Many evangelical Christians make a distinction between how the Spirit “illuminates” Scripture and “inspires” Scripture (e.g., theologians Millard Erickson and Larry Hart). But the distinction is problematic. The common idea is that when the Spirit inspired the Scripture long ago, it is not the same as and does not have the same authority as when the Spirit speaks today. This includes when the Spirit illuminates Scripture, that is, when the Spirit helps people to understand the Bible today.
Authority and Inspiration
I understand that the intent in making a distinction between inspiration and illumination is to (rightly) safeguard the authority of Scripture. But a problem here is that it is the same Holy Spirit at work in both activities. And I think the Spirit is just as authoritative today as when the Spirit spoke in the past. We are not talking about a different Spirit!
One might think, “but the biblical authors were writing down God’s very words!” In a sense, this is true. At the same time, Luke says that he “carefully investigated everything” and that he “decided to write” about Jesus (Luke 1:3). For the most part, it seems the biblical authors, like Luke, did not know they were writing Scripture, and many didn’t even perceive that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit—this is something that the Church has discerned. And the Church and Christians continue to discern when and where God is speaking.
To be clear, I am not trying to downplay the authority of Scripture. I am simply making the point that the Spirit spoke through biblical authors and continues to speak today; and these two experiences are not as different as many might think.
The Holy Spirit and Prophecy
A couple of years ago at the Society for Pentecostal Studies, my colleague, Dr. Stephen Barkley, gave a presentation where he compared the experience of Old Testament (OT) prophecy with the experience of charismatic prophecy in Canadian Pentecostal churches today.
Barkley explained that when he asks people what the difference is between OT prophecy and contemporary prophecy, most people respond that they are very different, especially because the OT prophets are Scripture and therefore authoritative. One problem with this, Barkley observed, is that there is a coherence between the OT and today in how the person prophesying experiences the Spirit in receiving and giving prophecy. (Barkley’s work is now published in the book Pentecostal Prophets: Experience in Old Testament Perspective.)
I would add that another problem with the common response is that it is the same Holy Spirit that spoke through the prophets in the OT (2 Peter 1:21) that is still speaking through authentic (I emphasize authentic) prophecy today. So, they must both be authoritative!
Like what I said above about “illumination,” the problem here is that too many people, including Pentecostal pastors, want to distinguish the authority of the Spirit speaking in the past from the authority of the Spirit speaking to God’s people today. But…to reemphasize…it is the same Spirit.
When God Speaks
What I am really trying to say is that whenever God speaks, it is authoritative. So simple. So true.
I’ve thought this way for some time, but this hit me even more a few years ago when God made it clear to me that I needed to be willing to take on a new role at my workplace (and I wasn’t willing at the time). As I prayed, I was reminded that God is God, and I have no right to disobey God. For me, God was guiding me, and I had to obey God’s authority. It wasn’t in the Bible, but God was speaking to me.
Isn’t the Bible Special?
I remember N. T. Wright saying we can only speak of the Bible as authoritative if we mean the authority of God being exercised through Scripture. Or, one might say that the Bible is authoritative only because it is a place where God has spoken and continues to speak.
But if God speaks to me, isn’t that authoritative? Yes.
If God speaks through an authentic word of prophecy today, isn’t that authoritative? Yes.
Does this make the Bible equally authoritative to contemporary prophecy or to ways that God speaks to me? Yes and no.
On the one hand, yes, because whenever God speaks, it is authoritative. (I am only speaking of where God has clearly and certainly spoken.)
On the other hand, no, it is not “equally authoritative” in the sense that it is not canonical and, therefore, it is not authoritative for all people.
Authority and Canon
To put it another way, when God speaks through or to someone, it doesn’t automatically become part of the canon of Scripture. Something, even a writing, can come from God and have authority without becoming part of the Bible.
We know, for example, that Paul wrote letters that weren’t included in the Bible (1 Corinthians 5:9; Colossians 4:16). I don’t imagine that his other letters included any heresy. And I imagine that the Spirit was inspiring Paul as he wrote them. But they didn’t become part of the Bible.
Likewise, when the Spirit speaks today, it doesn’t make it canonical. To put it another way, when God speaks to an individual or through an individual today, it is authoritative for those to whom God is speaking. But it is not authoritative for the whole church. Therefore, it is not authoritative in the same way that the Bible is.
Side note: I’m sure someone will ask, what if someone gave a prophecy that was intended for the whole Church today? Could that become part of Scripture? Practically speaking, it could never happen. Plus, in retrospect, we realize that there were numerous criteria for what became part of the canon of Scripture (more info here).
Still Discerning
To be clear, this means that the Bible is still the final and absolute authority for belief and conduct. Moreover, any time someone claims that the Spirit is speaking through them (prophecy) or to them, it still needs to be evaluated in light of the canon (which means “measure”) and authority of the Scripture. At the same time, when we do discern that the Spirit has truly spoken, including through prophecy, it is authoritative for the person or people the Spirit has spoken to.
Leave a comment below by clicking here.
You might also be interested in these posts:
- Myth #1: “Prophecy is all About the Future”
- The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible
- When God Speaks Through Dreams…
Andrew K. Gabriel, Ph.D., is the author/editor of six books, including Simply Spirit-Filled: Experiencing God in the Presence and Power of the Holy Spirit. He is a theology professor at MCS and Horizon College & Seminary and serves on the Theological Study Commission for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. You can follow him on Facebook or on Twitter.
Appreciate your blogs so much. You made a comment saying that you didn’t believe the authors of scripture knew they were writing scripture. However, it seems clear to me that Paul knew his words carried a different authority. In Cor 14 he states that his words were a command of God. In context he is dealing with prophecy. Thus, he is elevating his words above personal prophecy. John also says something similar in 1 John 4 saying that we are not to believe every person claiming to be speaking for God but instead they were to believe what they (apostles) have said (1 John 4:6). Again, John is elevating the teaching of the apostles as authoritative above personal revelation. I do think apostolic writing and teaching was understood as carrying a unique authority and it was understood by the writers and the early church. Just my 2 cents, blessings brother.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I agree that some words were more authoritative than others, but I don’t think it was necessarily because the words were considered “Scripture,” but rather because it resulted from God’s communication. Here are a few thoughts in response:
1) I did say “for the most part” it seems the biblical authors did not know they were writing Scripture. There are some times when it is clear God was telling them to write things down (e.g., Hab 2:2).
2) I can’t think of any place where I get the sense from Paul that he thought what he was writing was becoming Scripture or that he was adding to the Old Testament. Nevertheless, I think you are correct that in places he indicated that his words had special authority. I believe this is because he would affirm that whatever God communicates is authoritative, including some things Paul didn’t write down.
3) In 1 Cor 14:37, I don’t think Paul is elevating his words above prophecy. Instead, it seems to me that Paul is simply saying that true prophets should recognize the truth he is teaching. And we must keep in mind that his words *were not yet Scripture.* So we might even say that this passage proves my point that God’s communication is authoritative whether or not it is written in Scripture. Consider, for example, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, which speaks of words Paul had previously spoken: “And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which *you heard from us*, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.”
4) You reference to 1 John 4 supports my point since the reference wasn’t to the Bible, but to listening “to us.” The point here in 1 John 4:1-6 seems to be about discerning where the Spirit is truly speaking, and wherever the Spirit is truly speaking, it is authoritative.
Thought provoking as always, Andrew. I agree with how you’ve parsed this vital issue and will have to read Barkley’s book on “Pentecostal Prophets: Experience in Old Testament Perspective.” All the best in your writing, Dr. Maurice Vellacott
Very well said. It is always helpful to see clear and concise explanations of important and relevant Issue.
Thank you for sharing this authoritative word with the Church. May it be understood by all and canonized by none.
J
Brother Andrew (not the Bible smuggler lol), relevant to your thoughtful article above, you may want to check out an excellent academia.edu article “Conscience, Oral Tradition, Natural Religion, or Later Insertion?: Unwritten Revelation in Genesis 1-11” by William Barrick, on “unwritten revelation” and the prophetic word. IHS, Maurice Vellacott