In response to Sandy Grant’s critique of Mark Driscoll’s 8th point (concerning the Holy Spirit), let us have a discussion about prophecy & guidance.

I have noticed that Mark Driscoll’s claims to have received extra-biblical knowledge from God have attracted a great deal of controversy lately. When anyone claims to have extra-biblical revelation, the immediate attitude seems to be one of skepticism and disbelief. It seems the assumption is that the speaker is lying, rather than that God has spoken to the speaker.

I suppose the first thing to note is that the ‘anglican’ line is: “it’s not that God can’t do it, it’s just that we shouldn’t expect it”, because He “hasn’t promised it.” See Sandy Grant’s article and comments on the Sola Panel for an example.

Look at 1 John 2:20 - “But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.” and also 1 John 2:26-27: “I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.”

It will not do to argue that 1 John is addressed to a select sub-group of saints: the author specifically addresses “fathers”, “young men”, and “little children”. They are not the elite of the NT church. The anointing teaches ‘you’, which plainly refers to all believers who have the anointing. The anointing here is shorthand for the Holy Spirit. (See later paragraph). Surely specific guidance is well-encompassed by the phrase “all knowledge”, whether that is personal guidance or revelation of the circumstances of another person (which Mark Driscoll claims to have experienced). 

I will share an experience from the 1990s, when I lived with my parents in Bulgaria. They were working with Turkish-speakers resident in Bulgaria, hoping to do church plants. They knew a woman who converted from Islam after some Christians showing the Jesus film prayed for her deaf-mute daughter, who was then able to speak for the first time in her life. Following her conversion, the wife of the leader of our mission group was beginning Bible studies with her, and gave her several questions to answer during the week. When they next met, the woman commented how difficult it had been to get the answers, and how long she had had to wait. All the answers were correct, but the missionary was surprised when she realised that the semi-literate woman had not realised the answers were found in the Bible. This woman had received all the answers by asking God all the questions.

There are at least two reasons for considering the “anointing” is a metaphor for the Holy Spirit within the believer. The first reason is that the text makes no sense if it is just a reference to having oil poured over you (being covered in oil cannot teach you everything, I hope that we can agree on this if nothing else). The second is that such a reading is consistent with the rest of the Bible. It is a consistent theme of the Old Testament that the leaders of Israel were anointed with sacred oil and subsequently empowered by the Holy Spirit. Isaiah 61:1 is also a clear identification of the Holy Spirit with anointing. Jesus, after being filled with and empowered by the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:1-19), quotes Isaiah 61. And in John 14 he tells the disciples that the Holy Spirit will “teach you all things.” (John 14:26). Jesus never limited the content of this revelation, nor the manner in which the Spirit would reveal it.

The later date assigned John’s Gospel & letters only strengthens the argument that the Holy Spirit was revealing things to the community of believers, despite the fact that the NT was already largely written.

One poster on these forums told someone I know that “we must not wait for, hope for, or seek for” God’s extra-biblical revelation.  Funnily enough, Jesus said “And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.” (Luke 11:9). I see a bit of tension there, and faced with the choice, I believe I will go with what Jesus said…

<Edit @ 2142: Formatting>

The Catholic position is more logical . Public Revelation cesed with the Apostles, as the deposit of faith has been delivered to the Saints once and for all. There is still private revelation to inviduals but it is never imparting extra-doctrinal. information..and the Church has the final say in validating this..as indeed did the Church validate the books of the Bible.

The deposit of faith is contained in both written form and sacred tradition ( as oposed to the traditions of men) ..the Church interprets the deposit of Faith.

All doctrines are to be found in the written record explicitly and implicitly… for instance infant baptism is implicit, but not explicit...there is no direct command baptize children....but there are implied texts.. the promise is to you and your children.

I don’t want to make this discussion one which proceeds on the basis of a Catholic - Protestant split.

But in response to what you say, I fail to see how the Catholic church (or what was to later become the Catholic church) could “validate the books of the BIble.” Nor do I understand how the church ‘validates’ extra-biblical revelation, unless by that you mean that the church has the ultimate authority to decide whether or not that revelation contradicts scripture.

Anyway, it seems that your position is that God can speak apart from the Bible. Have you any experience of this, and do you actually expect Him to do so?

This is a very interesting and long overdue topic - I hope to have the time to post something substantial in the next few days…

Fascinating story about the woman who got her answers directly from God because she didn’t know how to use her Bible.

Many - or even most - of the reasonably credible accounts I have heard of extra-Biblical revelation occured in similar situations.  That is, in an evironment either of great ignorance of the Bible, or great darkness, or of immediate danger.  One possible explanation is that God in his grace, sometimes speaks directly when those who are seeking him lack the resources of the word, or where the need is dire. 

In an environment when Bible knowlege and teaching is plentiful and sound, God speaks through his word.  I don’t want to say exclusively, because God is sovereign.

The danger seems to be people finding a ‘direct word’ superior, to think some person has a direct link to God.  But all Christians are already directly linked to God through the indwelling Holy Spirit.  And revelation from the Bible is certainly not inferior. 

How does Mark Driscoll fit in this framework?  From my understanding, Seattle was a particularly Godless city.  The visions he chose to relate certainly fit into the category of darkness and danger. 

Another point: Mark Driscoll was criticised for talking about his visions.  From his account of what happened the first time he experienced a vision, and his pastor said ‘only happened in the NT’ he was reaching out to any who might have experienced something, but didn’t know what to do about it.

Hi David

That was a great post. I have a few comments:

- I do think there was greater revelation of this kind during the first century, because the NT canon wasn’t completed. But then I also believe that the NT canon was completed before the Temple was destroyed. This (as well as the massacre of saints by Herod and Nero) might partly explain why the church fathers are so confused about so many things. They had to start from scratch with the Scriptures, and it is apparent in their writings.

- I agree that we are overly cautious, but this week have seen the other end of things after speaking with Mormons. Most, if not all, of their particularly outrageous doctrines are not in the Book of Mormon, but are the (more recent) teachings of Mormon prophets who have a kind of ex-cathedra authority to interpret both the Bible and the book of Mormon. This is the same error the Catholic church fell into. Both Mormons and Catholics ended up denying many central tenets of the Bible they claim to uphold. So I think we should, as Wesley said, be open to hear God speaking, but measure all voices by the written Scriptures, and judge the words of those who claim to have received such revelation by their “conversation,” spiritual fruit, and the outcomes of the revelation.

- God speaking in such a way seems to occur on the frontiers of ministry, to confirm the Gospel. Thanks for that awesome missionary account.

Hi guys,

thanks for your thoughts & feedback. Will post something in response soon :)

David

One other quick comment on this.  A problem I have with extra-biblical revelation - not with the theoretical possibility, but with any particular claim to have received it - is one of validation.  If you believe God has spoken to you directly, there is no way I or anyone else can know if this is true or not.  Our only criteria for assessing the (claimed) revelation is against Scrupture.  The more it aligns with Scripture, the stronger your claim; but I can only be sure of your claim when it aligns [bold]exactly[/bold] with Scripture - which would seem then to make the ‘new’ revelation effectively redundant (or at least, not new).

In the story you cited, it seems that what the Spirit of God had done was, effectively, to bring the Scriptures to the woman concerned in a direct way.  Whether that was ‘miraculous’, or whether there was more of God’s word buried in her memory than she realised from some long past exposure to the word of God that she couldn’t recall, doesn’t really matter - the point is that her answers, as I understand it, ultimately were [bold]Biblical[/bold], not extra-biblical.  That God should bring his word to people in such circumstances is a testament to his sovereignty and grace - but may not say a great deal to us who have that word readily available to us, and in multiple, multiple copies.

Regards,

Bob

<This is mainly in response to Bob, as I feel I can express my views on his issues sufficiently quickly. Will reply to others at some stage tomorrow I hope>

Hi Bob,

I appreciate your thoughts.

I agree that to some extent there is an element of trust involved.

But I’d suggest that there are a couple of ‘tests’ to apply to extra-Biblical revelation.
1) Consistency with scripture. (Whereas your test seems to be “is this something already revealed (or revealed to some extent) in the Bible?").

It might seem like nit-picking, but there’s a difference… your test is a bit narrower, in that it begins to confine what God can tell someone to what is written in the Bible. Mine is broader in the sense that it allows that God can tell someone something that is not in the Bible, so long as it’s not contradicting anything in the Bible. (Unless of course I misunderstand you).

2) The test Jesus outlines in Matthew 7 - the test of fruit:

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.” (Matt 7:15-20).

I’ll give an example of #2 in action just so we’re all on the same page.

This is one of Jack Deere’s stories. He was visiting the Sunday school at his church, and brought a young man with a prophetic gift along with him. After Deere had spoken to the kids for a while, he asked the man if God had told him anything about the children. The young man had indeed been told some things about the children. In particular, one little girl in the Sunday school class had been crying during the week because her parents were getting divorced and she felt it was her fault. (I think at this point the prophetically gifted man also addressed the girl, and told her God wanted her to know it wasn’t her fault).

So they took the girl aside, and Deere clarified that she had been crying, that her parents were getting divorced. ‘And do you feel like it was your fault?’ “Not anymore” is the response.

So, in that case there’s a revelation, which does not contradict anything in Scripture.
Secondly, a proper application of that revelation brought forth good fruit - the little girl realized that it wasn’t her fault her parents were divorcing.

(Of course, it is possible for prophetic words to be applied in ways that are improper and are abusive.)

Regarding my story - you are correct, the answers were all to be found in the Bible. I’m happy to accept that one way in which the Spirit can work is by bringing certain scriptures to our minds with an immediacy & relevance / pertinence that clearly distinguishes them from just idle remembrances of what we’ve read.

David: Anyway, it seems that your position is that God can speak apart from the Bible. Have you any experience of this, and do you actually expect Him to do so?

Yes a living magisterium, evidential in every generation ( he that hears you, hears me ) since the earthly ministry of our Lord...faithfully guarding doctrinal and moral truh..so others we have no contraception, divorce and re-marriage , women bishops etc.

Michael Ball...unlilke the Catholic Church, the Mormons beliveve in continuing public revelation. Beside the Book of Mormon, and a revised Bible..they also have other Scriptures, like the Doctrine and Covenants, which are periodically added to.

However unlike the Caholic magisterium , the Mormon hierarchy have frequently contradicted previous revelations etc. They backtracked on polygamy and blacks in the priesthood.

It seems to me that if the Bible says that all of creation speaks of the Glory of God, then God can certainly speak to us any way he wants.

While I understand the validity of the closed cannon, perhaps it has created a false mindset in some circles in that God will only ever speak to us through the scriptures. That is something the Scriptures themselves clearly do not say and to insist on it is to add more to Scripture.....

Hey guys,

thanks for the comments. I am glad that some have found the story from Bulgaria encouraging. :-)
Hopefully this next post will engage with what others have said.

I did forget to mention in my first post a qualifying statement, which is: I believe God doesn’t speak in contradiction to the Bible, and that all extra-biblical revelation ought to be tested against the yardstick of Scripture. A bit like 1 John 4:1-3 (test the spirits, do not believe every spirit)

Roslyn, I agree that God is more likely to speak where there is greater need. But I wouldn’t say that ‘need’ is limited to a “young church in hostile environment” kind of need. I can think of at least 2 stories (one is Jack Deere’s, the other Mark Driscoll’s) in which God showed people things which enabled their ministry to their congregation. And I guess my whole point is that sometimes a verse from the Bible isn’t going to tell you what God needs you to hear…

Also Roslyn, on what criteria do you distinguish between extra-biblical revelation that is “reasonably credible” and that revelation which is untrustworthy? I don’t question that it’s a good thing to be discerning, and I don’t mean to sound inquisitorial here – I’m just curious. I was intending to say something to the effect of “if Mr X told me, ‘God told me to walk around dressed like Superman’, I would probably disbelieve him”, but then I realised that God told some prophets in the OT to do some really weird stuff (poor old Ezekiel having to lie on his side for about 430 days!!). So “weirdness” may not be the best criteria for judging what is instruction or revelation from God…

And to be honest, I’m not sure this point -

“In an environment when Bible knowlege and teaching is plentiful and sound, God speaks through his word” -

can be justified scripturally? If there’s an obvious proof-text I’m overlooking please tell me.
Paul in 1 Cor 14:1 says “Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.” Also, vv 3-4 make it clear that prophetic words build up the church. So I don’t see a basis for limiting extra-biblical revelation or prophecy to situations in which there’s no access to the scriptures and no good teaching.

(Interestingly, it seems that sometimes people commit a bit of fallacious reasoning based on this verse, they seem to say: ‘Those who speak words which build up the church are prophesying’ – my response is: no, prophecy is one of many ways of building up the church – teaching is another, etc.)

I do agree with you that revelation from the Bible isn’t inferior. I personally need to be careful that I don’t devalue the Bible in my eagerness to hear God’s extra-biblical revelation.

I accept the texts which say that Christians are given the Holy Spirit as a deposit guaranteeing their inheritance. I’m still a bit confused about whether or not you can be ‘filled’ with the Spirit at a later date – that’s a whole other thread though. At the same time I wonder if having the Spirit as a deposit is the same as having spiritual gifts (like those in 1 Cor 12), one of which is prophesy. But I don’t want to point to all my brothers and sisters in Christ and say “none of you have spiritual gifts” of course…

It’s funny that in Luke 4, Jesus is baptised by John, and subsequently filled with the Holy Spirit. After He goes into the wilderness and triumphs over Satan, Luke says “And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and a report about him went out through all the surrounding country.” (Luke 4:14). I guess we can’t expect to walk in the power of the Spirit to the extent that Jesus did. But if we could, even a little bit, imagine what that could look like for the Church!

Mike, I’m not sure about your ‘completion of the canon’ line of reasoning. God tells us that He is unchanging, and I see no reason why the completion of the written Word would result in less extra-biblical revelation. He spoke to plenty of people in OT Israel although they had the first five books of the Bible…

Robert, to be honest you seem to be talking about Catholic doctrinal positions. I’m asking about personal experience. Again, how does the church validate personal revelation? The doctrine that only the magisterium (which means the Pope & Bishops, no?) get to interpret scripture seems a bit at odds with the idea that God can speak to any church member…

David, thanks for the feedback.

But I wouldn’t say that ‘need’ is limited to a “young church in hostile environment” kind of need. 

I don’t think so either.  I can see now my meaning was ambiguous or even misleading.  Apologies for that.  I don’t think ignorance of God’s word, evil and danger (which were the situations I mentioned) are at all limited to young churches in hostile environments.  They’re all around us. 

my whole point is that sometimes a verse from the Bible isn’t going to tell you what God needs you to hear…

I think the more one knows God’s word, the more likely it will.
Which leads to the next point

And to be honest, I’m not sure this point -

“In an environment when Bible knowlege and teaching is plentiful and sound, God speaks through his word” -

can be justified scripturally? If there’s an obvious proof-text I’m overlooking please tell me.

Point taken.  It was a weak argument.  I will try to re-express my thinking, although I’m not a fan of proof texts. 
God has given us scripture for us to live by.  Psalm 119 and Proverbs 1-9 express this kind of idea.  Jesus used scripture extensively - eg: Matthew 4:1-11, where he refuted Satan’s temptations from scripture.  James 1:21 says ‘humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you’. 
A key issue is the sufficiency of scripture - that is, does scripture have all anyone needs for knowlege of God, salvation, sanctification, guidance, wisdom, evangelism,...?  I believe so, but it’s too big a topic for me to tackle here and now. 
So where scripture is known, I would expect God to work overwhelmingly through scripture, which is inerrant, and sufficient (I believe), rather than have us suffer the vaguaries of extra-biblical messages. 

on what criteria do you distinguish between extra-biblical revelation that is “reasonably credible” and that revelation which is untrustworthy?

I think your 2 criteria are good.  Scriptural witness or congruence; and verification or fruit.  I would also consider alternative explanations. 

Grace and peace.

I have a bit of trouble with calling any prophecy , vision etc “Extra Biblical revelation” Scripture itself talks of many kinds of experiences that people had with him, in both the old and new testaments. And there is no hint in scripture that it was considered extra biblical.

Some of the experiences were, go and talk and pray with a specific person. Which is something that the Bible doesnt tell us who or which specific person to pray with. Other times it speaks of leadings and direction as to which people group / country to go to that God wanted them to go, and this is against the back drop of being told to go out to all nations.

Scripture tells us to be willing to allow any prophetic experience to be judged and weighed by others. So that its self should be a safe guard against falsehood arising. But thank God that Willain Carey didn’t take the advice given him when he strongly felt God was telling him to take the Gospel to India, and yet he was considered to be the heretical one at the time.

Also its interesting there is so much instruction about eagerly desiring the spiritual gifts especially that of prophecy...seems to me that Paul was writing this to people whom he and the other Apostles had already given much instruction too.