Re: personal revelations

From: Rich Blinne (
Date: Thu Feb 20 2003 - 13:38:31 EST

  • Next message: Jim Armstrong: "Re: personal revelations"

    Graham E. Morbey wrote:

    >It may be that a motivation for believing in the cessation of revelation
    >is to protect a "high view" of the troublesome inerrancy concept. It
    >would work in conjunction with the perfect "original autograph" theory
    >of the Bible to bolster the notion of the Bible's "special revelation"
    >character over against "general revelation." A common thread is that
    >none of these notions has proof texts. The discussion could have some
    >bearing on the bible/science debate.
    >This is certainly not a "Jesus told me" rambling!
    That's not the motivation. In fact, most non-cessationists that I know
    are also inerrantists. Non-cessationism is not a threat to inerrantist
    thinking. For example, inerrantists believe that both the OT and NT are
    inerrant. The fact that revelation did not cease in 400 B.C. does not
    hurt whether the OT is inerrant or not. Cessationists are that way
    because they believe that it is the teaching of the received
    revelation. The presupposition behind all this is that God does not
    contradict himself.

    As for the relationship of special to general revelation (trying to
    steer the conversation back on topic in keeping with Terry's request),
    this is not what a cessationist is driving at. Princeton theologian
    B.B. Warfield is famous for a number of things:

    1. Being the father of modern inerrancy
    2. Being the father of modern cessationism
    3. Being the continuation of 19th Century Reformed Evidentialism in
    so-called Old Princeton

    Warfield saw no issue between inerrancy and general revelation. He has
    been quoted on this list a number of times on the issue of evolution.
    Warfield saw general revelation in general and the theistic proofs in
    particular to be compatible with inerrancy. As such, he did not see
    science as a threat to Christianity. He did see *spurious* supernatural
    claims as being a threat, however. If the claims were genuine then it
    would have been not a problem. Also, a natural examination of the book
    of nature and the Book of Scripture is also not a problem. It is not
    cessation vesus non-cessation. Rather, it is true versus false claims
    and the resultant effect false claims has on Christianity. This is what
    drove his (and my) cessationist polemics.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Feb 20 2003 - 13:40:43 EST