Dear Pastor,
I have a friend who has a question on cessationism. Here is my question. (Actually it’s his question.) He wanted to know how it is that I make the distinction between a prophet called by God to speak for God to monarchs and to Israel and to the church — as well as to write scripture — which I was saying I thought was one kind of prophet, yet I then also wanted to distinguish the idea of prophecy as it’s described by Paul when he says that there are some who have a gift of prophecy. My friend is wanting to know how I know that Paul was not referring to the idea of ongoing prophecy. I’m clear that there is no ongoing prophecy or new revelation since the closing of the Cannon, but I’m wondering about how to clarify Paul’s meaning of prophecy And it’s ongoing application for the church today?
Clifford
Dear Clifford,
Thank you for the question. Let me know if I don’t give you enough information or if I have not answered the question.
First we would note that the word “Prophet” has a narrow and a broad meaning. Narrowly considered the word Prophet means fore-teller. This is one who predicts or sees the future. This would have been one dynamic of most of the Biblical prophets through the OT and NT until the closing of the cannon. There is a broader meaning of the word that means “Forth-teller.” A prophet by this definition is one who speaks forth the word of God in their speech. The Heidelberg catechism (and Biblical Christianity as a whole) holds that all Christians are Prophets in this broad sense of the Word.
Second, in terms of ongoing prophecy, I would say to your friend that there was ongoing prophecy until the close of the canon. The way we can know that is from Scripture. I Corinthians 13:8 teaches,
“Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.”
Prophecies, in the sense of fore-telling the future (narrow sense of the idea of prophecy) will come to an end. Tongues will cease. Knowledge (in the sense of charismatic ‘word of knowledge’) will vanish away.
Finally I would point him to Hebrews 1
1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son….
There is no further need for the various ways that God previously spoke since God has spoke finally (in these last days) by His Son.
And where do we find the Son speaking?
In the Scriptures.
Scripture teaches cessationism and any desire for God to continue to speak only dilutes the importance of His speaking in Scripture for if God continues to give verbal revelation then the verbal revelation that He has given in Scripture is reduced in import. Why look to old Revelation when one has newer Revelation to access?
The tried & tested revelation versus the new & improved ‘revelation’.
How are we to further understand this?
“There is an aspect to Knox which is rarely mentioned today. The reformed and protestant community generally does not like it and the charismatics are not aware of it. But he had, as even Jasper Ridley admitted, a gift for prophesy. More than once he declared that certain things were going to happen that were totally unlikely and they did. And they never were able to cope with that fact or to explain John Knox. He was a man of one of the most amazing characters in all of history” – RJR.
I’d have to read more of this “gift of prophesy” that Knox had before I believed it or before I registered an opinion.
“Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.”
Would love be part of justice, therefore love be conditional? If so, how does grace fit in with conditional love?
Love is defined as treating people consistent with God’s law-word.