Gifts for All Time? The Purpose and Cessation of Revelatory Gifts - by Todd M. Rester

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We began our quest for the biblical case for cessationism in 2013. As of yet we have not found anyone who is able to clearly explain this doctrinal stance. Our criteria for proponents of cessationism is simple. The explanation must

1. be from the Bible (quote the verses that speak to the point being made)
2. Not appeal to contemporary expressions of charismata (what a church happens to believe is not the biblical case)
3. Not appeal to silence (i.e., what the Bible does not say)
4. Not appeal to events or practices of history (i.e., the historical absence or presence of something, or the statements of post-biblical writers)

The article below is another faulty attempt to explain cessationism. The author is guilty of inventing terminology, making undocumented claims, and misleading us about Bible verses. His key premise, that the close of the "apostolic" age means the close of revelation, is repeatedly asserted but never discussed.

But worse, he quotes a mere three Scriptures (one is a short snippet), only one of which comes to bear on his argument.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Are there still revelatory gifts ("Revelatory gifts," a phrase not found in the Bible.)

of the Holy Spirit today? In other words, does God still give certain people the unique ability to prophesy and speak in tongues to give new revelation?

To the question whether the revelatory sign gifts ("Revelatory sign gifts." The author repeats the non-biblical phrase with an additional descriptor, also a combination of terms not found in the Bible. 

The author's use of language presumes his premise. We shall not accept these descriptors.)

ceased with the closing of the Apostolic age, the answer biblically, theologically, and historically has to be yes. (Oh, biblically? We await the author's biblical case.)

Biblically, Hebrews 1:1–2 emphasizes the finality of the revelation in Jesus Christ as coming after the work of the prophets and as recorded in the New Testament by the Apostles. (Let's quote: 

He. 1:1-2 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

Notice there is no mention of God ceasing to speak. In fact, we find in the very next verse that He continues to speak: 

He. 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

Perhaps this is why the author didn't quote the verses. We discuss this in greater detail here.)

The issue of prophecy and its connection to Scripture is foundational for the Christian. (The author repeats his claim. Will he ever explain this foundational connection? Nope.

We discuss it in detail here.)

There was a covenantal context (Unexplained terminology.)

of revelation and prophecy in the Old and New Testaments that must shape how we view this question. Throughout the Scriptures, prophecy is associated with a public ministry and is accountable to the Word of God.

Theologically, that the Son is “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” (Heb. 1:3) leaves no doubt that the apex of prophecy terminates on the person and work of Christ. (True.)

There is no greater prophecy to add, (True.)

no additional special revelation, (This is the premise to be documented, not simply re-asserted!)

as the warning of Revelation 22:18–19 declares. (Let's quote: 

Re. 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

The author will need to explain how "additional special revelation" comes to bear on this verse.)

Jesus Christ says near the completion of His earthly ministry that the Holy Spirit is the Helper “whom the Father will send in my name,” who “will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (John 14:26). (We are indeed thankful for the Holy Spirit's revelatory ministry. This verse seems at odds with the author's thesis.)

Here we see that the Holy Spirit’s work among God’s people is through applying the benefits of Christ’s accomplished work on our behalf in our understanding and in our lives. The Holy Spirit’s work among God’s people involves regenerating (Is there something wrong with using the phrase "born again?")

and calling them in response to the gospel through faith in Christ, as many as have been given by the Father to the Son. In individual believers, from this regenerating work (Is there something wrong with using the phrase "born again?")

of the Spirit arises comfort and boldness from the inner testimony that the Word of God is true, that Christ’s work is on their behalf, and that the Lord will never leave them or abandon His promises. (So the Holy Spirit has a lot to say to us, according to the author, but He does not give revelation? Perhaps he will explain this odd distinction.)

Now, what does this have to do with revelatory gifts ("Revelatory gifts.")

or sign gifts? ("Sign gifts.")

Much in every way. (Please sir, explain some of those ways. From the Bible.)

In debates about continuationism and cessationism, people might lose sight of the fact that all Christians believe that the Holy Spirit is active now, creating faith in all whom the Lord has called to Himself through the ministry of the gospel. There is no debate among believers as to whether the Holy Spirit is at work; the question is how. That point should not be forgotten, even as Christians and churches differ. (This is essentially a "we believe in the Holy Spirit too" statement.)

(The author is now into his presentation by several paragraphs, but here he begins his introduction.) The charismatic movement is one of the largest movements in Christianity in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, is found throughout branches of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, and is an unavoidable issue in global missions. There is a wide spectrum among contemporary Christians holding everything from a form of continuationism to cessationism. Continuationism in its strongest view is the claim that the revelatory sign gifts ("Revelatory sign gifts.")

are necessary, constitutive, and continuing marks of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the church and in individual believers. In this strong continuationist view, churches and even professing Christians without at least some of these sign gifts  ("Sign gifts.")

may very well be false churches and false Christians. (Interestingly, there is some debate in cessationists circles as to whether or not charismatics are true Christians. For example, Dr. John MacArthur said this: 

There are others who criticize by saying - and this came pretty early in this conference, “You’re attacking brothers. You’re attacking brothers.” I wish I could affirm that. We said this one way or another already this week. This is a movement made up largely of non-Christians.

So for the author to reverse the charge is unseemly.)

Or to state it positively, continuationists emphasize that the vibrancy of the church is evidenced by the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit manifested in individuals with such revelatory gifts ("Revelatory gifts.")

as speaking in tongues and continuing prophecy.

When it comes to the spectrum of continuationist views, it has become common, if not fashionable, in Christian circles today to affirm a soft continuationism that sanctions in principle the full spectrum of continuationism in pulpit and pew. While there may yet be objection in soft-continuationist churches to the full practice of Pentecostal views of revelatory gifts in public worship, the objection would be not in principle but only on pragmatic or prudential grounds of what is best for public worship.

On the other hand, cessationism is the view that the revelatory sign gifts ("Revelatory sign gifts.")

were for the age of the Apostles and ceased with the closing of the canon of Scripture. (The third time the author has asserted this, yet we still await the biblical proof, or even any discussion of it.)

Thus, for cessationists, the primary emphasis is cessation upon the completion of Holy Scripture with the closing of the production of the New Testament. (Yes, yes. Will you be explaining this at all, sir? Oh. You won't.)

Furthermore, in Scripture the invocation of “a word from the Lord” or speaking “a prophetic word in the name of the Lord” does not allow room for error. For example, Deuteronomy 18:21–22 clearly states:

“And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’—when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.” (The author oddly omits the previous verse, which contains the remedy for false prophets: 

 

De. 18:20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.

Since the author holds to the Deuteronomy standard for prophecy, will he tell us why he agrees with part of it but ignores the rest?) 

The significance of this point cannot be overstated. True prophets of the Lord and His words through them do not admit of fallible prophecies. (Solution: Put the prophet to death.)

Besides the biblical and theological finality of God’s revelation in Christ mentioned earlier, (We are still waiting for the author to explain how the closing of the canon comes to bear on prophecy.)

it is important to note that along with a robust doctrine of Scripture’s inerrancy and infallibility, the cessationist position holds to similarly high requirements of the veracity, accuracy, and infallibility of true prophecy. (Which brings up the question, what if a modern-day prophet is 100% accurate?)

The continuationist, while claiming a fuller work of the Spirit in the New Testament, has to hold to a less-full or lesser view of prophecy than what occurred in the Old Testament. (Perhaps. But it seems to us that a distinction between the OT and the NT might also carry a distinction between OT prophecy and NT prophecy. 

The author has simply asserted without evidence that OT and NT prophecy are the same. But clearly this isn't the case:

1) Prophecy was very narrowly bestowed in the OT, but it is widely distributed in the NT: 

He. 2:4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. 

1Co. 14:5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy.

2) Prophecy in the OT was mostly directed at nations and peoples, and often spoke of God's judgment, while the NT prophetic is primarily edifying: 

1Co. 14:3 But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. 

1Co. 14:31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.

3) Prophecy in the OT was a full articulation of what God said, but NT prophecy is incomplete and imperfect.

 For we know in part and we prophesy in part... 1 Cor. 13:9

4) Prophecy in the OT flawless, but NT prophecy is partly obscured:

Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 1Co. 13:12 

5) We don't put false prophets to death, we ignore them or correct them:

 1Co. 14:37-38 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.38 If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored. 

2Ti. 4:2 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage — with great patience and careful instruction.

6) In the OT, the prophet was judged. In the NT, the prophecy is judged.

1Co. 14:29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said

Clearly the author is misleading us.)

Some very strong continuationists—but certainly not all continuationists—might argue for the equivalence of their private revelation with Scripture, even referring to themselves as present-day Apostles. Admittedly, such an assertion makes most continuationists, whether they hold modified or soft forms of the view, squirm, and rightly so. Why? For one, most continuationists want to interject a critical difference between the level and priority of Apostolic inspiration and post-Apostolic prophecy. Continuationists might allow a post-Apostolic prophetic and revelatory gift from the Holy Spirit that is fallible. Let that sink in for a moment: Among those in the charismatic orbit, not every word from the Lord given by one gifted with post-Apostolic prophecy is actually true or should be expected to be absolutely true. It may turn out to be mostly true. It may be probable. It may not happen at all. It may reflect only an ecstatic impression intended as true. But it cannot be taken as absolutely true on its face. No prophecy, whether OT or NT, is accepted "on its face." Otherwise, there would be no such things as false prophets.)

By implication, an ongoing sign of the Holy Spirit’s true presence in the church, and by extension in believers, is reduced to a fallible and probabilistic sign. (The author doesn't seem to understand the gift of discernment.)

Can a true prophecy of the Holy Spirit ever be wrong? Of course not. (Tautology. "Can a true prophecy be not true?")

If a practice of fallible “prophecy” were to rise in the practice of a church, would it not tend in practice and principle toward a lower view of Scripture? (No, it would not.

This is not a biblical argument, by the way.)

Besides the arguments over the sign gifts ("Sign gifts.")

in the New Testament, I believe that it would be exceedingly more profitable to discuss what is frequently called illumination. It must be stated that illumination is not the same thing as revelation. (Where does the Bible say this? Paul uses both words in the space of two verses:

Ep. 1:17-18 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened...

"Enlightened" [illumination] is phótizó; to shine, give light... I bring to light, make evident, reveal. The word is used 11 times in the NT. "Revelation" is apokalupsis, which means manifestation, be revealed, revelation.

The author is making a distinction without a difference.)

Revelation is the objective truth that points to God. (The author's biblical documentation disappears.)

Among classic Reformed theologians from the sixteenth century onward, Appeal To Authority.)

inspiration is most often defined relative to the inspiration of the prophet or Apostle and in relation to the inspiration of Scripture. (This is not a biblical argument.)

It is in this domain that the discussion of prophecy as special revelation is most faithful and appropriate. Illumination is a confirmation by the Holy Spirit to someone of the truthfulness of the Holy Scriptures.(This is not a biblical argument.)

To the newly regenerate believer, (Is there something wrong with using the phrase "born again?")

Christ is grasped with faith in the heart and understanding in the mind. (This is not a biblical argument.) 

To an established believer, the Holy Spirit’s work of illumination builds faith and understanding in the Holy Scriptures with the goal of Christian maturity and holiness. (This is not a biblical argument.)

The doctrine of illumination among the Reformed is the view that it takes a work of the Holy Spirit to understand the Scriptures in a saving way so that the elect are called to eternal life. (This is not a biblical argument.)

Properly speaking, illumination is not revelation. The doctrine of illumination seeks to explain how the Holy Spirit applies the Scriptures in the heart of a believer to produce conviction of sin, repentance, faith, and a heart for new obedience. (This is not a biblical argument.)

The internal testimony of the Holy Spirit is a tremendously important aspect of the Christian life as we realize in light of God’s Word, for example, that we have the confirming work of God’s Holy Spirit encouraging our hearts to trust Him, that we have been adopted into God’s family, and that we have access to God through Christ for bold and free prayer. The doctrine of illumination means that we can and must pray that the same Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures would shine in our hearts to know them and to know God as He must be known—as our faithful God, as our Savior, as Abba Father, as our King and Lord, as the source and seat of all our joy. And while we long for and desire a greater and fuller worship of God with all of God’s people in heaven, here in this life we are given the sufficient and authoritative Scriptures to train and rule our hearts and minds and guide them to God.

Editor’s note: This article is adapted from an article originally published in May 2022.

Dr. Todd M. Rester is associate professor of church history at Westminster Theological Seminary. He is translator of Petrus Van Mastricht’s Theoretical-Practical Theology.