Prophecy and the Closed Canon (Part 1)
February 7th, 2007
(By John MacArthur)
The following is adapted from Charismatic Chaos (Zondervan, 1992), 60–65.
There is no fresher or more intimate revelation than Scripture. God doesn’t need to give us private revelation to help us in our walk with Him. “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16 – 17; emphasis added). Scripture is sufficient. It offers all we need for every good work.
Christians on both sides of the charismatic fence must realize a vital truth: God’s revelation is complete for now. The canon of Scripture is closed. As the apostle John penned the final words of the last book of the New Testament, he recorded this warning: “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and from the holy city, which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18–19). Then, the Holy Spirit added a doxology and closed the canon.
When the canon closed on the Old Testament after the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, there followed four hundred “silent years” when no prophet spoke God’s revelation in any form.
That silence was broken by John the Baptist as God spoke once more prior to the New Testament age. God then moved various men to record the books of the New Testament, and the last of these was Revelation. By the second century A.D., the complete canon exactly as we have it today was popularly recognized. Church councils in the fourth century verified and made official what the church has universally affirmed, that the sixty-six books in our Bibles are the only true Scripture inspired by God. The canon is complete.
(To be continued tomorrow)
Amen! I sincerely hope that even as I advocate for all the charismatic gifts, including apostleship, I never sound like the canon is open or that personal revelation is needed.
I’m so thankful that He took care of it all!
Robert,
If these other things are not “needed,” why “advocate” for them? That’s not correct logically or biblically, the Spirit gives the gifts He chooses to the saints He chooses. Why advocate any of them since the Spirit expressly promises to give them if, when, and where He decides, according to I Corinthians?
You know…I’ll bet He’s smart enough to figure it out on His own.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Phil,
(1) Although the Bible teaches that the gifts are not needed, I do believe the Bible teaches that they gifts are designed to be a part of the Christian life (John 14:12, Mark 16:17-18, 1 Cor 12:7). Clearly Christians can live a completely God-glorifying without them, but clearly the Bible also demonstrates the God-glorifying power of a life with them.
(2) I am certainly sorry if I implied in any way that the Spirit wasn’t smart enough to “figure it out on His own” as you say. Again, it just seems clear to me in Scripture that we are to play a role in seeking (1 Cor 14:1, Acts 1:14, 19:6) and exercising (1 Cor 12:1, 14:15) the Spiritual gifts. You believe God the father is sovereign (I assume) yet you pray to him! Clearly the Christian life is a bit more complicated than saying, “God has it all worked out so I’m going to sit back and enjoy.”
I hope that clears things up for you.
In Christ,
Robert
I agree that the canon is complete, but the proof text from Revelation seems weak. I have a hard time believing that John was thinking of the entire New Testament when he recorded that statement. The New Testament was even bound into a single volume at that time.
Scott G. has a good point. Canon wasn’t formed until AD 360+. Was John’s Revelation pre-supposing all of canon and it’s place in it when written?
Robert,
The verses in Acts have nothing to do with seeking gifts. In 1:14 they were waiting for the promise of the Holy Spirit as Jesus commanded in 1:4. In 19:6 the Holy Spirit came upon the belivers in Ephesus after Paul baptised them in the name of Jesus, because they had only known the baptism of John, which was a baptism for repentance from sin in preparation for the Messiah.
Also I Corinthian 12:1 and 14:15 have nothing to do with exercising the gifts. Starting in 12:1 Paul talks about the use and place of the gifts which is continued until the end of chapter 14. This section on gifts is in the context of orderliness in the church which starts in Chapter 11. In 14:15 Paul is talking about praying in tongues, which is never mentioned as a gift, because its use in the church service was causing disorder, which you can see as you follow the train of thought from verse 13 through verse 40.
I hope this helps.
Scott G.,
The point of Revelation “proof text” is not to just say that the book of Revelation is complete, but that the Holy Spirit has completed prophetic revelation. That letter is the last of the NT, the last written, by the last living apostle. It’s content is about the church at the time of John and the distant future until Christ returned (1:19). It repeats what Moses recorded in Deuteronomy. If there is more to be known for the church today through prophecy, don’t you think the Holy Spirit would have left the door open at the end of the prophetic futuristic book of Revelation? Also, the canon was not formed and closed at AD 300. The church by necessity needed to address the rise of Gnostic epistles and clarify what was already the closed canon, which was closed at the writing of the book of revelation.
Morris,
My point in using Acts 1:14 and 19:6 is that even though an individual may be a follower of Christ, that does not mean the Spirit will just one day zap them with the gifts. With the Apostles, even though it was promised, they still devoted themselves to prayer until they received it. In Ephesus, even though they were followers of Christ, the Spirit did not one day simply empower them, it came through the laying on hands. In other words, God uses means.
This means that if we want to receive tongues and prophecy (which the Bible commands us to do in 1 Cor 14:1), the two gifts mentioned as a result of these efforts, then we should use means such as prayer and the laying on of hands to receive them.
In regards to your statements about the 1 Cor 12:1 and 14:15 having nothing to do with the exercising of the gifts, I just don’t see how you arrive at that conclusion. Concerning 12:1, you yourself write, “Paul talks about the use… of the gifts.” That is my point exactly – Paul intends for us to be trained users of the gifts. Again, my point is the gifts require teaching, the Spirit doesn’t just anoint us one day in the absence of any external effort.
And concerning 14:15, again, I don’t see how you say that tongues is, “never mentioned as a gift”. It’s clearly listed among the gifts in 1 Cor 12:4-11, the very letter where Paul specifically goes on to address the details of speaking in tongues.
I appreciate your concern for my doctrinal faithfulness, but the only reason I believe as I do is because of what I have read in the Word of God.
Robert
2 Timothy 3:16,17 also is amazing even further that it expalins that Scripture makes the man of God “perfect” (NASB says adequate) and thoroughly equipped.
I think it is true that the Apostle John was not specifically talking about the writings of the New Testament with this text, but more likely just the book of Revelation in mind. However, it is apparent from this book, Deut, and Proverbs, that adding to and taking away from the Scripture is a big “no no” that is pretty self-evident even if wasn’t explicitly mentioned (not including Apostolic interpretation of the OT of course).
The principle is pretty cut and dry as Dan W said, this was the last letter, about the last times, to the last Apostle, and for all intents and purposes the last revelation. It is only fitting that at the end of the last book that John adds this message. I think John had a good inkling that this might be it, but even if he wasn’t sure, the Spirit knew what He was doing.
I don’t need to be convinced that Revelation is the last canonical book or that the canon is closed. I fully believe that. My point is that the proof is weak. Appealing to Deuteronomy is additionally shaky. Clearly biblical revelation happened post-Deuteronomy. My admonition is that we stay to solid arguments and not slippery proof texts that open the door for shoddy Bible study and erroneous biblical interpretation. I tread lightly because I have very high respect for Pastor MacArthur. That is actually what surprised me when I saw this proof text.
Hey Scott G,
I wasn’t really responding to you, in fact if you see my post I agree with your point and use general principles to defend the closing of the canon and not Rev 22
As for Deut. I was talking about
Deuteronomy 4:2
” You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”
And like wise in
Proverbs 30:6
“Do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.”
To show that the same general principles have always been in effect ie that man must not add or take away, not that those verses prove a strict closing of the canon. (I even said that the Apostles had full right to interpret those verses…)
If it wasn’t a miscommunication, was there something in my post to prompt you to say “Clearly biblical revelation happened post-Deuteronomy”?
Thanks,
-John
“I don’t need to be convinced that Revelation is the last canonical book or that the canon is closed. I fully believe that. My point is that the proof is weak.”
I’m trying to understand why you are convinced that the canon is closed if you believe that we do so on weak proof. How can you believe in something in which you don’t put your full faith? To say that you don’t need to be convinced of something, means you accept it completely, you’ve made up your mind, end of story. You are saying two different things at the same time.
The verses, Deut and Proverbs, that John gave are not weak. If you believe that the Scripture is inspired of God, then you must believe that when He wrote those verses He was instructing mankind not Himself. He had the right to add the NT through the apostles He hand picked and gave special abilities to in order to ID them as His hand picked apostles. I believe there was a post giving these specific qualities earlier. Now, if you can find a man who has these specific qualities who was hand picked by Jesus…..
I’m shaking my head that this is even a problem with some people. We don’t even know everything we should about Scripture and we certainly don’t study it like we should….who should want more from some guy down the street?
Morris,
Thanks. I didn’t get around to saying that. You did instead. I believe we, as individuals are to concentrated on being obedient and serving God in His kingdom work. The gifts will come to us as we are equipped to do the jobs the Spirit has led us to.
Concentrate on working. The Spirit will do the gifting.
What do you think of that formulation?
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
John,
I think you and I are on the same page. Please don’t take my comments as intentionally inflammatory. What I heard you saying with the Deuteronomy passage is that it parallels the one in Revelation. I agree with this. General prohibitions do exist, but I don’t see this legitimizing the use of Rev. 22 as the sweeping “end all” statement. (I think you’re saying this as well.) What I was trying to say is that if you see the Duet. and Rev. passages as parallel, this emphasizes that John was talking about HIS prophecy/book, not the entire NT canon. The death of the last apostle (John) is itself sufficient evidence when seen in the larger picture of apostolic authority.
Sarah,
John MacArthur is doing a fine job of defending a closed canon. I don’t need to add to his arguments here. I am simply calling into question the prudence of using a proof-text that I don’t think says what he says it means. That doesn’t mean that I reject his whole argument. We have strong proof that the canon is closed. Please keep reading these articles for that evidence.
Scott, another such Scripture taken out of context is Revelation’s salvation verse, “Behold, if anyone hear my voice and open the door . . .”
That verse is written to a church which already knows God, whose lampstand is still intact. It is (I believe) an invitation to a Christian for a closer relationship with Jesus.
It is NOT an invitation to an unbeliever to “invite Jesus into his life.” But don’t misunderstand–there is no problem with using the verse that way (IMHO). It is not destructive or misleading to use it as a “salvation verse.” It works toward the same end, of bringing God’s elect into a closer relationship with him.
It’s a both/and verse. BOTH a church renewal verse AND a personal salvation verse.
But “technically” it is weak as a salvation verse, just as Rev. 22 is weak support for a closed canon. Important principle: “How did the original readers understand the verse?”
I take the closed canon on faith. Let’s say I think Munger’s “My Heart, Christ’s Home” is incredibly inspired writing (which it is). I don’t think it is appropriate to lobby for its inclusion in the canon. I believe it would be a colossal waste of time.
And besides, who is going to convene a church council to add Munger’s pamphlet to the Greek scriptures? And who will translate it into King James English? Who will write the Scofield notes for it? And the NASB translators will never buy into it. See all the trouble it would cause?
“We have strong proof that the canon is closed. Please keep reading these articles for that evidence.” I will but only because I find the articles on this site to be of value not because I need “strong proof”. If I never read another article on the subject, nothing would change my mind on the subject. The fact that God said not to add except for those whom He hand picked is all the proof that I need. I think we enter dangerous territory when we start questioning those doctrines that have been established from the Bible and have been handed down to us in a pure manner which did not veer from what the Bible says from generations before us. I think reading articles like these should just make us say, “Yes! Thanks for the reminder.” I don’t think they should be taken as a platform of debate as to what we think the apostle John was thinking or what he wasn’t thinking.
Sarah,
I’m using basic principles of Bible study. One of the foundational principles is to ask what the author intended.
Just a quick question. Since the Roman Catholic Canon and the Greek Orthodox Canon include different books than the Protestant Canon (Apocrapha etc.) and as I understand it the KJV included the Apocrapha originally, just which Canon are we including as the one which is complete. I’m not trying to be divisive, I’m truly trying to understand as this came up recently in a sermon I heard and I’m trying to work my way through it.
I’m seeing that the exact books of the closed Canon have been argued for the last 1700 years and that we have three “Christian traditions” which each have selected different books.
It just doesn’t seem to be nearly as “cut and dried” as the statement “the Canon contains 66 books as selected in the early 4th century” because it doesn’t seem to reflect the reality of how the Canon was assembled and appears today.
Please help me work through this.
Dear Brian in BC,
The different Christian canons are examples of how Christian groups have to label themselves in ways that will distinguish themselves from other Christian groups.
I’m not expert enough on the competing canons to be able to give you lots of good examples, but I do have an impressionistic idea of some of the issues involve.
Sometimes a group has favorite doctrines which need Scriptural support found only on books the other groups don’t include. Sometimes a group just has a tradition of having certain books on their “approved list,” and no one wants the argument that would ensue to take them off the list.
BUT IN GENERAL, a canon of approved books functions like a rule book of allowed moves in a game. As Protestants, if we engage in doctrinal debate and someone were to quote Tobit (from the Apocrypha), we’d all cry “foul!” because quotes from Tobit aren’t allowed in the Protestant version of the doctinal debate game.
It’s like the different rules for different versions of a game. Poker includes 5-Card Draw, 5-Card Stud, and Texas Hold ‘Em. They are all Poker, but they all have different rules. Or like the designated hitter rule in American baseball. One league has the rule, the other does not.
This answer will NOT be satisfactory for people who place a great deal of faith in which books appear in our Bibles. This is a situation where the human element, where ambiguity is just a fact of life.
There is no BIBLICAL rationale for the particular books included in any particular group’s canon. But we don’t argue about it, because it is pointless.
Whether or not we include The Wisdom of Sirach in our Protestant Bible will not make us more loving or more Spirit-filled Christians. The argument that would ensue would do incalculable damage to the community of faith. Some arguments are best left alone, because they only damage the hearers. They’ve already been settled.
Our job is to understand the commands of God to love our neighbor and to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and to do God’s will.
Whyte Stonne,
You said, “There is no BIBLICAL rationale for the particular books included in any particular group’s canon.”
Actually, yes, there is. And you can classify the biblical standards for canonicity into two categories.
First, is a biblically consistent epistemology and the reliance on the logic inherent in it. The Scriptures and God Himself speaks to us as if we can rely on a correspondence type of epistemology, both in the reliance on our senses to represent to our minds things as they actually are in the world around us, and in the understanding of language. In other words, simple common sense. As such the laws of logic work. In the laws of logic, we find the law of noncontradiction. As such we know that a book like the Gospel of Judas is a crock because it contradicts revelation we know came from God. And the folks at the time the gospels and epistles were written, being sentient, applied their thought process and evaluated the books. So when the Gospel of Stephen was presented, it could be recognized as a fraud.
Second, the Scripture itself says to test the prophet and his prophecy. It is not hard to eliminate the false. If it has errors, discard it. Deuteronomy.
To help you understand the problem in your thinking, please answer these two questions:
1. Is there such a thing as a right answer?
2. Does the Bible have the right to tell you how to think?
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
*chuckle*
Bless you, Phil.
As far as the canon being closed and Revelation being a weak “text” to explain this. Let me point out to you that Revelation is an epistle. In 1 Thess. 5:27, the Holy Spirit calls that this “letter” (epistole) be read… when the Holy Spirit speaks in Revelation, He refers to a book (biblion). It is unlikely that the same Holy Spirit would confuse the this apoclytic epistle (i.e. note the phraseology to the 7 churches) as a book.
Also, the premise that is based on the inference that this sole text (adding to or taking away from this text) is too isolated… You know, if God only says twice “you shall not murder” , or even once since Deut. is simply a repetition… once, or twice should be sufficient for obedient believers. Since Revelation is the last of the canon, it seems unlikely that we’ll have a Deut. of Revelation, doesn’t it.
Keith Crosby
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Blanc Rok,
Dee Questions, Boss. Dee Questions.
Phil Perkins.
Phil, you believe that anyone who can’t give you a straight, unambiguous “yes” to your two questions
IS NOT A CHRISTIAN.
I am not willing to engage in a protracted debate with you on this. These sorts of “arguments over words” only ruin the listeners. I know you know that. I encourage you to heed the Biblical mandate–which applies to both of us equally.
I looked through the debate you had with “Anonymous” on your web site on your very special topic. So very, very long, and so very, very nit-picky. When it comes to stewardship of my time–my wife, my church, my career have a much higher priority than interminable debates with you.
__________________________________________
I hope you are successful in finding the disciples you want to encourage and equip through your leadership. You posted your phone number on your site, so I trust you won’t object to it appearing here.
Bloggers, if you are encouraged and edified by Phil’s vigorous defense of the Christian faith and would like to benefit from his ministry, give him a call. He’s posted his number for your convenience: 406-672-7450.
Just for information Phil, would people be coming to Billings, MT, for this ministry, or would you be doing this over via telephone and e-mail?
Whyte Stonne,
The point of the two questions is simply this: If one cannot answer “yes, I believe,” one is not a believer. A simple truth, but one many these days wish to not face. I did not mean to make you so angry. In fact, I tried to introduce some humor. I know those questions anger many people. I just do not know how to get this simple idea across to folks any more clearly. God loves you, Whyte, and so do I. Please consider this.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
(“Hmmm . . .” he thought to himself, “What did I say that would make him think I was angry? Didn’t this exact same thing occur once before? Hmm . . . Is this a technique or something? Nah . . .”)
“Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”
I’m a believer.
I’m glad that’s finally settled!
Whyte,
Call me Saturday or Sunday. I’d love to speak with you.
Phil.
Heck with the Jerry Springer show, so called Christians battling it out with each other is much more entertaining than that of mere guy ex-lovers.
Dear Phil,
The Book of Proverbs highly exalts several virtues: insight, understanding, and wisdom. In the past I have sought insight and understanding into the differences and similarities between you and me. I looked for common ground, similar experiences, given our similarity in age, education, etc.
I discussed some of the difficulties and disappointments I have had in my Christian life. I also asserted difficulties I could see you had experienced in yours.
You dismissed my attempts to get understanding and insight (strong Biblical values) into our similarities as my “ouija board” needing an adjustment, as “pop psychology,” and as “blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.”
I do think about you. I assume you’ve burned bridges in your conflicts with Yellowstone Baptist College, with Iggy, and with others. (Yes, I have done what you called in your blog “cyber-snooping.” Just googling, actually.) And I know that Billings, MT, is a small town under a deep blanket of snow.
I’d enjoy talking with you, too, getting to know you better, but I’m afraid you would abuse pearls of friendship and just turn and rend me, as Jesus says often happens.
So I won’t be calling.
Whyte Stonne,
Well, then, I’ll just ask you this here. What exactly do you mean, you believe in the Name of Christ? Do you believe He God and virgin born? Do you believe you are deserving hell, except for the substitution of Christ’s death for your eternal punishment? Do you believe He was bodily, literally resurrected? Do you believe only those who repent a follow Him will be saved from eternal hell?
I ask these things because I recall you denying the inerrancy of Scriptures where we learn such things and I recall you publicly supporting heretics who deny these beliefs.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Hi, Phil,
My, my! You seem pretty sure you have a heretic in your clutches, eh? Well, let me make it easy for you—you do! The problem is that you may have to share a bunk in heaven with this heretic. I promise you I won’t give you an “I-told-you-so”! (I’m pretty sure you can put in for a new room assignment, if you want.)
First, you say you recall me “publicly supporting heretics who deny these beliefs.” You’ll need to be more specific. I pretty sure I haven’t supported anybody in these forums, except to agree with other individuals who post here. If you are talking about Brian McLaren, I haven’t even read anything by Brian McLaren. (“Do not bear false witness.”)
Usually I’m just presenting interpretations of Scripture.
Second, you say you recall me “denying the inerrancy of Scriptures.” I don’t remember ever denying the inerrancy of Scripture. What I did say was that if it were proven to me that there were errors in the Bible, it wouldn’t matter to me. My faith in Christ would remain intact, my faith in the Scriptures would remain intact. My faith is not dependent upon inerrancy. (“Do not bear false witness.”
[Congratulations, Phil! You avoided embarrassing misstatement with the disclaimer, “I recall.” Good job!)
Third, you ask, “Do you believe He God and virgin born?” Yes, I believe that Jesus the Messiah was (and is) God, and was born of a virgin.
Fourth (are we there yet?), Phil asks, “Do you believe you are deserving hell, except for the substitution of Christ’s death for your eternal punishment?”
Answer: There is nothing in Scripture which says that sinners are sent to hell for eternal conscious torment. 1) Hell was created for the devil and his angels. 2) There is no Scripture which says that human beings have “an eternal soul.” Eternal life is a gift from God. You don’t have eternal existence unless God has given that gift to you. (I can only imagine how happy you must be right now, Phil. “Whyte really IS a heretic!”)
Let’s see, where are we? Ah, fifth, *sigh* you ask me:
“Do you believe only those who repent a follow Him will be saved from eternal hell?”
I’ve already answered that. Hell is only eternal for the devil and his angels, whom I assume to be eternal beings.
By the way—I don’t presume to know whom God will be letting into heaven. I lean heavily on what God the Messiah said in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. Those humans acceptable to God will be clueless as to why they are let into heaven at all. And—their acceptability to God is not a 90% on a doctrinal quiz. It is entirely behavioral.
How much compassion do you have on people, Phil? You seem really high on the demanding, fault-finding scale and fairly low on the compassion scale. Maybe the mind-set required by teaching Greek and Hebrew are not compatible right now with an area God would like to see some growth in. Just a thought.
Jesus Christ’s determination of YOUR acceptability to him is based on your compassion towards people and how you treat them. That would be a terrible quiz to flunk out on, my friend. But that’s between you and your Master. You don’t answer to me.
But enough of that. Where were we? Ah, yes. Number six: “Do you believe He was bodily, literally resurrected?” Yes, I do.
Numberrrrrr seven: “What exactly do you mean, you believe in the Name of Christ?” Forgive me if I seem to hesitate over this one, but this is probably the most important question of the batch. It means several things. “And his name shall be called Emmanuel, which means, God with Us.” Yes, I believe that Jesus the Messiah was God come in the flesh. (There’s a no-brainer)
Second, I believe in Jesus, but not just that he existed. I believe the kind of life he lead was the best kind of life.
He lived to eliminate false ideas of relating to God from the minds of the common women and men of his day. The false idea of a God who lives to punish you if you erred to the slightest degree was a polluted concept that Jesus died to combat.
God the Messiah lived to communicate Abba’s compassion for the victims of religious tyranny. His life was devoted to confronting crusading religious leaders who presumed to know (from Scripture) who was acceptable to God and who was not. This is what Jesus’ name represents to me.
I hope this meets with your approval.
Oh, I guess not. That question about whether hell is eternal for human beings or not. That’s heresy according to you, right? Now, I’ve had very little exposure to the Seventh Day Adventists (I arrived at this belief from the Bible, not an Adventist teacher), but my belief in the annihilation of the soul happens to be found among Adventists.
Dr. Walter Martin wrote that “it is perfectly possible to be a Seventh-day Adventist and be a true follower of Jesus Christ despite heterodox concepts.”
Ooops! I see I am not finished with the interrogation. You had two other questions:
1. Is there such a thing as a right answer?
2. Does the Bible have the right to tell you how to think?
Then you wrote, “The point of the two questions is simply this: If one cannot answer “yes, I believe,” one is not a believer.”
Please, Phil. You can’t be serious. Did you really mean to say, “If you can’t answer “yes, I believe,” to the question, “Is there such a thing as a right answer,” that “one is not a believer”!?!
I suppose you could have meant something besides “Believer,” as in “a Believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.” You could have meant, “believer in the ground rules of Christian debate,” or something similar.
But more seriously, do you believe God allows people’s eternal destiny to hinge on a discussion of epistemology?
I know there are things that actually do hinge on a discussion of epistemology, though. Winning in a game of verbal combat (debate) can hinge on a question of epistemology. For some reason, the image of a Jousting Tournament comes to mind when I think of you.
A game of chess can depend on your opening moves, too. With you, if you catch a whiff of something that smells like independent thinking, you go into combat mode. Your aim is to dominate the game, whatever game it is. You HAVE to win, or else you can’t stand it.
What makes you so dreadfully competitive?
(Feel free to use the images of the Jousting Tournament and the opening moves of a chess game as you discuss Combat with Emergents, Phil. There’s nothing particularly original about them!)
BTW, are you a fire-fighter in the summer? At Yosemite?
Oh, just in case–no, I’m not angry, although I know you have read anger into my responses on two different occasions. I’m just trying to answer your questions directly and to the point.
Now it’s your turn:
1) What makes you so dreadfully competitive?
2) Are you a fire-fighter in the summer?
3) At Yosemite?
Dear Phil,
It has occurred to me that your invitation to phone you this weekend was a genuine attempt on your part to engage me on a different level, one different from one of potential debate. If it was, please forgive my suspicions.
If that is the case, I think you will understand the existence of a certain mutual wariness.
Whyte
Whyte,
The reason I invited you to call was so I could ask you these questions privately to make it more of a conversation, and not a public challenge.
You have never answered my two original questions.
You have strongly implied that you believe on Jesus’ name. I do not believe so. If you believe Jesus you would obey Him.
If you say you love Jesus, but fail to obey Him you are not saved. This is a theme of I John. You do not obey Jesus if you deny His teachings consciously.
You have refused, so far, to affirm the inerrancy of the Scriptures, but Jesus, said, “Thy Word is Truth.”
You have denied the eternality of hell and the suffering of the damned, but Jesus said, “Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.” Speaking through Isaiah, He said, “”Then they will go forth and look on the corpses of the men who have transgressed against Me for their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched; and they will be an abhorrence to all mankind.”
You have strongly implied that it is not necessary to even know anything about why you are saved. But Jesus, through Paul, said, “For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.” And He said, “How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, ‘HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!’”
You seemed to indicate that you do not believe you are deserving hell, except for the substitution of Christ’s death for your eternal punishment. But Jesus was baptized by the man who said, “Behold, the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world.”
There a few ways in which you are disobeying Christ. He started His gospel ministry with “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Have you done that? Have you become obedient to Jesus? Is there such a thing as a right answer? Does the Bible have the right to tell you how to think?
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Phil, thank you for your concern. Believe me, I am working out my salvation with fear and trembling. My judge knows me well, and I look forward to the day when he says, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.” And I will say, “All I have done is what you commanded.”
I will not get caught up in all the arguing implied in your post, with all the embedded assumptions in every sentence, many of which I disagree with. But even though I disagree with them, I have a lot of challenges facing me on the home front.
God’s speed to you.
Whyte Stonne
[...] Recently, Pulpit Magazine has been posting a series of articles by John MacArthur on Prophecy and the Closed Canon: There is no fresher or more intimate revelation than Scripture. God doesn’t need to give us private revelation to help us in our walk with Him. “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16 – 17; emphasis added). Scripture is sufficient. It offers all we need for every good work. [...]