In this post I am going to argue that the non-cessation position
has profound ramifications for the doctrines of special revelation and of a
closed canon. In his debate with Mike Brown, Sam Waldron repeatedly asked Brown
to discuss why believe in a closed canon. Brown never acknowledged
Waldron’s question, let alone try to answer it. What was Waldron getting at
with this line of questioning? I think he was hinting at what I will be
discussing for the next few paragraphs: the inadvertent and adverse consequences
that the doctrine of open revelation have on the fundamentals of the Christian
faith.
The religion of the Bible is a frankly supernatural
religion. It is meant that, according to it, God has intervened
extraordinarily, in the course of the sinful world’s development, for the
salvation of men otherwise lost.[1]
The nature of divine revelation is fundamental to Christian theism. God
condescends in order to interact with His creation, to disclose, to reveal, and
to relate. Christian theism teaches that God reveals on two basic levels.
First, as creatures in His image, God has etched Himself upon the human
conscience so that His revelation is quite naturally within each of us. There
is no escaping it. Paul said, “Because that which is known about God is evident
within them; for God made it evident to them.” No human being is capable of
escaping this natural revelation of God within the human conscience. In
addition, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His
eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood
through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” The revelation of
God in nature is not only within the human being, it is all around them. The
revelation of God is inescapable. Not only is that revelation clearly given, it
is perceived without ambiguity. Humanity knows God is there. Indeed, according
to the language of Romans 1, this revelation is sufficient to make human beings
culpable for their wicked behavior. From this, we have no choice but to
conclude that the revelation of God we see in nature is abundantly sufficient. Revelation
that is sufficient is also without question, reliable, trustworthy in every
sense of the word. God’s act of revealing could never be anything but
sufficient and completely trustworthy.
While the natural revelation of God is sufficient for
culpability, God has purposely ensured that it is not sufficient for salvation.
For salvation, man must receive additional revelation from God. Due to his sin
nature, man was cut off from God. Therefore, if man is to know God truly,
intimately, and not at a distance, God must intrude, break in upon the human
mind, darkened and enslaved to sinful desires, as it is want to be. Christian
theism calls this revelation divine or special revelation. It is necessary for
salvation. One of the most grievous effects of sin is the deformation of the
image of God reflected in the human mind, and there can be no recovery from sin
which does not bring with it the correction of this deformation and the
reflection in the soul of man of the whole glory of the Lord God Almighty.[2]
Failure to consider the effects of sin in the area of divine communication and
of God’s revelation can lead to significant error in one’s theology and
understanding of divine communication. The propensity of human sinfulness to debase
and distort the revelation of God has been made profusely clear throughout the long
history of revelation. This points us to the serious need for a revelation from
God that is beyond the reach of human sinfulness. It points us to the need for
a revelation from God that is not only well-defined, but one that is entirely
reliable. A revelation from God that is neither clear, nor reliable, nor sufficient
is not something one would expect from the kind of God that appears in
Scripture. Because we are sinful, a clear, sufficient, and reliable revelation from
God is necessary or agnosticism wins the day. If the revelation of God is
uncontrolled and open, it seems to me that reliability is unattainable.
The reformers saw Scripture as the Principium Cognescendi
Theologiae. “Indeed, it is the unanimous declaration of the Protestant
confessions that Scripture is the sole authoritative norm of saving knowledge
of God. The Reformed confessions, moreover, tend to manifest this priority and
normative character by placing it first in order of confession, as the explicit
ground and foundation of all that follows.”[3]
No revelation from God outside of Scripture could ever achieve the certainty of
the revelation from God we have in Scripture itself. This means that only the
revelation of God in Scripture is certain, is clear, and is wholly trustworthy.
Due to the sin nature, it only stands to reason that God would lovingly and,
graciously provide us with a revelation of Himself and His will that is beyond
doubt, that is to say, a knowledge that we may hold with certainty.
The developing revelation of God, given to us over the
history of God’s redemptive plan, and only recorded in the Divine Writings, has
a very conspicuous purpose, and serves an extremely significant function in the
history of redemption. The historical events of revelation are necessarily unique
to any other kind of history. It is fascinating to me that bloggers like Steve
Hays repeatedly fail to address this uniqueness appropriately. In fact, if one
reads enough of Steve Hays, they are left to wonder if he considers any event
recorded in Scripture any differently than any other event. It would seem not
to this writer.
Of all the attributes of canonicity, the divine qualities of
Scripture are the least discussed.[4]
Not for nothing, but why is it that scholars seem to be more fascinated with
the least fascinating thing about Scripture and least interested in the most
interesting thing about Scripture? The Scripture is the Holy Spirit speaking to
the Church. When the Scriptures speak, God speaks. When God speaks, Scripture speaks.
Is it possible that some men love to spend their time intellectual disputations
rather than getting lost in those matters that are clearly revealed to the
Church and simply expending their energy in application as opposed to
speculation?
The self-witness of Scripture has been for centuries the
cornerstone of the orthodox Christian argument for biblical authority.[5]
Before I go any farther, it is worthwhile to say something about the authority
of Scripture, not only to prepare our hearts to reverence it, but to banish all
doubt. When that which is set forth is acknowledged to be the Word of God,
there is no one so deplorably insolent – unless devoid also both of common
sense and of humanity itself – as to dare impugn the credibility of Him who
speaks.[6]
The canon then is not just the record of some interesting historical events and
teachings that are on par with events of our own. The documents of the canon
represent a collection of the Divine Revelation of God Himself to His creation.
God has not left us to guess if He has spoken. We can know with certainty that
God has in fact spoken.
Hence the Scriptures obtain full authority among believers
only when men regard them as having sprung from heaven, as if there the living
words of God were heard.[7]
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens
with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone. (Eph. 2:19-20) The point that
Waldron was getting at with his question regarding the purpose of the canon is
really quite simple. The purpose of a canon was to be able to distinguish truth
from error, true prophecy from false prophecy, godly teachers from wolves. The
Christian documents are the standard by which the Christian knows, believes,
and acts upon the truth that God has revealed to His Church. By nature, it is
clear, authoritative, sufficient, and reliable. What the canon teaches and
records, the Holy Spirit teaches and records.
To summarize then, the sin nature has made it necessary for
God to provide man with a self-attesting, fully sufficient, clear, and reliable
revelation of Himself. That revelation has been given once for all to the
saints. The shape of that revelation is nothing less than the Divine Writings
themselves. These writings are necessary, self-attesting, fully sufficient,
clear, and unquestionably reliable. God speaks to the Church through the pages
of Scripture. We have His sure word delivered to us once and for all, preserved
providentially in accurate copies of His Holy Documents.
Now, what is the impact of the position of men like Steve
Hays on this age-old position of orthodoxy? If Hays is right that there is nothing
unique about what God did in the divine revelation, then it follows that the
nature of Scripture as we have come to know it is significantly diminished. The
awe inspired by God speaking to Moses or Jesus appearing to Paul is reduced by
the phenomena of God speaking to Benny Hinn and Jesus appearing to Muslims.
According to some, this happens all the time, and it really isn’t nearly as
rare and therefore as special as orthodoxy claims it is. In this view, there is
nothing unique about the record of Scripture. How God interacts with us is no
different from how He interacted with Israel, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Peter, or
Paul. The result of Steve Hays’ argument is a massive downgrading of the
revelation of Scripture. This is unavoidable. Hays has said as much himself. He
has repeatedly insisted that we are wrong to claim that Scripture is different,
it is unique, that what God has given us in Scripture is nothing more than He
gives some today. I contend that when God revealed to Moses, He also revealed
to me that He revealed to Moses. This indicates that God has more than
Moses in mind when He revealed things to Him. In fact, there is no revelation
of God in Scripture that was given only to one person and not the rest of us.
Even John shared the fact that God had revealed things to him that he
could not tell us about, but he nonetheless revealed to us that God had shown
him things. Moreover, God had a reason for revealing that much to us. God
always has a reason.
Finally, the idea of an authoritative canon, a standard by
which all truth could be known is completely obliterated by the idea of an open
revelation. The point and purpose of a closed canon was the final sealing off
of what is self-authoritative, clear, sufficient, and reliable from what is
subjective, ambiguous, and questionable. You see, if the canon is closed, all
God had to say, needed to say, wanted to say and all we needed to hear and
know, we have in the canon of Scripture. However, if revelation is open and
prophets continue, the canon cannot be closed. Either prophets are repeating
what is in Scripture making their words not the product of immediate divine
initiative, or they are actually the product of immediate divine initiative,
which means the canon cannot be closed. God does not reveal nor speak without
authority, clarity, self-attestation, or reliability.
According to the non-cessation argument, revelation and
prophecy continue. This revelation and prophecy are genuinely new disclosures from
God. The question we have then is related to faith and reliability. How can we
know for sure that God has spoken when this speaking is not on par with
Scripture? We know that Matthew’s gospel is self-attesting, reliable, and
authoritative. It is binding because it is the word of God. We know this by the
witness and testimony of the Holy Spirit Himself. However, I do not have the
same witness about modern claims of revelations and dreams and prophecies.
Indeed, I cannot have the same level of confidence.
If Scripture is sufficient for all things pertaining to life
and godliness, what need do we have for additional revelation and dreams from
God? Jude referred to it as τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει. The
once for all handed down to the saints faith. This once for all occurrence is a
single occurrence to the exclusion of any other similar occurrences.
The problem with Hays and quite frankly, other continuation views
is that they fail to preserve the uniqueness of the phenomena revealed in
Scripture. God had a reason for revealing to us that He revealed to Moses, or
to David, or to Daniel. Scripture is not just a record that God revealed
something to someone else; it is God’s revelation to us as well. In
addition, Hays’ view on prophets and prophecy violently contradicts not only
the reliability and self-attesting nature of divine revelation, but also the
doctrine of a closed canon. The whole point of closing the canon was fixing the
divine standard by which all claims to truth and knowledge would be measured.
If the canon is in fact closed, and divine revelation is fixed and sufficient
as well as clear, then whatever these moderns are claiming is unnecessary. We
simply don’t need it. However, one has to ask if God is in the habit of giving
us revelation and dreams and prophecies we don’t need. And if we do need them,
then one has to justify why we have closed the canon. If we do need them, then
Scripture is not sufficient. Furthermore, someone is going to have to come up
with a way for arguing how on earth it is remotely possible to defend these new
prophecies as fully reliable, totally clear, self-attesting, and authoritative.
In the end, the doctrines of Scripture that have been handed
down for centuries by orthodoxy are swallowed up by the modern claims of
non-cessationism. The Scripture is no longer unique, it is no longer
sufficient, it is no longer the fixed standard by which all other claims are
tested. And if it is true that modern men can err in their revelations and
prophecies, why can’t it also be true for the biblical authors. After all, is
that not the basic claim of liberal theologians and has it not been their claim
for a couple of centuries now? If Scripture is sufficient, then modern claims
of God-speaking are superfluous at best. If modern claims are legitimate, then
Scripture is not sufficient. Either Scripture gives us all we need for our
spiritual growth and well-being or it does not. If it does, then we don’t need
modern revelation. If we do need modern revelation, then Scripture does not
give us all we need for spiritual growth and well-being. If only we invested as
much energy proclaiming and applying Scripture as we do speculating about
argument forms we could grow spiritually and learn a little humility for a
change.
[3] Richard A.
Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2003), 151.
[4] Michael J.
Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New
Testament Books (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2012), 125.
[6] John Calvin, Institutues
of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill (Louisville, KY: Westminster
John Know Press, 1960), 1:74.
No comments:
Post a Comment