Does God still speak via new revelation today? (part 2)

Continuing Budgen on 1 Cor 13:8-13:
6. The word used for the cessation of the revelatory gifts is very strong (Gr. katargeo) - meaning "destroy."  It is used in v. 8 re: prophecy &  knowledge and in v. 10 in reference to all these gifts.  He quotes Judisch:  "The cessation of the prophetic gifts was to be a complete obliteration beyond recall.  Paul left no room for any thought of a temporary lapse and revival.  If the prophetic gifts ever ceased, they ceased for all time.  But that they did cease at one point or another is clear from history.  Therefore they have ceased for all time." 
7. "Perfection" is a fitting description of the Scriptures, i.e. 1 Pet 1:22-2:2 which contrasts the living, abiding, eternal Word of God (the gospel) with that which is fading, and 2 Tim 3:16-17 which presents the God-breathed Scriptures as fully sufficient for doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness to meet the ministry needs (good works) of the "man of God" (that is, the one who proclaims the Word of God). 

Comments

[Nathan]

While I personally don't find the close of the canon and the perfect argument very strong, I would like to come at the canon question from a different angle.

There is a church behind my house which declares itself to have no creed but the Bible. Certainly even this phrase is a creed, but on with my question. The sentiment behind such a declaration is that human traditions are not godly.

Here is my question, "Don't we accept the canon of the NT based on the tradition of the Church as it has been passed down through the ages?"

[christourhopechurch]

Hi Nathan,

Thanks for your comments (a rare thing on my blog!). You're exactly right about the irony of confessing one's faith as, "No creed but the Bible." Fact is, if such folks wanted to be consistent, they couldn't preach or teach the Scriptures. They could only read them without comment. As soon as they attempt to summarize or explain any teaching of the Bible, they are already confessing their faith / stating what they believe Scripture teaches / revealing their creed. To deny the legitimacy of summarizing biblical teaching only leads to subjective, sloppy, inconsistent creeds - and as many creeds as there are Christians who say "no creed but the Bible."

As to your question, our Westminster tradition implies that canon is a function of the self-attesting authority of Scripture as God's Word (WCF 1.2 with 1.4 & 1.5). If the Word of God is self-attesting as to its divine authority, then the canon results from the church's recognition of and submission to that self-attesting authority. We receive these books to be the Word of God because they are the Word of God.

Before the charge of tautology or circular reasoning comes back, let's remember Van Til's presuppositionalism regarding the authoritative starting point for our reasoning: ultimately, everyone has a starting point for their thinking - autonomous reason or God's authoritative Word - so some "circularity" is inevitable! A person who holds to an empirical epistemology has the starting point of the reliability of our senses in evaluating observable phenomena. Since "inspiration" is not an observable phenomenon per se, his empirical presuppositions already preclude the category of a divinely inspired text. Circularity is at work here as well. So much for detached neutrality!

Hope that helps to answer your question...

Tony

[christourhopechurch]

Also, see my 12/21/07 post, "Some thoughts on the canon of Scripture," where I address canon from the perspective of covenant (borrowing from Kline).

Tony

[Nathan]

Once again, thank you brother for your response. I am aware and fully agree with the distinction between granting the text authority and recognizing the text's authority. Likewise, the presuppositional starting point is one that I'd agree with as well.

Nevertheless, the question is still there, the "Church" recognized the texts and collected them together, leaving out other works that did not resinate with inherent authority. I am perfectly fine with this as well, 66 and all that. It just still seems as if, we today need to admit that we have these 66 works in our Bible's because the Spirit of God worked not only through the writers, but also in and through the body of Christ, our forefathers in the faith, in compiling and preserving His Word. We today are dependent on such a "tradition."

[christourhopechurch]

Amen, Nathan. God has providentially preserved His Word through the instrumentality of His Church. For clarity's sake, I guess we need to define the word "tradition," and weigh its theological significance. "Tradition" in the Protestant context can be understood as commonly accepted beliefs & practices, as in the "Reformed tradition."

Clearly, this understanding is to be distinguished from the Roman Catholic understanding of Sacred Tradition (i.e., another source of divine revelation in addition to Scripture). And when Rome speaks of the canon, it errs by saying the Church authoritatively CREATED the canon. The Church does not create God's Word or the canon, but the Word creates the Church. Rome's view is, "No Church, no Word." The biblical & Protestant view is "No Word, no Church."

I heard a taped lecture by John Gerstner where he cited an RC priest who wrote, "If the Church declared Aesop's Fables to be the Word of God, I would without question receive it as such." Such is the absurdity of Rome's position.

Thanks, Nathan.

Tony

[christourhopechurch]

...so I guess I'm saying, for the sake of clarity, it may be better to speak of God providentially preserving His Word by means of His Church - or else clearly define what we mean by the canon as a "tradition." The reason I'm hedging a bit is two-fold: 1) the RC use of the word, and 2) the fact that "tradition" should always be subordinate to Scripture. I think some would be ok with stating the canon is a tradition (i.e., Sproul articulates the Prot view that the canon is a FALLIBLE collection of infallible books; I reject this on pre-supp grounds and Christ's promise to preserve His Word, i.e. Mt 24:35 w/Is 40:8, etc). I admit I'm less comfortable to do so.