I hadn’t looked at 2 Tim 3:16-17 in relation to prophecy in particular, but, thanks to a comment by Neil, over the past couple of days I have thought a little bit about it. And while I still don’t have the answers to all my questions, I cannot see how cessationists can continue to use these verses to support the cessation of prophecy.

Let me explain:

What does “All Scripture” in verse 16 refer to? Today it is totally reasonable to apply it to all of the OT and NT as we understand it. But when Paul wrote those words, what was he referring to?

He may have only refered to OT writings, but it is possible he is moving beyond the phrase “sacred writings” in v15 to include Paul’s “teaching” in v10. Therefore, Paul would have been self-consciously referring to his writings when he referred to “all Scripture”. Did the church recognise a new body of writing (including Paul’s) as Scripture at that time? Certainly Paul was not unaware of his authority, and Peter himself refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture. Whether or not Paul was intending to include many of the books we now accept as part of the New Testament, it is certain he did not have in mind Revelation, and according to this scholar, it is likely he didn’t have Jude, John, 1-3 John in mind either as they had not at that time been written.

So, if we are to take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as cessationists would like us to with regards to prophecy, Paul was saying that we don’t need any more revelation because the Scripture-he-was-referring-to-at-that-time was all the man of God needs to be fully equipped. Hence, we do not need Jude, John, 1-3 John or the book of Revelations.

Yet, if we can accept Jude, John, 1-3 John and the book of Revelations as legitimate revelation in addition to the writings of Scripture Paul was referring to and still not threaten the doctrine of sola scriptura (and we can), then how can these verses be used to discount the continuation of prophecy - revelation of lesser value than the yet unwritten Scripture?

There are so many other things going on, this almost seems not very worthwhile to write, and yet, I would like to get some thoughts down as a continuation of a recent post and discussion in the comments.

I think most cessationists would agree with me that their definition of prophecy is that it is Scripture-equivalent. To break that down further, that means that prophecy is a) as valuable as Scripture, b) as authoritative as Scripture and c) as accurate as Scripture. What’s more, cessationists would argue this has always been the case, and God has always intended prophecy to be that way.

I disagree.

Continue Reading »

The Australian parliament has voted with a good majority to strip the Health Minister of his power to ban the abortion pill RU486.  That power has now passed into the hands of Medical experts at the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which means that it will almost certainly be available in Australia in the not-to-distant future. 

Since when did medical experts have any greater ability to judge a moral question?  One of the proposed ammendments was that the power be turned over to parliament and I think I’d have more faith in parliament’s judgement than medical experts’ - and that’s saying a lot.

A friend said that he did not support the RU486 pill (as opposed to “bill”), but thought that one man should not have that sort of power.  I can see his point, and that should have been addressed, but that was not, in reality, what the debate was about.  According to the supporters of the bill, it was about a woman’s right to choose.

I hate abortion!  Change the classification of a victim and killing them is okay.  The slaughter of Aboriginies in Australia was justified by reclassifying them as flora and fauna.  The extermination of Jews was justified by reducing their standing to “other and lower”.  The killing of babies is justified by denying them status as human beings.

Now people are rejoicing because murder has become more convenient.  Makes me want to hit something. 

Anyone for taking responsibility for sexual behaviour? 

Come, Lord!

Not long ago I listened to a tape of a message by D.A. Carson called, “Greater than King David”. The basic message was explaining why Jesus said John the Baptist was the greatest to have been born of a woman and why even the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he. But that, though interesting, is not what I want to discuss here.

In the message Carson suggests that when John the Baptist said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29) the word “lamb” in the text actually refers to a “warrior lamb” as opposed to a sacrificial lamb. Carson appeals to Matt 11:2-3 and Luke 7:18-19 where John the Baptist questions whether Jesus is “the One” - Jesus was not acting like a warrior lamb.

It is clear John the Baptist was saying more than he knew at the time. Carson pointed out the same sort of speech occurs in John 11:49-52, where the text tells us that Caiaphas spoke prophetically without even realising it. It is not unreasonable, then, to say that John the Baptist spoke prophetically in John 1:29.

Many modern day cessationists protest that prophecy must be infallible and equal to the authority of Scripture, and therefore no revelation can exist today. But if Scripture itself identifies as prophecy words coming from the mouths of two people who did not even know it - how much more can Christians prophesy who have the Spirit (like John) and are priests (like Caiaphas) and are also beneficiaries of greater knowledge of the truth and greater blessings than the both of them?

(Of course, prophecy in the New Testament has an even wider definition than that - Cretan poets are attributed the title “prophet” by Paul - though some may argue sarcasm was used there.)

In this gender-confused age our churches are filled with people who really have little idea about what a man is as distinct from a woman, so we have people who will tell us what each is and exhort us to live up to each prescription description.

Yes, it is needed.

But I am concerned that a new legalism will come into play.  “To be a man, you must do this” or “be this”, etc. etc. etc.  People make the writings of the New Testament into a legalistic document, so when the topic of ”How to be a man” is emphasised, it will not likely escape the same fate at the hands of some, even many.

More than that, though, I am concerned that those preaching this stuff will make it into a new legalism - and I am not convinced that the applications drawn from the Bible are always culture/personality-free.

To be fair, of course, the descriptions are usually fairly general, but I do get the impression that I do have to be just one type of man to be a real man.  Am I just imagining things?  Perhaps I’m confusing everyone with John Eldredge. 

Have you ever heard a new Christian say, “I’m not interested in theology, I’m just interested in Jesus”?

Typically what happens is that those of us theologically educated will piously explain that even saying, “I believe in God” or “I believe Jesus rose from the dead” is a theological statement and that you can’t be a Christian without theology.

Sadly, we pompous theological types completely miss the point. What those new (and sometimes not so new) Christians have recognised is that Jesus is what Christianity is all about, He is the One that brings life and so He should be the centre of attention. Before these people became Christians they may have had a church education, or maybe even now they look at the “theological people” around them and in neither find the life of Christ. When given the choice between life-less discussions about theological intricacies and a life-abundant God-in-the-flesh, no one would be mad enough to choose the former.

Or would they?

One wonders how many theologians - reformed theologians at that - are not saved. It is not just liberalism that is a danger to the saving power of the gospel in one’s life, legalism and pharisee-ism have also been responsible for blinding eyes to the glorious truth of the gospel, and closing hearts of those who know but don’t accept it. It is not that there is an either/or that must exist between theology and Christ, but when doctrine ceases to be the servant of the Gospel and is raised as high as Jesus in importance and heart-value, I say along with those people, “I’m not interested in theology, I’m only interested in Jesus.”

Let’s keep Jesus the main thing.

I’ve just been accepted into an advanced diploma course and have been given this strange book list for me to buy:

Know the Truth; Milne

Father Heart of God; McClung

Skilled Helper (with Exercises); Egan

How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth; Fee & Stuart

Modern Psychotherapies; Jones & Butman

Psychology, Theology, Spirituality; McMinn

I’ve read “Father Heart of God” and “How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth” - years ago, but I haven’t read the others.  Can anyone help me and tell me what some of the others are like?  (It’s quite a bizzare list).