To Be Continued?: Are the Miraculous Gifts for Today? by Samuel E. Waldron

Author:Samuel E. Waldron
Language: eng
Format: azw3
Publisher: Calvary Press
Published: 2007-08-22T00:00:00+00:00

N E W T E S T A M E N T P R O P H E T S

1 Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology pp.1031-1061.

2 B. B. Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration [in vol. 1 of the Works of Benjamin B. Warfield] (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), p.19.

3 According to Acts 3:22-23, not heeding the words of the true prophet would result in being “utterly destroyed from among the people.”

4 Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, pp.15-16.

5 Op. cit., p.83. 6 The reader may wonder about those prophetic writings that were not preserved. Does the fact that some prophetic writings were not preserved and so are not part of the canon of the church today mean that they were not canonical? Does the fact that those writings were not preserved argue against their canonicity? Canonicity, it must be remembered, derives from the divine authority of a writing. If God gives a prophetic message to His people, it is necessarily part of the rule of canon of the people of God. The canon is the rule, standard, or authority of God’s people. Simply because God did not see fit to include by His preserving providence a prophetic writing in the permanent canon of the people of God, does not mean that it was not canonical for that part of the people of God who received it and for as long as they had it. Just as the principle of New Testament authority is apostolic, so the principle of Old Testament authority is (Mosaic and) prophetic. The fact that a given apostolic writing (such as the missing epistle of Paul to the Corinthians) was not preserved does not argue against the principle of apostolic authority. It only tells us that Providence, for reasons of its own, did not see fit to preserve it to be part of the continuing and universal standard of the church. Because of the principle of apostolic authority, it would necessarily have been canonical, if it had been preserved. Even so, the principle of prophetic authority is not diminished if certain of their utterances or sayings are not preserved. Because whatever a prophet said as a prophet was authoritative, the utterance would have been authoritative and in that sense canonical for Israel had it been preserved.

7 R. Laird Harris, The Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), p. 169.

prove a threefold classification of the Old Testament. (1) The passage does not mention the Writings, only the Psalms. (2) This single reference must be contrasted with the normal New Testament twofold division of the Old Testament into the law (or Moses) and the prophets. (3) It must also be seen in light of the places noted above where the New Testament describes the entire Old Testament as prophetic. (4) It must also be weighed against the acknowledged prophetic status of several of the authors of the Psalms. When these contrasts are weighed, there is little reason to think that this single reference is proof of a threefold division of the Old Testament.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.