Lesson 12: The Closed Canon, Part 2

All right, let's begin with prayer. Our Father, we are grateful to You for bringing us here together this morning.

We are thankful for this place to gather, for the freedom to do so. We are thankful for the health and good spirits that we are in and the ability to gather together as Your people, with Your people, for our edification and our encouragement and our equipping for life and ministry.

We're thankful for Your work, for Your Word and for the work of Your Word that You do by the power of Your Spirit in our lives.

We thank You for giving us Your Word and preserving it for us, and we pray now that as we talk about how

You have done that work, that You would help us to understand how You have worked and what You have done and help us to appreciate and understand the treasure of Your Word that You have given to us in Scripture.

And may we respond with hearts of gratitude and love and obedience, and we pray Your blessing upon this time. Help us to think clearly, we ask, and help me to communicate clearly, in Christ's name.

Amen. All right, we are in lesson 12, the closed canon. I don't know if this will take us the entire rest of the

Sunday school time to go through this, but this subject might engender a little bit of discussion. I don't know what it has in the past, but we shall see.

And then I've got a couple more, two more lessons after this, no sorry, three more lessons after this, and then we will be done with this series.

I'm looking forward to getting back to sitting in adult Sunday school class rather than teaching adult Sunday school class. I need that time during adult

Sunday school class to finish downloading my sermon and figure out what I'm going to preach on. So our question today is, is the canon open or closed?

That's what we're going to address. So we're in number four, is the canon still open? Roman numeral number four in lesson 12, and that's what we're going to be talking about, is is the canon still open or is it closed?

Now when I say is the canon open, what I mean is, are we still adding books to Scripture?

Are we still adding modern day revelations or continuing revelation to the canon of Scripture or not?

Now to the question, is the canon still open? There are only two possible answers to that question, what are they?

It's either yes or it is no. Those are the two possible answers to that question, is the canon still open?

Either yes it is, meaning that revelation is continually going on and we ought to be open to adding other books to those 66 books that we have in our

Bible, or the canon is closed. Now who would determine whether the canon is still open or whether it is closed?

Who would determine that? Would the church determine that? Would we as God's people determine whether or not the canon is open or closed?

Who makes that determination? Who determined whether there was going to be a canon to begin with?

And what makes it, what makes a book canonical? God is the one who determines if a book is canonical, right?

So when did the idea, when did canon actually come into existence? When does an authoritative writing exist?

When God speaks. If God doesn't speak, then there's no authoritative writing or there's no authoritative revelation, correct?

And therefore there's no canon, there's no book to add to the canon. If God doesn't write any books, then we don't just go out and grab books that we think are really good spiritual guides and just start collecting them together and say, this is going to be our

Bible. That's not how it works. We don't determine what is canonical. We don't determine the canon. We discover the canon.

So really the question is, is a book authoritative? And if it is authoritative, then it is because God has spoken it.

If God has not spoken it, it's not authoritative, and therefore it is not canonical. So ultimately God is the one who determines whether a book belongs in the canon or not by virtue of the fact that He gives the book and speaks through that human author to write that book.

That's what gives it its canonicity. So there are only two possible positions then.

Either the Bible has been completed or God is still speaking today and therefore we are still adding authoritative revelation to that canon.

It is either yes or no. Is the canon still open? Yes or no. I'm going to argue today for a closed canon.

So in case you're new here and you're not quite sure where I'm at on this position, is Jim really open to it? I'm not at all open to a continuing canon or an open canon.

I believe in a closed canon, and I'm going to argue that today and possibly even in a way that will make some of you uncomfortable if you think that God is speaking to you in still small voices, whispers, nudging, promptings, and impressions, because that issue is connected to the open or closed canon question.

And as you'll see that as we get to the end, okay? Let me give you some arguments in favor of a closed canon. This is letter A. Here's the first argument.

And that nothing today could meet the qualifications for canonicity. And which of the five qualities of a canonical book would a modern -day revelation not meet?

It's not apostolic, correct, because there are no apostles today. That's right. Yeah, apostle had to have been a witness to the resurrected

Christ. Now of course Jesse DePlantis and Creflo Dollar and Kenneth Copeland and some of those guys would say that they've seen the risen

Christ. They get trips to heaven all the time. So they would make that claim, and thus they would say that they have the ability or the office of apostle today.

But there is no apostolic office today, so therefore it wouldn't be apostolic. What other criteria or what other quality of canonicity would it be lacking?

What was the fifth one? Remember what the fifth one was? You say, you're not even sure. We went through this list like four weeks ago or whatever it was.

Okay, the fifth one was that it had to be, it was widely accepted. Books that were canonical were widely accepted by the church.

They were accepted by God's people or recognized by God's people. So if a modern day revelation came, if somebody had a modern day revelation, and we would have to ask the question, well, is this the same, of the same quality and kind as what was revealed in the

New Testament era? It's not apostolic. It wouldn't meet that criteria of being authoritative because it comes from an apostle.

And how do we know if they were messengers of God? Because they did signs and wonders. They performed signs and wonders, authenticating the fact that they were

God's messengers. So the fact that God spoke through those apostles in the writing of Scripture, God authenticated them as His voice,

His mouthpiece, His messengers by giving them the ability to perform signs and wonders. And that is, those were the marks of an apostle.

So a modern day revelation could not be apostolic and authoritative in that sense. It wouldn't be marked by coming from somebody who had the ability to perform signs and wonders, and it wouldn't be accepted by the whole church because more of the church has existed in the last 2 ,000 years than exists today.

There's more dead church behind us than there is living church today. And therefore, even if every Christian on the face of the planet decided to accept another book as canonical, you would still have the bulk of the church that has lived who would have never had access to that revelation.

So it wouldn't match up with those qualities. Let me give you a second argument, and that is that the apostles knew that the writing of Scripture was coming to an end.

The apostles knew that the writing of Scripture was coming to an end. And Jude makes reference to the faith that was once for all delivered, past tense, to the saints.

Right? Even in Jude's day, he recognized that there was a body of doctrine, a body that regulated the faith that had been delivered to the saints.

He speaks of the once, the delivered once for all faith to the saints. And Jude writing toward the end of the

New Testament time of revelation, Jude didn't write early on. He wrote later toward the end of that, around the same time as 2

Peter, so you're talking about 63, 64 AD, somewhere in that neighborhood that Jude was writing. So here 30 years after the resurrection of Jesus, Jude referred to a faith that had been once for all delivered to the saints.

Jude doesn't speak of the faith and of Scripture and of the content of faith as something that was continuing to be revealed generation after generation as if revelation was going to continue to go on, on infinitum ad nauseum, into the future beyond Jude's own lifetime.

So Jude described in the past tense the faith that was delivered. Paul speaks, I think, in 1 Corinthians 13, it's my interpretation of the end of that love passage where he talks about tongues being done away with and knowledge, tongues being done away with and, how does he say it?

It's not in front of me right now. He talks about those revelatory sign gifts there at the end of 1 Corinthians 13.

It's my conviction, and I know this is not where John MacArthur would be at, it's not where your MacArthur study Bible would say, but it's my conviction that Paul there is describing the end of New Testament revelation and the coming of the full revelation in Jesus Christ and the writings of Scripture that that in itself would do away with the need for sign gifts, the revelatory sign gifts.

That's my position on that. All right, and Revelation 22, 18, and 19 warns against adding to the book. Now arguably that refers primarily to the book of Revelation, but I also believe that that is a solemn warning of the

Holy Spirit concerning all of Scripture because there are other parts of Scripture that warn against adding and subtracting from God's Word.

So the whole notion that you and I can add or that anybody would add to what God has already written and presume to call that Scripture, Scripture warns against that.

So the apostles themselves knew that Scripture was, the writing of Scripture was coming to an end. There is nothing in the

New Testament written by any apostle that commanded anyone to look forward to revelation that would be happening after the lifetime of the apostles.

Think about that for a second. There's no instruction from the apostles during their lifetime that would instruct

Christians who were to come after them to be expecting further revelation from the next generation of church leaders.

When Paul was nearing the end of his life and he wrote to Timothy, he pointed Timothy to Scripture.

He said all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for these things. And he points to Scripture as the inspired and inerrant and infallible authoritative rule and he points

Timothy back to that. Paul never said, look, Timothy, Scripture is really good, but you need to be listening for more revelations after I'm gone.

I mean, Scripture has its place, but be open to what the Spirit of God may reveal in every generation to come.

Paul never said that. Peter, at the end of his apostolic ministry when he knew that his life was coming to an end, and Peter said, this earthly tent that I'm in,

I'm certainly going to cast this off soon, going to be with glory. He didn't point his readers to the next generation of leaders who would also be giving further revelation.

Instead, Peter said that we have the prophetic word made more sure to which you do well to pay attention and to pay heed.

Peter pointed his readers back to Scripture. The apostles in their writings never pointed the readers to anything outside of what

God was delivering through them in their time. So the apostles expected themselves that that revelatory act of God would come to an end and was coming to an end.

Number four, or sorry, number three, under arguments in favor of a closed canon, number three is there is no need for additional revelation because Scripture affirms its own sufficiency.

And therefore, if you want to argue that the canon is open, that we need something more, you have to be saying something implicitly about Scripture.

And what is it? It's not enough, it's insufficient. You have to then argue that God has not given to me everything that pertains to life and godliness.

Robert Morris, whom I quote in my book, God Doesn't Whisper, he makes the argument that if it were not for a continuing private revelations that God has given to him, he would never know how to pastor the church, he would never be able to pastor because he could never make all the decisions that are required for being a pastor if God wasn't speaking him and giving him direction in all of those decisions that he was making.

So what is a pastor of a church arguing when he makes a statement like that? He's saying that Scripture is not sufficient to tell him how to pastor a church.

How inept is the Holy Spirit that He would give us this book and not in it give us the instructions necessary to pastor a church?

I've pastored this church for 25 years and I've never once felt like I needed some special revelation or to make a decision, not once.

And if I were to argue that I would, I would be arguing that Scripture itself has not given me sufficient information, therefore it is insufficient, it is lacking, and it is inadequate to equip us for every good work including works of service.

Yeah, Rick? Yeah, very implicitly,

Rick said, he's also saying that he himself is the final authority in the church, right? If God tells me to do something, then does it really matter what

Scripture says? You have no right to question if God gave me the instruction to do X, Y, and Z in the church. Yes?

Yeah. Yeah, she was speaking in German, so let me translate that for you. She said that Deuteronomy 29 .29

says that the secret things belong to the Lord our God, and so there are certain things that God has not revealed to us, there are certain things that He keeps to Himself.

Yeah, very good point. It is a form of Gnosticism, yes, the idea that I can know something that's not available to other

Christians. It is an implicit form of Gnosticism, a modern -day form of Gnosticism, yep. Yeah, Ken?

Yeah, so the question is about the Mormon church and what would have caused them to accept modern -day revelations, a further revelation or a second revelation of Christ.

And of course, Joseph Smith's own pet doctrines would have been motivation enough because he can't find those in Scripture.

So as is typical of most cult leaders, whenever they cannot find the doctrines that they want to believe in Scripture, then they just have to argue that Scripture either has been misunderstood or it's not been translated accurately or not been conveyed to us accurately, not been preserved by God, and therefore additional revelation to correct what has been corrupted is necessary.

And that's the argument that the Mormon church makes. Okay? Any other questions?

All right, so there's no need for additional revelation, number three. Number four, the New Testament instructs us to teach, to test all teaching by what has already been delivered.

In other words, Paul always compares teaching and false teaching in his day to what the Scripture has said.

And we likewise, 2 Peter and Jude, we are commanded and encouraged to compare whatever new fashionable, vogue teaching comes along by what has been already delivered to us.

There's no instruction in the New Testament that we are to seek whatever the Spirit of God is saying in the day in which we live and whatever revelation is given and then compare false teaching with that because that gets you into a position where you're basically asking

Joseph Smith, are your doctrines in keeping with what God is saying? Well, yeah, I feel I'm speaking it to my heart.

So of course what I'm teaching is right in keeping with what God is revealing today, right? Because it's in keeping with what He's revealing to me right now.

So then there becomes no objective standard by which you test false doctrine. Yet the New Testament commands us to test all teaching by what has already been revealed, not what would eventually be revealed in generations to come.

And number five, the early church did not allow for additional revelation. Remember, there were men like Montanus, we talked about him several weeks ago, who believed that God was revealing things through him in a modern prophetic office in the second and third centuries after the apostles, and he was roundly condemned by the church fathers because the early church fathers, none of them believed that the canon was open.

The early church fathers all pointed back to the apostles and said, they are our lights. They are our guides. They are the standard. It was the apostolic writings.

They pointed back to what had already been delivered. So until rather recently, it has been almost heretical, certainly aberrant to suggest that God was continuing to give revelation and that the canon was open.

It's only in recent times that this whole idea that we can continue to get revelation has become fashionable within the evangelical church.

All right, so those are my five arguments in favor of a closed canon. First of all, it wouldn't have the marks of a canonical book.

It couldn't because it would be given late and it wouldn't be apostolic. The apostles knew that the writing of Scripture was coming to an end. There's no need for additional revelation.

The New Testament instructs us to test all things by what has already been delivered, not by what would be delivered, and the early church did not allow for additional revelation.

The early church fathers certainly condemned that revelation. Look to the apostles and the writings of the New Testament as a closed canon.

Okay, so any questions on those five? All right, let's talk in letter

B here about some false views of revelation then. Some try and respect the idea of a closed canon while at the same time arguing for continuing modern day revelations in some form.

This is a very, it's an inconsistent position to have, theologically speaking. It's also very difficult to navigate because it puts you in this position where you're trying to almost invent a category of revelation that Scripture knows nothing about, and I'll demonstrate to you what

I mean by that. So, here are some false views of revelation. First, that there is such a thing as modern day prophets.

People try and allow for a modern day thus sayeth the Lord in the church. So, Sam Storms, for instance, in his book

Practicing the Power of the Spirit, he is a Reformed continuationist, so that means that he would be

Reformed in his soteriology and even his eschatology. He would hold to the five points of Calvinism, he would be considered a

Reformed teacher, and would affirm the gospel the same way that we do, but he believes in continuing revelation.

So in his book Practicing the Power of the Spirit, he actually argues for a way of encouraging the prophetic office within your own church and allowing people to have times inside of the worship service to stand up and to give prophetic utterances.

And even if they're wrong, then you need to come alongside of them and teach them how to be right in the uttering of their prophetic proclamations.

Okay, so now that's somebody who theologically would agree with us in terms of the gospel and much of our doctrine, right, he would be in our camp, but Sam Storms would argue that God is continuing this revelatory and prophetic office.

Wayne Grudem is another one that would believe that. Wayne Grudem would be theologically where we're at on 95 % of theology, but he believes in continuing revelation.

John Piper is another one, Mark Driscoll was another one. Mark Driscoll argued for revelatory dreams where God would reveal things to him in visions while he was in counseling situations, and some of it was nearly pornographic, what he said

God was revealing to him. Here's another one. Okay, those are the ones

I can think of off the top of my head that would be where we're at theologically, but would believe in continuing revelation.

So they would say that there is an openness or a continuation of this prophetic office within the church today, and that we actually have prophets who are giving revelation today.

Now, all these men would say that the canon is closed, okay? They would all say the canon is closed.

God is not adding to Scripture at all. Sixty -six books, that's all there is, we're not adding the

Apocrypha, we're not adding on after the book of Revelation, they would say that the canon is absolutely closed. But they would say that God is continuing to reveal things today, and He is continuing to speak through prophets today and in the church today through words of knowledge and revelations, possibly dreams, possibly visions, nudgings, promptings, still small voices, impressions, private revelations, all of that.

So they want both of these worlds. Okay, now I hope that you are seeing how these two things cannot possibly go together.

And why is that? If God speaks, it is what?

It's going to be Scripture. It is authoritative. It's inerrant. It is infallible, right?

If God speaks, it has to have those qualities. Now if it is authoritative and inerrant and infallible, then it is what?

Scripture. So the question is, how can God speak in a non -Scriptural way?

How can God speak in a non -authoritative voice? And see, this is what they have to argue, that they would actually say,

Matt Chandler has said, he's another one that would be theologically almost where we're at, identical in terms of other theologies, but he would believe in continuing revelation.

Matt Chandler would say it's possible for us to, instead of saying, thus saith the Lord, like Scripture says, instead we would say,

I feel the Lord is telling me, or I feel the Lord is impressing upon me, or I kind of sense that the Lord is directing me and giving me this to say to you.

And so he would believe that God is still speaking through us, but because we are unable to appreciate it, because we are unable to receive it, or we're unable to hear it correctly, that it might be, in fact, we would get it wrong, and we could actually receive a fallible or errant, and it's non -inspired and in a non -authoritative sense.

So they have to argue that God is speaking, but He's speaking in a non -authoritative way, or a non -inspired way.

And some of those that I critique in God Doesn't Whisper, like Priscilla Schreier and Bill Heibles and others, and Charles Stanley, they would say,

God is still speaking, but it's not on par with Scripture. That's the phrase that we use continually. It's not on par with Scripture.

Well, let me, why is Scripture, why is Scripture that par? What makes Scripture, Scripture? What makes, what makes

Scripture authoritative, inerrant, infallible? What gives it those qualities? Is it the fact that it's just written down?

Does it have those qualities because it's in writing? No. Is it, does it have those qualities because it's old?

Hold on, let me walk through this real quick. Does it have those qualities because it's old? It's older revelation, therefore it has those qualities.

Or does it have those qualities because God spoke it? It has those qualities because God spoke it.

And when God speaks, it must be authoritative, inerrant, and infallible.

It cannot be otherwise. God cannot speak a non -authoritative word, God cannot speak a fallible word, and God cannot speak an errant word.

And therefore, Scripture is infallible, inspired, inerrant, and authoritative if it has those qualities because God spoke it.

And God cannot speak a non -authoritative, errant, and fallible word. Then tell me how it is that God can continue to speak and yet it not be on par with Scripture.

See, in order to hold to both of these, they have to create an entire category of revelation that Scripture knows nothing about.

Scripture knows nothing about errant revelation, errant God speaking, God speaking fallibly where he gets it wrong once in a while.

He tries his best, but he gets it wrong. Scripture knows nothing of that category. Scripture knows nothing of a category of prophets that are from God and speak for God, but are inaccurate and get it wrong sometimes.

They hear it wrong sometimes. See, I believe that God, because He is sovereign, has the ability to speak, and He also has the ability to make sure that the person to whom

He is speaking hears and understands perfectly and conveys perfectly exactly what it is He is saying.

He has the ability to do both of those. And the failings and frailty of the human person to whom

He is speaking is irrelevant to God's ability to clearly communicate and to make sure that what

He says is conveyed and understood perfectly. Okay? So, Angella, could you have a question real quick?

I'm trying to speak in English. Go ahead. Try it. Yes. Well, hopefully the

Lord will ensure that you're able to clearly communicate to me. Go ahead. Okay.

Okay. It's a very good question. So, when I say that God has spoken in Scripture or God speaks in Scripture, we do believe that God speaks through His Word.

But the way that God speaks through His Word is when somebody takes His Word and studies His Word and comes to the meaning of that Scripture and then communicates it to you.

When you hear the meaning of Scripture as the author and the Spirit of God intended it, not a special meaning that He gives to Scripture outside of what the author intended or what it meant 2 ,000 years ago.

When you are reading through Scripture and you hear the meaning of that passage in your mind and your heart and you understand it, you are hearing

God speak to you, but it is Scripture itself that is the voice of God. It's not a voice of God that is attached to Scripture.

So, I'm reading through Scripture and I come across a passage that says, children are a gift from the

Lord and the person who has, the person is blessed who has a full quiver. And I read that in Psalms 103,

I think, or something like that. And I read that passage and I think, there is the word children that really spoke to my heart. I think the Lord is leading me to start a children's ministry.

Is that what that meant back then? No? Okay, so if it didn't mean that back then, it doesn't mean that now.

What does it mean now? It means that children are a gift from the Lord and the one who has those, that is one way that God blesses those people.

So, when I read that passage and I understand what God is saying, I'm hearing the voice of God, but through Scripture because I'm understanding the text.

The text itself is the voice of God. So, when I say there's no modern day prophets, I'm not saying there's no modern day teachers, nor am

I saying that God no longer takes His word and ministers to our heart, sanctifies us and uses His word in our hearts because I think that He does.

If I believed that God didn't do that, I would never preach another sermon. Because my only hope is that in all the effort that I put forward on a

Sunday morning to prepare for a Sunday morning, that I'm expecting and hoping and trusting that God is going to take

His word and what He said and wrote back then and that He is going to take that word and apply it and use it in the hearts of everybody who is here.

That's my prayer and my hope. So, God is speaking through the mouth of the preacher or teacher because He's speaking through the word.

And so long as the preacher is accurately communicating what God said, God is speaking through that to the person who hears that.

But the message is the same, the application might be different, but the message is the same. So, I'm not saying God doesn't use modern day teachers or modern day preachers,

I'm saying God is not continuing to give revelation that is outside of, apart from, and different than Scripture today.

That make sense to help clarify that? Okay. Any other questions on that? Yeah. Hold on right here.

Yeah. So, the two witnesses and revelation, so I think, let me rephrase the question and see if I'm asking it correctly.

Does that mean that God is never going to speak authoritatively in the future? That's the bottom, that's underneath your question, right?

I don't necessarily, the idea that there is a closed canon today does not mean that God cannot give further revelation at a future time that is authoritative, inerrant, and inspired.

I think that during the millennial kingdom, during the earthly kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ that there will be some sort of revelatory office at that point.

Whether the two prophets in revelation are new prophets in the sense of an

Old Testament prophet or whether they are just men who stand up and preach, I don't know. I don't know that I would have to say that,

I don't know that we'd have to say that that is additional revelation. But Joel's prophecy that young men will dream dreams and old men will have visions and that the

Lord will speak in the coming millennial kingdom, I mean, I don't know how the Lord Jesus Christ ruling on planet earth can speak in a non -authoritative, errant way.

So it might be that God would give further revelation in the millennial age, in the kingdom age, but all we're talking about now is in this age, until that coming kingdom, should we believe that there is currently revelation being given or that there has been additional revelation since the time of the apostles?

And I would say no. Yeah, their coming is specifically promised in Scripture.

Yeah. Right. Yep, good point. It wouldn't be justified to say because God has promised another, if those two revelation prophets are actually authoritative, inerrant prophets in that sense, the fact that God has promised that those two men would come does not give me justification to say that I'm speaking or that God's speaking to me.

Yeah, Aaron. Yep. Yeah, that's right.

Back, it was a year ago now, we did discuss the difference between illumination and revelation.

Revelation is the act of God giving content, revealing truth. Illumination is the act of God opening our eyes and our hearts.

It's not Scripture that needs to be illuminated, but our hearts and minds need to be opened and illuminated to understand and see what is there.

And so that's the two different functions of the Spirit of God. One is revelatory, one helps us to understand what has been already revealed.

Yeah. Jess, did you have a question? Yeah, the question is, if a continuationist says that they have sign gifts and they're giving continuing revelation, wouldn't that be a form of Gnosticism?

And it would be a form of Gnosticism, yep. Okay, any other questions?

Let me pause for a moment and say I know that there are a lot of people that are new here that have come either since last September. If you are new and you want a copy of God Doesn't Whisper because you don't have it yet, you're free to take a copy, see me afterwards.

I'll make sure you get a free copy of that book because of a generous donor who made that possible. So, I realize that there are people who have come since September when we gave those away.

And I deal with this issue in this continuing revelation in greater detail in that book.

All right, any other questions about that before we move on? Okay.

So, one false view of revelation is the notion that there are modern day prophets, people within the church that God has raised up who are giving continuing revelation.

And, of course, they have to invent, again, a category of prophecy and prophet, an office within the church that is errant and fallible and can get wrong.

And this is an idea of prophecy that is imposed on Scripture from outside, not something that Scripture itself teaches.

Under the Old Covenant, the Old Testament, if a prophet got it wrong, he was stoned. And now today, they want to say, well, yeah, but in the

Old Testament, you had to have 100 % accuracy, but not in the New Testament. In the New Testament, you can get hit or miss. You tend 20 % accuracy, and that's pretty good for a

New Testament prophet. Do you see anything like that in Scripture? That you can have that kind of inaccuracy in a prophet?

Why would I think that the office of prophet has deteriorated since the Old Covenant?

Is there anything about the New Covenant and what we are given in the New Covenant that is inferior to the Old Covenant? No. But they have to argue that the office of prophet is not nearly as good.

God was able to speak perfectly under the Old Covenant, but now you get to the New Covenant, the fullness of revelation in Jesus Christ, and now our prophets, they're hit or miss.

Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong, now they're hit or miss. So you have to invent, in order to hold on to closed canon and modern day revelations, you have to invent an office of prophet that Scripture does not describe, and you have to invent a view of God's revelation that Scripture does not describe, namely that God can get it wrong.

All right, second, the voice of God in private revelations, that's number two, and we've already talked about that.

All right, letter C, the implications of an open canon. Before we move on to that, are there any questions or comments on that issue?

We're all good on private revelations? Yes? That's all right.

You're the only one asking questions today, so that's good. Cessationism.

So, cessationism is the belief that…it's not the belief that all the gifts of the

Spirit have ceased, it is the belief that certain gifts of the Spirit have ceased, namely the miraculous, or the sign gifts and the revelatory gifts that were part of the

New Testament church, that those gifts have ceased. Okay, so I'm…this is the difference between a continuationist and a cessationist.

So I am a Reformed cessationist, meaning I would affirm the Reformed doctrines of the Christian faith, while at the same time believing that the sign gifts, namely word of knowledge, prophecy, the apostolic gift, that those gifts are no longer given.

Now listen, unless you believe that there are modern -day apostles, you are a cessationist. Even if you believe…see,

Matt Chandler, who are the other ones I named, Wayne Grudem, they would not argue that there are modern -day apostles today, and they would say, but we're not cessationists.

Well, hold on a second. Apostles were a gift to the church, right? If God is no longer giving us apostles, then that gift has ceased, has it not?

If that gift has ceased, then you believe at least one gift of the Spirit has ceased, and if you believe that at least one gift of the

Spirit has ceased, then you are a cessationist. So the difference is not whether or not you're a cessationist, the difference is how many of the gifts do you think have ceased?

And I think that all of those gifts related to the authority and the establishing of the knowledge, the revelatory gifts, the ability to do miracles, to heal, the gift of healing, those gifts are no longer given, and so therefore

I am a cessationist. But some people say, well, you're a cessationist, you don't believe in the gifts of the Spirit. Well, hold on a second.

What gifts of the Spirit are you talking about? All the gifts of the Spirit? If I didn't think that God gave the gift of teaching, I'd never preach another sermon.

I wouldn't be up here this morning for sure. I don't get up here because I think that I'm great guns to listen to.

That's not why I'm up here. But if I didn't believe, I see the gifts of the Spirit in everybody that is here in the various spiritual gifts.

So I don't believe that all the gifts have ceased, but I do believe that the revelatory gifts have ceased. Why? Because there's no longer any need for revelatory gifts.

We have what has been provided for us in Scripture and it is sufficient. Okay? Very good question.

All right. Implications of an open canon. So this is arguing for a closed canon in a bit of a different way.

This opens the door for cults and heresies and, of course, private interpretation as every cult will try to add to Scripture and add to the book of Revelation, or add to Revelation I should say.

This would also, number two, minimize the authority of Scripture. I'm going to rattle these off because I'm not sure what I put down in your notes that you're supposed to be following along.

But this is under number C, under Roman numeral four. I see some of you looking through your notes like, where is he at? Is this a different lesson now?

Okay, so the implications of an open canon. It opens the door for cults and heresies and false doctrine. Second, it minimizes the authority of Scripture because it ends up inevitably placing something on par with Scripture.

I had a pastor friend who used to pastor a different church here in town and we'd get into conversations about private revelations once in a while.

And he would say to me, Scripture is great, but I just need the Lord to speak to me something fresh. That was a word he used one time.

And I stopped him right in the middle of the sentence. I said, hold on a second. Fresh word from God? Fresh? What does that say about your view of Scripture? Well, you know, it's something new for me, something personal to me.

What, Scripture, God didn't have you in mind when He gave you 66 books for the Bible? You need that? You need something else rather than, you need something fresh to you, something personal for you?

Scripture's not enough? See, and it ends up, and listen, inevitably, and I think I have yet to see that this,

I can't think of a single time that I have seen this principle fail. But inevitably, if somebody believes that God has spoken something to their heart that contradicts

Scripture, they will, every single time, go with the fresh, personal, new revelation and not

Scripture. They will find a way of making Scripture conform to what they think God is speaking to them fresh in the moment.

I have yet to see that prediction fail. Every single time, the private, personal revelation goes right up on par with Scripture.

And inevitably, it cannot, because how can God speak a non -authoritative word? So if He's speaking to you and you're convinced you heard from God, and yet it contradicts

Scripture, guess which one gets folded up and packed away first? It's not the personal, fresh, private revelation that you got in your prayer closet.

It always ends up being Scripture. All right, number three, it nullifies the criteria established for Scripture.

Now, if God were to add to the canon today, we would end up having a collection of books that have been accepted by the church forever, well, not forever, but, you know, for 2 ,000 years, and we'd end up having a collection of writings that have been accepted by Christians as of late, recently, today, and maybe for a future generation.

You'd end up having a collection of apostolic writings. You'd have a collection of non -apostolic writings. You'd end up having two separate canons with two different marks of canonicity, wouldn't you?

What we can say of the New Testament is that all the marks of canonicity, that God spoke it, it's authoritative, it's inerrant, it's apostolic, it's accepted by the church, all of that applies to the

New Testament. But then if God gives us additional revelation that is also authoritative, we'd have to say, well, it's not apostolic, and it's not necessarily really, really authoritative, and it really hasn't been accepted by the church for 2 ,000 years.

So that's that collection of books, and then we have this collection of books. So then you have really two standards or two different groups of markings of canonicity.

You have two different collections of books in that way. Does that make sense? We wouldn't have consistency between those things that we say

God has spoken. So the canon is closed.

And if you say then, but yeah, it's closed, but God is still speaking, then you do not believe in a closed canon.

You cannot. And if you think that you can, you do not understand the nature of divine revelation. The nature of divine revelation is either continuing or it is ceased.

If it is continuing, the canon is open. If it is ceased, the canon is closed. So there's only two options.

The canon is open, the canon is closed. And it comes back to how you think that God speaks and how able you think

He is to speak and clearly communicate. All right, any questions?

I think we're done. We already answered the what if under number five. What if a document from the apostolic age were discovered and we could certify its authorship?

I believe it came from Paul. We could certify that. Would we accept it as canonical? We already discussed that in a previous lesson. So are there any questions on that issue that we need to discuss?

Go ahead, Angelica. I know you're wanting to ask a question. That's okay. Yes. Yeah.

Her point is that a lot of teaching within the church is sentimental, the sentimentality.

There is an appeal to the sentimentality, to the emotions and the feelings. And we do live in a very feelings and emotionally oriented age.

And the church has bought into a lot of that. So a lot of people want to believe what God is speaking to them fresh. Because, look, when

I say that God is no longer speaking to you today, not through nudges, promptings, whispers, still small voices, one of the very first and most vehement objections that I get is from people who are angry with me because I have robbed them of their personal connection to God.

I'm not really robbing you of any kind of personal connection, if you never had that connection to begin with. But if you simply, people feel like they have this connection with God, that God is speaking to them in this way, and this is their personal, their bat phone, their connection right to headquarters.

And they're getting it direct, and they're getting it divine, and it's coming right to them. And you take that away and begin to crush that illusion that, no,

God has spoken through Scripture, and He said the same thing to you that He said to all Christians, then they feel like you've robbed them of their personal relationship with the

Lord. They have nothing else to lean on. And I think that's a really deficient view of God and how we relate to God to do that.

But people think you've just ripped all of the meaning out of their relationship with the Lord. And I might have, yeah, but that's not my, my goal is never to do that.

My goal is to always promote what is true. So, look, if God is not,

I said this in the book again, so I'm just repeating myself, but if God is not speaking, you cannot hear Him.

And no discipline that you try and cultivate is going to give you the ability to hear something that God is not speaking. So if He's not giving you revelation, there's no amount of quietness, no amount of discipline, no skill that you can manufacture, no skill that you can develop that will give you the ability to hear something that God is not saying.

So if He's not speaking, you can't hear Him no matter what you do because He's not speaking. But if He is speaking, you cannot miss it no matter what's going on in your life because there's no example anywhere in Scripture of God trying to speak to them and them not hearing what

He was saying. Because God has the ability not only to speak but to make sure that He is understood and understood clearly by the people to whom

He has spoken, that He is speaking. So if He's not speaking, you can't hear Him no matter what you do. If He is speaking, you can't miss it no matter what's going on because God is speaking.

And if God is going to speak, you're going to get it, you're going to hear it. Whether you're Saul of Tarsus and you hate Him and you're trying to murder

Christians or whether you are Moses wandering around out in the wilderness with your staff and your sheep thinking that your life and ministry are over.

All right? Okay, well, enough of me quoting from my own book. That was stupid. So again, if you have questions or you want more information, you didn't get a copy of God Doesn't Whisper, you're welcome to take one today.

Just make sure that somebody knows that I gave you permission Sunday School to take a free copy. And for the rest of you, if you want another free copy, you can have one too.

Somebody bought enough of those to make it available to you. So take one. If you want to read it a second time, if you're already ready, you want to read it again, go get another copy, read it again.

All right. Yeah. It's better the second time, yeah. Right. I might rewrite it. All right.

Let's pray. Lord, we are grateful to You for what You have revealed in Scripture. We have utter and complete confidence that You are a

God who has spoken and that You continue to use Your Word, that it is living and powerful, and we're grateful for that. We're grateful that You use

Your Word in our lives to sanctify us, to draw us near to You, to continue to purge us from sin, to convict us, to convince us, to equip us, to encourage us.

Your Word is a treasure in so many ways, and we thank You for the privilege that it is to know it and to be called by Your name and then to be given the gift of the

Holy Spirit so we might know it and understand truth. We love You and we thank You for this time that we have had here in Christ's name.