-------------------------
The author makes some astonishing claims as he presumes his premises. Problem is, one must accept these undocumented premises in order for any of this to make sense. It's a logical and Scriptural nightmare.
The author makes some astonishing claims as he presumes his premises. Problem is, one must accept these undocumented premises in order for any of this to make sense. It's a logical and Scriptural nightmare.
But this is what we have too often found as we have examined some of his other articles.
The author will his best to bias the reader by his use of language. Thus he agendizes his explanation to tilt the debate to his perspective.
This is over 2600 words, including quotes. And it takes the author over 1000 words for the author to finally quote Scripture. Then when he finally does quote it in defense of his assertions he misrepresents it.
We don't like being lied to, so we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
Let's quote the entire passage, since the author never does:
2Pe. 1:16-21 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eye-witnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. 19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
I am convinced that contemporary Evangelicalism has been Pentecostalized in significant ways that even many non-charismatics don’t recognize. One significant way this reveals itself even among those who would claim to be cessationists is in common evangelical expectations regarding how God speaks to us and how he reveals his will to us. It is very common in modern evangelicalism, for example, to hear Christians talk about how God “spoke” to them, revealing his will in mystical ways outside his Word. (The author wants to enforce an absolute cessationism on all of Christianity, and any deviation from his orthodoxy is evidence of Pentecostalization.)
This teaching characterizes charismatics to be sure, many of which believe that the Holy Spirit still gives revelation with the same level of authority that he did to prophets like Elijah and Isaiah and apostles like John and Paul. (Undocumented statement. We don't know that charismatics believe that revelation is on the same level of authority. In fact, we doubt it.
In addition, the author is creating a premise that authoritative revelation is on the same level as Scripture.)
However, more moderate charismatics like Wayne Grudem and Sam Storms argue that while the authoritative canon of Scripture is closed, (We doubt any charismatics believe the canon is open. This of course would be necessary if the Straw Man was true, because authoritative revelation would require an open canon so that those revelations can be added to the Bible.
However, more moderate charismatics like Wayne Grudem and Sam Storms argue that while the authoritative canon of Scripture is closed, (We doubt any charismatics believe the canon is open. This of course would be necessary if the Straw Man was true, because authoritative revelation would require an open canon so that those revelations can be added to the Bible.
In fact, the author will later assert that they MUST be added to the Bible. However, this is ridiculous on its face.)
we ought to still expect “spontaneous revelation from the Holy Spirit” today. (The author puts this in quotes as if someone said it. He does not provide a reference.)
In this more moderate view, prophecy today does not have same sort of inerrancy or authority as biblical prophecy or inspired Scripture, but it is still direct revelation from the Spirit. I am thankful that these men defend the closed canon and the unique authority of Scripture, starkly differentiating their teaching from that of other more dangerous charismatics. (No refence supplied.)
Nevertheless, we must still measure their teaching (unquoted teaching.)
against what the Bible actually teaches. (A Bible that will be barely mentioned, and then only misrepresented.)
On the other hand, even many prominent evangelical teachers who claim to believe that prophecy has ceased nevertheless teach that we ought to expect the Holy Spirit to speak directly to us, not with words, and they don’t even call it prophecy, but they teach that the Holy Spirit speaks to us through impressions, through promptings, a still small voice, or an inner peace.
Perhaps no single book has done more to spread this kind of expectation among evangelical Christians than Henry Blackaby’s Experiencing God. Blackaby says, “God has not changed. He still speaks to his people. If you have trouble hearing God speak, you are in trouble at the very heart of your Christian experience.1 This is someone who claims to be a cessationist. (It's these vague definitions that allows the author to make his case. Why can't someone who claims to be a cessationist believe that the Holy Spirit gives impressions or promptings? Why must we accept absolute cessationism?)
On the other hand, even many prominent evangelical teachers who claim to believe that prophecy has ceased nevertheless teach that we ought to expect the Holy Spirit to speak directly to us, not with words, and they don’t even call it prophecy, but they teach that the Holy Spirit speaks to us through impressions, through promptings, a still small voice, or an inner peace.
Perhaps no single book has done more to spread this kind of expectation among evangelical Christians than Henry Blackaby’s Experiencing God. Blackaby says, “God has not changed. He still speaks to his people. If you have trouble hearing God speak, you are in trouble at the very heart of your Christian experience.1 This is someone who claims to be a cessationist. (It's these vague definitions that allows the author to make his case. Why can't someone who claims to be a cessationist believe that the Holy Spirit gives impressions or promptings? Why must we accept absolute cessationism?)
Other teachers like Charles Stanley and Priscilla Shirer have taught that we need to learn to listen for God’s voice outside of Scripture, we ought to expect to receive “personal divine direction,” “detailed guidance,” and “intimate leading.”2
Another way this expectation appears is in common beliefs regarding the doctrine of illumination. (This is a doctrine?
Another way this expectation appears is in common beliefs regarding the doctrine of illumination. (This is a doctrine?
Illumine is phótizó, I light up, illumine, (b) I bring to light, make evident, reveal. The word is used here ["make plain"]:
Ep. 3:8-9 Although I am less than the least of all God’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
Paul was not talking about the illumination of Scripture here, the subject is the mystery of Christ, previously hidden but now made clear.
Revelation" is apokálypsis:
("revelation, unveiling") is principally used of the revelation of Jesus Christ (the Word), especially a particular (spiritual) manifestation of Christ (His will) previously unknown to the extent (because "veiled, covered").
Revelation isn't "new knowledge," it is the uncovering or unveiling of something that already exists but was hidden before.
The reader will notice the overlap is substantial to the point that the terms are very nearly synonymous.)
Often we hear prayers like, “Lord, please illumine your Word so that we can understand what it says,” or other similar language. Intentional or not, many believers seem to expect that the Spirit is going to help us understand what Scripture means or that he is going to “speak” to us specific ways that the Word applies to our personal situations. However, neither of these are what the biblical doctrine of illumination means. (Like the bare denial of this statement, the link itself is filled with bare denials, undocumented by Scripture. To be sure, the author does quote some Scripture in the link, but he does not document his key premises with Scripture.)
(...)
But what does the Bible actually say about how we should expect God to speak to us? (Finally, the case from the Bible. We hope.)
(...)
But what does the Bible actually say about how we should expect God to speak to us? (Finally, the case from the Bible. We hope.)
The More Sure Word
In understanding the nature of the Spirit’s work of giving revelation, it is important that we understand the relationship between the revelation that he gave through prophets and the revelation that he inspired in the sixty-six canonical books of Scripture.
Peter addresses this very issue in 2 Peter 1, where he states in verse 21, “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Peter is discussing the nature of Spirit-inspired biblical revelation because of the false teachers who had emerged, some of whom claimed to speak for God. (The author misrepresents Peter's statements. Let's include the previous verse:
2Pe. 1:20-21 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Do you see it? Peter doesn't call prophecy Scripture, he adds the qualifier to prophecy, "of Scripture." There is prophecy, then there is prophecy that has been written down.
The word "prophet" does not appear in the Greek text of verse 20. This means it should read, no prophecy of Scripture came about by its own interpretation. This means prophecy contained in Scripture is not self-explained, applied, or unraveled. Thus the prophecy of Scripture is not natural, it comes via men carried by the Holy Spirit.)
Peter begins his argument, however, by appealing to his eyewitness status as an apostle of Jesus Christ—“we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” When he made known to the people truth about Jesus Christ, Peter argues, he did not follow cleverly devised myths; rather, his teaching is based on what he personally witnessed as an apostle of Christ.
To what is he referring in these verses? He is referring to the supernatural experience of the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ in the presence of Peter, James, and John on the mountain. However, notice what Peter says next in verse 19: “And we have the prophetic Word more fully confirmed.” (All good so far...)
Despite all of Peter’s own experiences of receiving divine revelation from God himself, Peter identifies the foundational source of God’s truth: the prophetic Word. Peter is saying that God revealed his truth, not only through direct divine revelation, but fundamentally through his Spirit-inspired Word. (Ooops. We can read it for ourselves, Mr. Aniol:
2Pe. 1:18-19 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. 19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it...
Peter clearly wrote that his eyewitness experience at the transfiguration made the prophetic word more sure. His supernatural encounter made him more certain of the messianic prophecies. Peter now believed them even more because of what he experienced.
His experience validated the Scriptures.
We shall paraphrase:
It's not a fable; we witnessed these things. We heard God's voice telling us Jesus was His son. We were there. The things we saw and heard make the words of the prophets more solid and believable. We are now more convinced than ever that those prophecies are real, because what we experienced confirms without a doubt that Jesus is the prophesied Messiah.
Peter wasn't denying experience in favor of Scripture, he was affirming Scripture because of his experience.)
Peter and the other apostles did experience direct, first hand revelation from God’s Spirit. Those supernatural experiences were truly ways in which God confirmed his truth to his apostles. And yet, as Peter is trying to defend God’s truth, someone could very easily say, “Why should we take your word for it? People experience things they can’t explain all the time; who’s to say that such experiences are direct revelation from God?” Peter answers that natural objection by saying, “Don’t take my word for it. Trust the sufficient Word of God.” (Completely false.)
Often Christians today assume that if the Spirit of God spoke directly to them like he did to prophets and apostles in Scripture, they would far more easily align their lives with God’s will for them. But Peter is saying that the Spirit-inspired Word is more certain than if the Spirit spoke directly to us. (He keeps repeating his misrepresentation.)
Consider what he says in the next phrase in verse 19: “to which you would do well to pay attention.” Pay attention to the sufficient Word. (...because of Peter's experience, which was not a cleverly invented story.)
We ought not to expect the Spirit to speak directly to us, because even if he did, the Word would still be more sure than that direct revelation from the Spirit. (He keeps repeating his misrepresentation.)
Why would we want something less sure than the Word of God? (Now we have arrived at the Grand Nonsense Conclusion of the author's point. "Something less" for the author is prophecy. The "Word of God" is the Bible, which is comprised of written down prophecy, i.e., "prophecies of Scripture." So prophecies that aren't written down are inferior to prophecies that are written down, even though every Scripture was itself preceded by prophecy not written down.
Wow.)
There are those today who insist that nowhere does Scripture say that the Spirit has stopped giving direct revelation now that Scripture is complete, but that is exactly what Peter is saying here. (Noooooooooo....)
The written Word of God is more sure than direct revelation; direct revelation was only necessary for a time because the more sure written Word was not yet complete. Now that the written Word is complete, we no longer need those less sure revelation. (It simply isn't possible that spoken prophecy is improved by writing it down.)
The only reason to believe that God’s Spirit still speaks through divine revelation is if you believe the canon of Scripture is incomplete; if you believe that the canon of Scripture is closed, then you ought not expect any additional divine revelation. (More nonsense. There isn't a single Bible verse that tells us all divine revelation must be included in the canon. It's a complete fiction. There are many prophets listed in the NT [Ac. 11:27, Ac. 13:1, Ac. 15:32, Ac. 19:6, Ac. 21:9] without a single one of their prophecies included in the Bible except Agabus [Ac. 21:10].)
Even Grudem acknowledges, ““If everyone with the gift of prophecy in the New Testament church did have . . . absolute divine authority, then we would expect this gift to die out as soon as the writings of the New Testament were completed and given to the churches.”7
As I have noted, any people today think that supernatural experiences were just the normal, expected way God spoke to everyone in biblical times. But this reveals two misconceptions about the examples of direct revelation that is recorded for us in Scripture.
First, direct revelation from the Spirit was rare in biblical history. (Argument From Silence. The author cannot draw conclusions from what isn't written.)
As I have noted, any people today think that supernatural experiences were just the normal, expected way God spoke to everyone in biblical times. But this reveals two misconceptions about the examples of direct revelation that is recorded for us in Scripture.
First, direct revelation from the Spirit was rare in biblical history. (Argument From Silence. The author cannot draw conclusions from what isn't written.)
People assume they happened all the time, but really, they occurred mostly in only three general periods: the patriarchs and Moses, Elijah and the prophets, Jesus and the founding of the church by his apostles. There are large spans of history between those three primary periods where hearing from God’s Spirit outside of his Word was not the normal experience. (Again, the author cannot know this.)
Even in Acts, the normal expectation was not to expect direct revelation from God, but to trust his sufficient Word. (No refence supplied. Further, "His sufficient Word" did not exist. Large parts of the NT hadn't been written, so it by definition wasn't "sufficient.")
Even in Acts, the normal expectation was not to expect direct revelation from God, but to trust his sufficient Word. (No refence supplied. Further, "His sufficient Word" did not exist. Large parts of the NT hadn't been written, so it by definition wasn't "sufficient.")
Direct revelations occur only nine separate times over the course of thirty years in the Book of Acts. (Again, the author cannot know this. There was certainly revelation that wasn't written down.)
On the other hand, there are at least 70 instances in Acts where Christians, including the apostles, made decisions without direct revelation. (Sigh. Arguing again and again from what the Bible does not say.)
When the apostles were choosing a replacement for Judas, they did not ask for direct revelation—they consulted the Word, and then made an informed decision. (...by casting lots. Whaaaat?)
When the apostles were choosing a replacement for Judas, they did not ask for direct revelation—they consulted the Word, and then made an informed decision. (...by casting lots. Whaaaat?)
When they chose the first deacons, appointed elders, decided where to preach the gospel, and even at the Jerusalem Counsel, God’s people made important decisions, not on the basis of direct revelation or impressions from the Holy Spirit, but on the basis of careful application of the sufficient Word. (Which did not exist.)
Direct revelation was not a regular occurrence even for the apostles in the first century. (...except for the entirety of the NT, plus all the prophets we previously documented.)
Think about those three periods of history: God spoke directly to the people through Moses, but then God wrote his revelation in the tablets of stone and in his written Word. The direct revelation confirmed that the law and the testimony was from God, but once it was written, God didn’t speak directly to the people. He expected the people to trust and obey something more sure—his written Word. God’s Word was sufficient.
The Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets like Elijah and Isaiah, (...who apparently disagreed with Moses about the Word being sufficient, because they wrote more Word.)
Think about those three periods of history: God spoke directly to the people through Moses, but then God wrote his revelation in the tablets of stone and in his written Word. The direct revelation confirmed that the law and the testimony was from God, but once it was written, God didn’t speak directly to the people. He expected the people to trust and obey something more sure—his written Word. God’s Word was sufficient.
The Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets like Elijah and Isaiah, (...who apparently disagreed with Moses about the Word being sufficient, because they wrote more Word.)
but then those prophets wrote what God said. The direct revelation confirmed that the prophecy was from God, but once it was written, God didn’t speak directly to the people. He expected the people to trust and obey something more sure—his written Word. God’s Word was sufficient.
And likewise, God’s Spirit spoke directly through Jesus and his apostles. (...who apparently disagreed with Moses and the prophets about the Word being sufficient, because they wrote more Word.)
And likewise, God’s Spirit spoke directly through Jesus and his apostles. (...who apparently disagreed with Moses and the prophets about the Word being sufficient, because they wrote more Word.)
But then, as Peter said in chapter 3, (This is getting tiresome. Where in chapter three? Well, verse 15.)
the apostles wrote what God said. (Some did. And some of the NT was not written by apostles.)
The direct revelation confirmed that the revelation was from God, but now that it has been written, we should not expect God to speak directly to us. (Did we miss something? Where did Peter tell us this?)
God expects us to trust and obey something more sure—his written Word. (He keeps repeating his misrepresentation.)
God’s Word is sufficient. (He keeps repeating his misrepresentation.)
It is foolish for us to look at what God was doing in those three unique periods when he was progressively delivering his revelation and assume them to be normative for us today. (This is the conclusion derived from the author's Argument From Silence.)
Those three periods when Spirit did speak directly produced the more sure written Word of God: (He keeps repeating his misrepresentation.)
(1) Moses, (2) Elijah and the prophets, (2) Jesus and the apostles—the Law, the Prophets, and the New Testament. And, remarkably, this is exactly who gathered together on the Mount of Transfiguration: Moses, Elijah, Jesus and his apostles—representatives of the 66 inspired, authoritative, inscripturated, more sure, sufficient Word of God, and this Word will be sufficient until Jesus comes again. (How does the author know this, given that the "sufficient" word seems to be a moving target, with subsequent prophets bringing more revelation which got added to the "sufficient" word.
Apparently Moses, the prophets, the apostles and others who wrote Scripture do not agree with the author.)
The reason that the written Word is more sure than direct revelation from the Spirit is because of the nature of inspiration. Peter addresses this in verse 20:
The reason that the written Word is more sure than direct revelation from the Spirit is because of the nature of inspiration. Peter addresses this in verse 20:
Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of men.
In other words, the inscripturated Word of God does not come from a human source. If it did, Scripture would not be inerrant, infallible, authoritative, or sufficient. (No, if it did it wouldn't be Scripture.)
This is the problem with even supernatural subjective revelations—they are fallible because humans are fallible.
Visions can be caused by lack of sleep, inner promptings can be indigestion, and dreams can be caused by too much spicy food. If you heard a voice from heaven, you couldn’t be certain it was actually God. (Which is why we are commanded to weigh prophecies [1Co. 14:29] and test spirits [1Jn. 4:1]. The author will find these in his own Bible, we are quite certain.)
But what has been written down in the Scriptures is not like this. It does not come from a human source. (Neither does the prophecy that was spoken and written down to become Scripture or prophecy that the Holy Spirit did not include in Scripture.)
This is what makes Scripture even more trustworthy and preferred to direct revelation from God. No prophecy of Scripture comes from a human source. Rather, “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (v. 21). Peter is saying that we ought to trust the sufficient Word because it is revelation from God’s Spirit that is even more sure than if he spoke to us directly. (This must be the millionth time the author has asserted this.)
Trust the sufficient Word. It’s all we need. We do not need supernatural subjective experiences, we do not need the voice of God from Heaven, we do not need a still small voice in our hearts, we do not need visions or dreams or impressions or “nudges from the Holy Spirit” ("We don't need..." Well, Paul has a different command:
Trust the sufficient Word. It’s all we need. We do not need supernatural subjective experiences, we do not need the voice of God from Heaven, we do not need a still small voice in our hearts, we do not need visions or dreams or impressions or “nudges from the Holy Spirit” ("We don't need..." Well, Paul has a different command:
1Co. 14:26 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.
"Must be done" as opposed to "we don't need." Hmm.)
—we have something better than all of that. We have more sure the written Word of God. Scripture is sufficient.
References
References
1 Henry T. Blackaby and Claude V. King, Experiencing God: Knowing and Doing the Will of God (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2004), 137.
2 Priscilla Shirer, Discerning the Voice of God: How to Recognize When He Speaks (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2012), 18, 20.
3 Blackaby and King, Experiencing God, 57.
4 Charles F. Stanley, How to Listen to God (Grand Rapids: Thomas Nelson, 2002), 3.
5 Thomas R. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts: What They Are and Why They Matter (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2018), 118.
6 Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 119. Emphasis added.
7 Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 45–46.
2 Priscilla Shirer, Discerning the Voice of God: How to Recognize When He Speaks (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2012), 18, 20.
3 Blackaby and King, Experiencing God, 57.
4 Charles F. Stanley, How to Listen to God (Grand Rapids: Thomas Nelson, 2002), 3.
5 Thomas R. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts: What They Are and Why They Matter (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2018), 118.
6 Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts, 119. Emphasis added.
7 Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 45–46.
No comments:
Post a Comment