I think it can be reasonably asserted that the primary objection of the cessationist to the continuationist notion of the spiritual gift of prophecy is that the latter, if still operative in the church, would require that all revelations that form the basis of any prophetic utterance must be included in the canon of Scripture. Simply put, the cessationist insists that, if prophetic revelation is still being supplied to Christians by the Spirit, the canon must remain open. This idea is rooted in what the cessationist believes is the nature of that revelatory act on the basis of which a person would then prophesy.

My friend Tom Schreiner likely speaks for most, if not all, cessationists when he asserts that prophetic revelation is equal in authority to that of any apostolic utterance. He concludes that “the sole and final authority of Scripture is threatened if so-called prophets today give revelations which have the same authority as Scripture” (Spiritual Gifts, 160). He draws this conclusion based on his understanding of the nature of prophetic revelation. In his book on spiritual gifts, Schreiner cites Ephesians 2:20 and concludes that “New Testament prophets have the same authority as the apostles” and that all prophetic ministry was designed to establish the theological and ethical principles on which the Church of Jesus Christ would be built (104).

Again, says Schreiner, “We see in Ephesians 2:20 that the words of the prophets play a decisive role in the shaping of the doctrine and life of the church. . . . They [the prophets] play a foundational role in establishing the church of Jesus Christ” (108).

However, Schreiner and other cessationists concede that few (perhaps only two) prophetic words were included in the NT (the prediction of Agabus in Acts 11 of an impending famine; and the prophetic warning to Paul in Acts 21). My question, then, is this. If the absence from Scripture of prophetic words uttered in the first century was not a problem, why should it be any different today, or in any century subsequent to the first? In other words, the presence of genuine prophetic revelation in the present day poses no more a threat to the finality and sufficiency of the canon than did such prophetic revelation in the first century. If the latter were abundant in the first century, but were not deemed by God to be essential to the canon, on what basis do we conclude that such revelation today would be any different or any more of a threat to the finality of holy Scripture?

Let me slow down and make sure all understand what I’m saying. Cessationists believe that the revelation given by the Holy Spirit that serves as the foundation for all prophetic ministry is of such a quality and carries the sort of authority that it must be included in the canon of Scripture. Therefore, to their way of thinking, if this sort of revelation is being granted today, the canon must remain open to include such utterances.

But again, here is the problem. That would obtain no less so to the revelation given by the Spirit in the first century. If such revelation is as infallible, authoritative, and binding on the conscience of all Christians, why do we find virtually none of it in the books of the NT? If it wasn’t necessary for such revelatory words to be included in inspired Scripture then, why would we conclude that it must be included in inspired Scripture today?

In view of this, D. A. Carson has rightly pointed out that not all “revelatory” activity of God comes to us as Scripture quality, divinely authoritative, canonical truth. Thus, says Carson, “when Paul presupposes in 1 Corinthians 14:30 that the gift of prophecy depends on a revelation, we are not limited to a form of authoritative revelation that threatens the finality of the canon. To argue in such a way is to confuse the terminology of Protestant systematic theology with the terminology of the Scripture writers” (Showing the Spirit, 163).

So, my question, once again, is this: If such words, each and every one of them, were the very “Word of God” and thus equal to Scripture in authority, what happened to them? Why were the NT authors so lacking in concern for whether or not other Christians heard them and obeyed them? Why were they not preserved for subsequent generations of the church? I’m not suggesting this proves that these “revelatory gifts” operated at a lower level of authority, but it certainly strikes me as odd that the NT would portray the operation of the gift of prophecy in this manner if in fact all such “words” were Scripture quality and essential to building the foundation for the universal body of Christ.

I’ve heard some cessationists push back and say that the difference between prophetic revelation in the first century and prophetic revelation in the twenty-first is that the former was given during the time of an open canon. The latter would be given in the time of a closed canon.

As important as that sounds, it does not threaten the point I’m making. It doesn’t matter when prophetic revelation is given. What matters is the quality and authority of that revelation, regardless of the time when the Holy Spirit chooses to give it. Consider the primary text cited by all evangelicals as the definitive statement on the sufficiency of Scripture. I’m referring to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 –

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

The Apostle Paul felt no inconsistency in making this profound assertion regarding Scripture’s sufficiency at the same time the spiritual gift of prophecy was being exercised throughout the many churches that he founded. If the latter were a threat to the former, he surely would have said so. And yet in 1 Timothy 1:18-19 Paul exhorts Timothy, his spiritual son, to “wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience” by means of or in accordance with “the prophecies made about” him. Paul clearly did not believe that the content of those “prophecies” was a threat to the sufficiency of the Scriptures. In fact, permit me to state the obvious. It is in the very Scriptures that Paul believed were entirely sufficient that he exhorts Timothy to draw strength from the prophetic utterances that he had received. And he at no time suggests that those prophecies were equal in authority to the inspired scripture that he was in process of delivering to Timothy and others in the first century.

The bottom line is that if the revelatory words that are foundational to the gift of prophecy are still being given by the Spirit to Christians today, they pose no more a threat to the finality and sufficiency of the canon of Scripture today than they would have in the first century. And since in the first century we know they were not regarded as canonical, there is no reason to think otherwise of such revelation in the 21st century.