Theological Musings

n the past, we have had some discussion here on this blog about the Westminster Confession of Faith. In a recent question about bibliolatry raised on Kamp Krusty (a very insightful and quite humorous blog), I got into a discussion with Scott Roche about the statement that the WCF gives about Scripture.

Here is the statement that Scott quoted from the WCF:

Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, to such an extent that men are without excuse, yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of his will which is necessary for salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at various times and in diverse ways, to reveal himself and to declare his will to his church; and afterward—for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and of the world—to commit this revelation wholly to writing. Therefore the Holy Scripture is most necessary, God’s former ways of revealing his will to his people having ceased.

This sparked some interesting back-and-forth, and Scott and I agreed to talk through this on our blogs. To that end, Scott has posted an introduction to the topic, and then his fuller thoughts about it. I’d like to take some time to respond to Scott here in this post.

First of all, I have to commend Scott for his tremendous graciousness in this conversation. No matter the outcome of this conversation, or whether or not one of us becomes persuaded by the other’s position, it’s just a joy to have this type of discussion with someone who seasons his disagreement with grace and love. Thanks, Scott!

There are things that Scott and I both do agree on, as has been established in the conversation that has already taken place. For one, we both believe that the Bible reveals Jesus to us. We also both agree that Jesus is the object and focus of our faith. That’s enough, in my opinion, to give us plenty of room to fellowship together.

There are a couple of points that Scott made, however, that I would like to shed a different light on. Similar to how I believe that the WCF makes some statements as “fact” that maybe aren’t able to be fully determined (and therefore, in my opinion, should probably be left as opinions), I think Scott may possibly be overstating some points.

While God used a variety of means to communicate to people over the ages it always got written down, at least so far as we know.

I’m actually not sure that this can be stated, even with the disclaimer of “at least so far as we know.” I’ve used some examples in the past that seem to refute this. For example, King Saul (before he’s anointed king) joins a group of prophets and begins prophesying. Yet nothing is recorded as to what he, or any of the other prophets in that group, prophesied.

Likewise, the New Testament records that Anna (in the temple when Jesus was dedicated) was a prophetess (indicating activity prior to her entrance into the story), yet none of her statements prior to the appearance of Jesus are recorded.

And perhaps the most compelling to me is the fact that Paul took a lot of time to instruct the Corinthians in the proper use of prophecy, yet to our knowledge, none of the canonical writings were penned by anyone in the church in Corinth.

So, at best, I think it’s an overstatement to say that God always put his words down in writing. That statement seems to set up a foundation for Scott’s development of his thoughts. If, in fact, that foundation is overstated, then we have to consider the conclusions as potentially suspect or distorted.

Scott also goes on to discuss the statement in the WCF which says that the former ways of God revealing his will to us have ceased.

This is, for me, the most troubling statement in the above-quoted portion of the WCF. Troubling because it seems to serve as the justification for the stated view of scripture (the complete revelation of God to us).

We know from scripture (Hebrews 1:1-2) that God spoke in the past through prophets, and then chose to speak to us through Jesus. This is, to me, very significant, because of what it doesn’t say. Even though some of the prophecies were written down for preservation, and even though some of the words of Jesus have been written down for us, this verse doesn’t say that God spoke through writing and then continues to speak through writing.

Even Jesus said a lot of things (according to John) that weren’t written down. So the speaking to us through Jesus goes beyond words on a page. God seems to want something much more personal than written communication alone.

When God first brought the Israelites out of Egypt, he asked all of them to come to the mountain so he could speak to them. The Israelites refused, out of fear, and asked Moses to mediate for them. So, while Scott points out that the 10 commandments were written down for us, was that because that was how God desired to communicate? Or was it because Moses had to convey to the Israelites what God wanted to tell them personally?

I have long contended that what God originally created in Eden and what he consistently sought to restore after the fall of Adam and Eve was a personal relationship. Hence the eventual appearance of Jesus — Emmanuel, God with us.

So with regard to whether or not God’s methods of revelation have ceased, necessitating complete revelation being written down, I think we would have to say that the answer is that God’s methods of communication have become more and more personal over time. God spoke through Moses, spoke through the prophets, spoke face-to-face in the person of Jesus, then indwells us with his Holy Spirit. There is a progression from separation to intimate relationship. That’s the beauty of the Gospel message that Jesus came to preach!

See, it’s not even an issue of cessationism vs. continuationism. It’s not a charismatic or non-charismatic issue. It’s an issue of asking what type of relationship God desires with us, and how he has chosen to enact that relationship.

Any thoughts in response?

Until next time,

steve