If I could change Christian vocabulary: "Closed Canon"

by Dan Phillips

I've remarked in the past that it often seems as if bad doctrines (and problematic denominations/cults) have all the best names, while orthodoxy gets stuck with negative terms. More than once, I've tried to spur a search for more positive terminology...with varying degrees of success. I've also tried to find less gauzy, more realistic descriptors for bad doctrine.

Wellsir, well ma'am, I'm back with another.

We're wont to talk about the closed Canon. By that we mean a great thing: we mean that the millennia-long process of revelation has reached its climax (Heb. 1:1-2), and no fresh revelation is being imparted.

It's a wonderfully robust truth. But the term is negative. It just says closed. No more. It doesn't mean that the process was successful or satisfactory; just that you aren't getting any more. Closed. You've gone to the pharmacy to get some medicine for your flu... but it's closed. You wanted to take your honey to your favorite restaurant... but it's closed. You wanted to register for the Sufficient Fire conference, but... well, thank God, that's not closed yet. But it will be.

See? Closed. Disappointing, dissatisfying. Final, yes; but not happy. Not gladsome connotations.

So what if in stead of "closed" we spoke of the...

Full Canon

"Full," as in "No, thanks, really, I'm stuffed. Not another bite!" As in "Everything I could possibly need." As in "Replete, well-stocked, abundantly furnished, neither room nor need for one bit more." Full.

Doesn't that describe the situation better and more truly both connotatively and denotatively? It isn't that the last apostle had a bunch he needed to say, but just expired before he could, and now the doors are closed. It isn't as if it's an inadequate product, but it's the one we've got, so we've got to make-do.

It's that God has given us everything for which we need a word from God. It's bursting with His wisdom, His mind, His heart, His direction, His instruction. It has more in it than we will ever be able to take in, process, savor, and put into practice! It has enough to make us wise to salvation (2 Tim. 3:15), and fully to equip us for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17)! It's full!

Which then correctly depicts the sort of person who'd try to come up with some sort of lame supplement in the light he deserves: foolish, futile, ignorant, and in the final analysis of-little-faith.

So I submit that for your mulling-over and discussion. What if we began speaking of the "full Canon" instead of the "closed Canon"? Would the newer phrase say all the older one did even better, and say more besides? Plus, it makes a nice set with another contribution of mine, "leaky Canon."

Have at it.

---

Continusmaticism: lunges and ripostes — the research phase

by Dan Phillips

This is probably too ambitious, and I probably don't have the time.

That rousing beginning uttered: Continusmatics keep recycling the same lame challenges and comebacks and evasions that have already been answered over and over. Though each quip has been killed dead more times than Freddy and Jason combined, they're always pulled out of a hat as if they'd just sprung fresh from Zeus' brow, never heard before, never answered even once (let alone myriad times), and always produced with the invincible air of the Aha.

This happens a lot in Twitter, where I guess I get followers (or non-following drive-bys) who don't know who I am and haven't actually read any of the dozens of articles I've ever written on these subjects. So I've taken simply not to wasting my time on folks who don't "follow" me, because there's no context there, and I've no time to do each lazy challenger's research for him.

So in that all, I've often thought it'd be nice just to be able to give a link, say "Read #47," and be done with it. Create a master post, with as many comebacks and/or links as I can manage, maybe let it grow like the Axioms post, and use it.

That's what this is for: research for a future post. To be written, you know, in my spare time.

HERE ARE THE RULES, AND LO! THEY ARE RULEY-RULES:

1. Anyone (who hasn't been banned) can play. Charismatic, non-, apostolic, third-wave, tenth-degree, 49th parallel, second amendment... whatever. 
2. But the comment must be one sentence long or I will delete it. Comment as many times as warranted, but each comment must be one sentence long, and must be what the next rule says it must be.
3. The comment is and must be only something a Charismatic says either to defend, go on offense for, or dodge the implications of his position.
4. For examples, see below.

Simple, eh? Yeah, I know; "We'll see."

So I'll start it with these examples:

1. God still heals.
2. The Bible says "earnestly desire to prophesy" (1 Cor. 14:39)
3. The Bible says "do not forbid speaking in tongues" (1 Cor. 14:39)
4. The Bible says "do not despise prophecies" (1 Thess. 5:20)
5. The Bible says "do not quench the Spirit" (1 Thess. 5:19)
6. No verse says the gifts have ceased.
7. No verse says the gifts would cease with the closing of the Canon.
8. A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.
9. There were prophecies in the Bible that weren't added to Scripture.
10. We aren't claiming to write Scripture.
11. NT prophecy is different from OT prophecy.
12. Saying that prophecy should be tested and sifted (1 Thess. 5:21) and discerned (1 Cor. 14:29) proves it is different from OT prophecy.
13. Great Man A had a weird experience that's hard to explain, so the gifts are still around.
14. Some Continusmatic wrote an answer to your answer of #___.

There y'go. Sound like fun? Depends on you. So have at it, homies.

---