The Disturbing Trend of Continuationism Embraced by the Modern Church - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------

This is over 1700 words, where the unnamed author uses the word sufficient/sufficiency almost 20 times. He clearly doesn't know what the word means. This may be the reason for his anonymity.

The author is a false teacher, having lied at least three times about the content of certain Bible verses. This means we flatly reject his presentation, though we will still undertake to critique this nightmare of illogic, misrepresentation, and Bad Bible Teaching.

----------------

I’ve observed over the last several years a phenomenon that is deeply distressing—the increasing embrace of various forms of continuationism by evangelicals and even within traditionally Reformed circles. Whether it’s the full-blown charismaticism that promotes the continuation of the apostolic sign gifts ("Apostolic sign gifts" is a phrase not found in the Bible.)

or the more subtle forms of mystical subjectivism, this dangerous trend is creeping into the church.

These practices, once relegated to the fringes, are now being accepted by those who should know better, wreaking havoc on the very biblical doctrines they claim to uphold, including the sufficiency and authority of Scripture.

First, continuationism in and of itself is nothing more than a rebranding of the ancient Montanist heresy—a dangerous movement that the early church rightly rejected. Montanus, a self-proclaimed “prophet” from the second century, claimed that God was still giving fresh revelations through him and his followers. (Guilt by association. Painting with a broad brush, the unnamed author brands millions of Christians as cultists and heretics.)

These supposed prophecies went well beyond Scripture, leading to confusion and chaos within the fledgling church. The early church Council of Constantinople later condemned Montanism as a threat to the sufficiency and authority of God’s Word, recognizing that to accept ongoing revelation was to reject the finality of the canon of Scripture as delivered through the apostles. (The author seems to adhere to a caricature of the Montanists. Receiving new revelation wasn't the problem, rather, they were receiving false revelation. Eusebius writes:

...he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning.

The author would do well to ask, what was this custom that was handed down from the beginning? What was the Church doing in the first century? 1 Corinthians 14 and Romans 12. The practices of the early church, including prophesying, continued through Eusebius' time.

Montanus is recorded as beginning his prophetic ministry in the mid 100s, only a short time after the death of the last apostle. Eusebius lived a century later. So for more than two centuries the custom of prophecy was well established and active in the churches.

But the Council of Constantinople was a hundred years after Eusebius.)  

And yet, today, many who claim to follow Christ have resurrected this same error, dressing it up with new terminology but advancing the same rebellion against the sufficiency of Scripture. (Rebellion against a doctrine? What? How does one rebel against a doctrine?

We will see this phrase, the "sufficiency of Scripture," time and time again in the author's article. We are quite sure that he doesn't understand what sufficiency actually means. 

Sufficient means enough. Adequate. It doesn't mean "there is no more." A person can sit down for dinner and have a sufficient amount to eat, yet there is still food on his plate. 

We think this misdefinition of the word is the heart of the problem cessationists have with contemporary prophecy. We will see this more clearly as the author continues his article.)

One of the most subtle yet pernicious forms of this error creeping into the Church is what I call a modern form of “mystical subjectivism.” The term has been used various ways throughout history, but today, it is a cancer eating away at the very heart of Christian theology. (Hyperbole. Actually, eating away at the heart of the author's mistaken doctrines.)

It sneaks in with whispers, cloaked in piety, convincing the undiscerning that God has more to say—directly to them—apart from His Word. (The author will never discuss, let alone demonstrate, the idea that God is silent apart from the Bible.)

It manifests in various ways, still, but many claim to receive dreams, visions, or other personal yet specific revelations directly from God. “God told me…” to take this job … to buy that car … to start such and such ministry … to brush so and so’s hair at the airport. People like Beth Moore and Priscilla Shirer epitomize this kind of thing. (More guilt by association.)

And in this seductive call of “new revelations,” “personal leadings,” and “spiritual impressions,” the very sufficiency of Scripture is abandoned, no matter how its spun. To accept continuations of divine revelation is to declare, without reservation, that the Bible is not enough. This is a dangerous and serious error. (As we just explained, the Bible is indeed enough. That doesn't exclude there being more, which in no way diminishes the Bible. Especially since the Bible itself teaches the prophetic gift. 

We also note that the first century Christians like Paul, Peter, Luke, and James, did not regard the sufficiency of Scripture as preventing them from writing the NT.) 

You may think it’s really not that serious, but let’s put simple logic to it. Continuationism, at its core, demands a rejection of Scripture’s sufficiency. Think about it—how can one claim to uphold the sufficiency of God’s revealed Word while simultaneously claiming that God is still giving new, direct revelations today? It’s an oxymoron of the highest order. If the Bible is sufficient, why do we need more revelation? (Notice the false tension that develops from a wrong understanding of a word.)

Are these new revelations simply optional and unnecessary? You would have to conclude that in order to maintain the sufficiency of Scripture. And to claim that any of God’s revelations are unnecessary seems like a dangerous path to walk down, too. (What does the author mean by "unnecessary?" Many prophecies were never recorded [Agabus, Philip's four daughters, and Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Saul]. Were these prophecies unnecessary?)

The doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture stands or falls on this: is God’s revelation in the Bible complete, (New word and a new concept, "complete." Is "sufficient" synonymous with "complete?" Well, no. The author misleads us by swapping in words.)

or isn’t it? If it is complete—and the Bible itself says it is—then any claim to new revelation is a blatant contradiction.

Paul tells us in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

The Word of God is sufficient to make the believer “complete,” thoroughly equipped for every good work. Every good work. Not most good works, not some vague percentage, not almost every good work—every single one. There is no need, no gap, no lack. (Wow. The author is now lying to us. Several obvious errors:

• This passage does not tell us that Scripture is sufficient
• The author swaps around the "complete" believer for the "complete" Scriptures
• Being equipped for every good work does not mean there is no other information about being equipped, like sermons, teaching, commentaries, and the ministry of the brethren
• The fact there is no gap in the completeness of the believer does not speak to sufficiency.

The author has ventured into gross heresy. He is not a trustworthy Bible teacher.)

So why do continuationists insist that we still need God to speak directly today, when the very book He gave us declares that it is sufficient? (Well, the Bible doesn't declare this. And even if it did, sufficiency does not speak to contemporary prophecy.)

To believe that God is still speaking directly to individuals in dreams, visions, or impressions (not to be confused with the illumination of the Holy Spirit, which is biblical) is to say that the canon of Scripture is not enough. (Repeats his claim.)

It’s to claim that there are still things God forgot to mention—truths He failed to include in His revelation to humanity. (It does not. Otherwise, how could the NT be written? Did God forget to include something in the OT? Is that why Matthew wrote his Gospel, because the OT was insufficient? How did the fully inspired OT need to be supplemented?)

How could that be? Is the God of the universe so careless, so forgetful, so incompetent, that He neglected to give us everything we need in the Scriptures?

Of course not. The idea is absurd. (No, the author is absurd.)

Yet this is the logical conclusion of continuationism. If God is still giving new revelations, then what He has already revealed must be incomplete. (He keeps hammering the point.)

If you embrace this notion, you must—by necessity—reject the sufficiency of Scripture. (He keeps hammering the point.)

And once you’ve rejected the sufficiency of Scripture, you’ve opened the door to every kind of chaos, confusion, and doctrinal error imaginable. (Later, the author will inadvertently admit that charismatics do not reject the sufficiency of Scripture. He's continual quibbling with this comes to bear on his view of sufficiency, not on whether or not sufficiency is being rejected.)

What’s next? “God told me this, God told me that.” And who’s to say otherwise? When personal revelation becomes the standard, truth becomes relative. (This is quite false. The author himself has demonstrated he is capable of engaging the biblical process of determining the veracity of truth claims. He appeals to the Bible, relies on his discernment, and has consulted with others. These claims are testable, despite the author's protestations.)

It’s a theological free-for-all, where anyone can claim God’s voice to justify their whims, and who can argue with “God told me”? (Easy. Respond with, "did he? Tell me in the Bible where this is found.")

It’s spiritual anarchy. (Hyperbole.)

Continuationists like to sugarcoat their insurgency against the Scriptures by saying that their personal revelations don’t contradict Scripture. (Ah, so they also believe in sufficiency...)

But even that statement is a sleight of hand. If their revelations don’t contradict Scripture, then why are they necessary? (The necessity of prophecy is a separate question from not contradicting Scripture. The author himself engages in sleight of hand, changing the subject.

And by the way, why was first century prophecy necessary? Why did John write his gospel when there were three others?)

If everything they claim to hear directly from God aligns perfectly with Scripture, then their so-called revelations add nothing new, then they are not revelations and are therefore redundant—meaningless. (Hmm. Just like sermons.)

And if these revelations do add anything new, they are, by definition, in conflict with Scripture’s claim to sufficiency. (He keeps hammering the point.)

It’s a lose-lose scenario, a theological dead end.

But what about John 21:25? Continuationists love to point to this verse as if it somehow justifies their belief in ongoing revelation. (They do? We have never heard such a thing.)

The verse reads,

“Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

But this argument completely misses the point of the text. John is not suggesting that there is additional divine revelation waiting to be delivered outside of Scripture. He’s simply making a hyperbolic statement about the vastness of Jesus’ works, emphasizing the greatness of Christ’s ministry. (Yes, of course. But it also means that Jesus himself said and did many things that were not included in the holy writ. Which means that contemporary revelation is eligible for similar treatment.

We would actually point to a relevant Scripture:

Ac. 2:17-18 “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. Ac. 2:18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.

If this verse does not apply, the author will need to tell us why and, and tell us the reason we are not in the Last Days.)

It’s actually kind of a low blow to twist this into an argument for new revelations. The Bible, as we’ve already discussed, contains everything necessary for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3), (The author lies again, egregiously, and this time we must deem him to be disqualified as a teacher of the Word. Let's quote the verse: 

2Pe. 1:3 His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.

The Bible doesn't do this, his divine power does. The author is not allowed to swap words in and out of Bible verses.)

and John 21:25 doesn’t leave the door open for further revelation—it highlights the significance of what has already been revealed. In reality, this verse demonstrates the power and magnitude of what’s already recorded, not the need for more. Continuationists, in attempting to exploit this passage, end up distorting its clear meaning and undermining the finality of God’s Word.

Revelation is not a playground for human emotions, subjective feelings, or mystical fantasies. It is the definitive, unchangeable, and complete declaration of God’s will to His people, delivered once for all. Jude 1:3 calls us to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” Notice the language: once for all. Not progressively. Not in bits and pieces. How can we contend for something that was delivered once for all if it’s still being delivered? (Wow, it gets worse and worse. Another lie. Jude refers to "the faith," not the Scriptures. We know he could not be talking about the Bible delivered once for all, because more of the Bible had yet to be written.

Rather, the singular unchanging "faith," the way of salvation, had been delivered. The Bible is not this.)

God has spoken. He has finished speaking. There is no need for more. (We are growing weary of these pronouncements. We are nearly our tolerance for this idiocy.)

The prophets and apostles laid the foundation of the Church, as Ephesians 2:20 clearly teaches: “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” (No, the apostles and propets ARE the foundation of the church.)

Foundations are not built multiple times. The Church doesn’t need new revelations, new prophecies, or new foundations. (Sigh. The church was not built on prophecies.  More prophecies do not add to the foundation.)

Christ is the cornerstone—He is enough and his word endures forever. (Contemporary prophecy has nothing to do with this. And by the way, we notice how after hammering th sufficiency of Scripture over and over he now claims it is Jesus who is sufficient.)

The apostles and prophets completed their work. To claim that God is still speaking today, giving new revelations, is to imply that the foundation is still under construction (The author infers this, but that does not mean it's implied.)

and that God’s Church is somehow incomplete.

And here is where continuationism becomes truly insidious. By claiming that the foundation is still being laid through ongoing revelation, (The author made this claim, not charismatics!)

they undermine the authority of the entire Church. If God is still speaking today in the same way He spoke to the apostles, (Notice the modifier, "the same way." Charismatics do not make this claim either.)

then Scripture itself is demoted to just one of many sources of authority over the bride of Christ. (There are many sources of authority over the Bride of Christ. The author surely knows this.)

In that case, the Bible is nothing more than a supplement to the spiritual fancies of those who claim to hear God’s voice directly.

Do you see the danger? Once you allow for ongoing revelation, you allow for ongoing error. If God’s voice can be heard outside of Scripture, then any charlatan, any false teacher, any Beth Moore, Kenneth Copeland, or Todd White, or any other self-proclaimed prophet can hijack the Church by claiming to speak on God’s behalf. (As if the church has only been hijacked only by charismatic kooks. Many cessationist groups have splintered off and cause their own set of problems. 

Examples? Two by Twos. Methodists. Jehovah's Witnesses. Presbyterians. Lutherans.)

And many have. It’s no wonder that every heretical movement throughout Church history has been fueled by so-called “new revelations” from God. (This is spectacularly false.)

From the Montanists to the modern-day charismatics, the pattern is always the same—reject the sufficiency of Scripture, embrace mystical subjectivism, and watch the doctrinal walls crumble.

There’s a reason God gave us a completed canon. He knew full well the havoc that ongoing revelation would wreak. (Ongoing revelation has nothing to do with the completed canon, since prophecy does not get added to the Bible.)

He knew that sinful men would twist His words to for personal gain, that false prophets would rise up claiming to speak in His name. That’s why He closed the book. That’s why He gave us His Word, sufficient and complete, and warned us not to add to it (Revelation 22:18-19).

So let’s call continuationism what it is, a rejection of the very doctrine that guards the Church against error and preserves the purity of the gospel. Continuationism isn’t just a harmless theological peculiarity—taken to its logical conclusion, it’s a full-scale assault on the sufficiency of Scripture. It elevates subjective experience above the objective truth of God’s Word. It distorts the nature of divine revelation. It perverts the gospel. It opens the floodgates to heresy.

And that is why it must be rejected—utterly and unapologetically.

God has spoken!