary in Hard sayings of the bible Acts 21. Agubus got the jist of what would happen (Paul would be arrested by the Romans) but he was wrong in the fine detail The Jews did not bind him and hand him over. The Jews tried to kill him and The Romans stepped in to intervene. Hence a perfect example of prophesy not being infallible. The same chapter speaks of ‘brothers’ appealing to Paul ‘through the Spirit’ not to go to Jerusalem because of the hardships that awaited him. Again a misinterpretation of teh will of the Lord. In ‘the Spirit’ they knew Paul was in trouble but the assumed that this was a warning and something to be avoided. Yet again another example of preophesy not being infallible.
also
“If it is not God’s very words,it is really just spontaneous preaching,” Prophesy is exactly that, spontaneous and inspired speech. Many cessationsists experience it during preaching, even though in their head they reject the existence of the gift.
However, prophesy is also God speaking. Very often when a prophet speaks, you are left in no doubt regarding what the Lord is saying. I experienced this level of prophesy at the apostolic conference in Wales just last month.
By Dan on 07/09/2011 at 10:34
Hi John.
Thanks for your reply. I realise that there were some flaws in my argument, mainly caused by lack of space. Just a very short bit of clarification (don’t worry, this will be my last post!): when I said apostles speak the very words of God, I meant specifically when writing or speaking on God’s behalf, as his representative, not in all situations. Hense, the apostolic office is used as a discription of office at the beginning of the epistles (Romans, Corinthians 1 and 2, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Timothy 1 and 2 Titus, Peter 1 and 2) in order to illustrate the authority of what was written in the letters. Paul especailly points out that his office of apostle was one “not from men nor through men, but through the will of God the Father” (Gal 1:1). This also explains the foundational aspect, as the inspired teachings of the apostles formed the doctrine of the church, something that cannot be said if the apostles teachings were anything other than inspired akin to OT prophets.
My question is how we come to have a closed canon of scripture if we remove the apostolic authority? What defines the infallable word of God in scripture? If God still give ‘inspired’ words (remembering that when we talk of scripture as inspired or God breathed we mean that they are his very words, revelation itself rather than mere report of revelation), how can we not add them to scripture?
Thanks. :-)
By John on 07/09/2011 at 23:48
“My question is how we come to have a closed canon of scripture if we remove the apostolic authority?”
The completeion of the canon is not dependent upon apostolic authority perse, but whether or not the writers were under teh influence of the Spirit for such a task.
Apostleship was not just about writing scripture.
The gift of prophesy in the New Testament was not limited to that which would be included in scripture. Therefore God can and does continue to speak to people today, but this does not mean that what he says is incorporated into the canon. There were a lot of thingstaht Jesus did and said that were not included in the canon. Why is that? They had a purpose beyond scripture. God also has purposes beyond scripture. If I need to hear from him on a particular subject why should that become scripture?
Prophesy, is not just a report of revelation, it is revelation. This does not mean it is scripture. If God is speaking to me about an area of my life, it is God who is saying it but it is not scripture.
E,G he tells me that I will move to area x for ministry. Just because the canon is closed does not then mean that God cannot say such things. If we say that God cannot speak, can we really claim to be following the LIVING God? As far as scripture is concerned it is the false gods who cannot speak, our God on the other hand has no problem making himself heard.
“What defines the infallable word of God in scripture?”
The fact that God said it. Prophesy can also be completely true. This does not make it scripture. In the same way the N.T gives many examples of prophesy that did not become scripture. The purpose of prophesy is edification, comfort and exhortation. 1 Cor 14. Scripture also has this purpose but it has a purpose beyond that i.e it is the body of doctrine that has been delivered to the church. It is the revelation of Jesus Christ.
By Liam Thatcher on 08/09/2011 at 09:56
@Jack - Thanks for the comment… That’s the subject of the final post, which I think should be up tomorrow. Give that a read and by all means bug me if you feel it doesn’t answer your question!