Honestly, I do not care that much about the Westminster confession says. I do not consider it to be scripture, and some of it may be 'tradition of men.' If the Westminster confession is not revelation, why should we base doctrine on it?
What I see in scripture is that terms like 'reveal' and 'revelation' seem to be used in a general sense. The understanding that God gave Peter, individually, that Christ was the Son of God was _revealed_ to him. When God brings supernatural understanding of spiritual things, that is revelation. The Father reveals the Son to certain people. No man has seen God and lived, but the Son has revealed Him. Paul prayed for the church to have the Spirit of revelation. From the terminology of scripture, I see 'revelation' as an ongoing thing, something that occurs when people receive grace to believe in Christ.
Pilgrim wrote, >>Secondly, God does NOT "speak" outside of the Scriptures, which the Holy Spirit Himself authored through the instrumentality of specific chosen men. (2Pet 1:19-21) And that written word is complete... totally sufficient as God's revelation to man for all matters of faith and practice. (2Tim 3:16, 17)<<
Pilgrim, you contradict scripture when you say that God does not speak outside the scriptures. In the Old Testament, God spoke outside the scriptures many times, as evidenced by the scriptures in the initial post. The New Testament shows that God gives gifts like prophecy, the word of knowledge, and the word of prophecy to believers in the church. Furthermore it COMMANDS believers to covet to prophesy. This is the teaching of the New Testament.
II Timothy 3:16-17 does not teach that God only speaks through the scriptures. This should be obvious as scripture was written after this verse was completed. If God had stopped speaking at this point, then many other books of scripture would not be inspired. Paul wrote that scripture was given so that the man of God might be fully equipped to every good work. He did not say that scripture alone equips a man for every good work. This is an important distinction. I could say the US Army gives a soldier a gun 'so that he might be fully equipped' to fight in battle. But that does not mean that the man needs no other equipment, like bullets, a helmet, a jacket, or underpants.
Also, it makes no sense to say that a copy of the scriptures is all a man needs to do every good work. We also need the things the scriptures talk about. What if someone has the scriptures and no grace, or what if he has the scriptures and does not have the Spirit or faith or love? We need not only a copy of the scriptures, but also the things the scriptures speak about.
And if the scriptures were all Timothy needed, why would he have also needed the specific prophecies about his life, so that by them, he might fight a good warfare? Those prophecies were never recorded in the scriptures.
Since the Bible teaches that God speaks outside of scripture, through prophecies, dreams, etc., and does not say that He has stopped, then shouldn't we believe the scriptures on this issue?
White starts off addressing the issue, raising the fact that Charsiamtics believe that God speaks apart from the Bible. But then he goes off on a tangent, arguing against the specific interpretations of Deere and Grundem in regard to whether modern prophecies should be considered infallible and how they are judged. Then, without arguing his case from scripture, he states his own belief that God does not speak apart from the Bible.
The author also writes as if the idea that God speaks outside of the Bible were a new idea. It is clear if we read early church writings that many people in the early church had experience with prophecy and/or believed it continued on into their time. For example, Justin argued in his _Dialogue with Trypho_ that prophecy had left the Jews and was among the Christians. Ireneaus wrote of prophecy, foreknowledge, miracles, healing, and various other supernatural manifestations among the brethren in his own days. (_Against Heresies_ quoted in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History.) Cessationism is the innovative, doctrine in the church that was not held by the earliest Christians.
Wes wrote, >>Now that we have the completed canon of Scripture what else do we need other than the Holy Spirit to teach us from it? <<
This is the part, specifically, that I wanted you to show me scripture for. What I see is that the Bible teaches us that the Holy Spirit speaks apart from scripture.
