Dear all

I have been thinking bout the flow of argument on this thread, and, from my perspective, it seems that there are has been little attempt to address the core issue at hand--whether the Bible teaches that God no longer gives revelation to the church today. ('Revelation' here is used in a broad sense to include extra-scriptural prophecies that do not reveal new doctrine per se).

If it cannot be shown from scripture that these gifts are no longer given, then we should understand that they still may be given today.

Here is a non-exhaustive summary of some of the arguments raised.

1. That prophecy today, it should be added to scripture.

--Counter-argument. The first post of this thread shows that there were genuine prophecies not included in the text of scripture. If these were not included, why would all other prophecies have to be included. New Testament books had to meet the criteria of being from apostolic circles, not merely be prophetic or revelatory in nature. God gave many revelations to prophets in the first century whose writings are not included in scripture.

2. Hebrews 1 teaches that God spoke in times past by prophets, but now he has spoken by his Son. Some argue based on this, that there were no more prophets.

--Counterargument. This line of reasoning contradicts New Testament teaching that there were prophets after the ascension. It would also lead us to believe that the New Testament is not inspired, since it was written after Christ ascended. Clearly the author of Hebrews did not mean prophetic revelation ended, when he contrasted God speaking through prophets in the past and now speaking by His Son.

3. Hebrews 2 teaches that God bore witness to the eye-witnesses of the resurrection's preaching of salvation with signs, wonders, and gifts. Therefore, the gifts ceased.

-Counterargument. This is poor logic. The verse does not say gifts would not continue. If the passage teaches that God bore witness through signs and wonders when the Gospel was _first_ preached only to the Hebrews, does that mean
that was the only condition under which He would do so? No, of course not. If that were the case, then He would not have born witness to Paul and Barnabas' ministry with miracles as He did when the Gospel was preached among the Gentiles.

If I say, "When I first came to work at my company, I used to eat at McDonald's, which is next door, quite often" does that mean I do not eat at McDonald's anymore? I might eat at McDonald's, and I might not.

4. That supernatural gifts were given exclusively as signs to verify the apostles and/or the scriptures.

Counter-argument- God bore witness to the apostle's preaching by signs and wonders, yes. But scripture does not teach that this is the only purpose for supernatural gifts.

-Philip of the 7, not one of the 12 apostles, did signs and wonders among the people. So did Stephen.

-The debated end of Mark says that certain signs will follow 'them that believe'

-Nowhere does the Bible teach that these signs and wonders confirmed the New Testament canon of scripture per se. To promote the idea that this was the purpose of miracles is to promote an extra-scriptural doctrine, contrary to the idea of sola scriptura.

-If God granted signs and wonders to confirm the message being preached, it does not follow that confirming the word is the reason God has for granting signs and wonders to be done in every case.

-I Corinthians 12 shows us that these gifts were given to edify the body of Christ, which still exists today. Therefore, confirming the word is not the only reason for such things.

5. That belief in the continuance of spiritual gifts violates a certain section of a particular creed.

-Actually the creed quoted does not necessarily contradict the continuance of the gifts, depending on how it is interpreted. However, this is irrelevant. If the Bible does not teach that the gifts ceased, then to base such a doctrine on the wording of a creed is similar to the way Roman Catholics treat papal decrees and other 'sacred tradition.'

6. That 'the perfect' in I Corinthians 13 refers to the closing of cannon of scripture.

-I do not recall anyone here directly stating it. However, I was refered to a website that argued this idea.

Such an interpretation does not fit in the text, in which Paul speaks of his own personal state before and after the perfect comes. If the perfect refers to the resurrection, which he describes later in the book (--note the importance of 'long thoughts' and context--) then Paul will experience the coming of the perfect.

If Paul refers to himself as a literary device, then this interpretation would lead us to conclude that we are more mature than the apostle Paul was in his life, because we have a copy of the scriptures. The canon was compiled based on apostolic authority. How can the apostles be an authority if we make ourselves superior to them? If we make them childish and ourselves mature, spiritually, because we have the books they wrote.

Clearly the completion of the canon does not make us 'more adult' in comparison with the apostles.

7. That the quote from Isaiah 28 in I Corinthians 14 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.

-This really has no bearing on the cessation of the gifts for two reasons

- Paul's makes his point in quoting the verse, that tongues is a sign to 'unbelievers', as he writes, and not Jews per se. He says nothing about the destruction of the temple, Jerusalem, etc. in this passage. Paul does not argue that tongues is a sign to the Jews in particular here.
- Tongues has a purpose other than as a sign to unbelievers. With the gift of interpretation, it edifies the church. Without, it edifies the individual who uses it.

8. If there are true prophecies, they would be authoratative, and they would be hard to judge.

-This is not an argument against the continuance of prophecy. Scripture commands the church to despise not prophesyings and to prove all things. If believing the gifts continue makes church life seem more difficult, that is not evidence that they have ceased. If God would require the early church to discern what was true in their day, is it so hard to believe He might require us to do the same?

We have also had a number of tangents related to issues that have come up during the course of the discussion like defining blaspheming the Holy Spirit, or the appropriate use of the term 'Charismatic.'

I have not seen a strong argument against the use of the gifts, certainly not one based on scritpure. If one cannot show scripture to show that the gifts ceased, why should he believe they have?