From: Rich Blinne (e-lists@blinne.org)
Date: Thu Feb 20 2003 - 13:38:31 EST
Graham E. Morbey wrote:
>It may be that a motivation for believing in the cessation of revelation
>is to protect a "high view" of the troublesome inerrancy concept. It
>would work in conjunction with the perfect "original autograph" theory
>of the Bible to bolster the notion of the Bible's "special revelation"
>character over against "general revelation." A common thread is that
>none of these notions has proof texts. The discussion could have some
>bearing on the bible/science debate.
>This is certainly not a "Jesus told me" rambling!
>
>Graham
>
>
That's not the motivation. In fact, most non-cessationists that I know
are also inerrantists. Non-cessationism is not a threat to inerrantist
thinking. For example, inerrantists believe that both the OT and NT are
inerrant. The fact that revelation did not cease in 400 B.C. does not
hurt whether the OT is inerrant or not. Cessationists are that way
because they believe that it is the teaching of the received
revelation. The presupposition behind all this is that God does not
contradict himself.
As for the relationship of special to general revelation (trying to
steer the conversation back on topic in keeping with Terry's request),
this is not what a cessationist is driving at. Princeton theologian
B.B. Warfield is famous for a number of things:
1. Being the father of modern inerrancy
2. Being the father of modern cessationism
3. Being the continuation of 19th Century Reformed Evidentialism in
so-called Old Princeton
Warfield saw no issue between inerrancy and general revelation. He has
been quoted on this list a number of times on the issue of evolution.
Warfield saw general revelation in general and the theistic proofs in
particular to be compatible with inerrancy. As such, he did not see
science as a threat to Christianity. He did see *spurious* supernatural
claims as being a threat, however. If the claims were genuine then it
would have been not a problem. Also, a natural examination of the book
of nature and the Book of Scripture is also not a problem. It is not
cessation vesus non-cessation. Rather, it is true versus false claims
and the resultant effect false claims has on Christianity. This is what
drove his (and my) cessationist polemics.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Feb 20 2003 - 13:40:43 EST