I’ve been thinking a lot about my latest blog entry since posting it last night. Specifically about those who would reject the continuationalist position yet are willing to say that it might be possible that God may have actually spoken to James King.
Check out the following video for an example of what I am talking about; pay particular attention to 2:31 – 2:44.
Notice that the host, Todd Friel, is quick to say that “[God’s] revelation to us is done. We don’t get that type of revelation anymore.” in one breathe and in the next asks, “Could it have happened?” Does that sound right to you; is Todd’s question in keeping with his previous statements? Either Todd misspoke or he is unaware that his question is inconsistent with his position on Biblical Sufficiency. I tend to think he meant what he said because of comments he made earlier on the Wretched Radio program. Listen here.
Todd goes on to respond to his own question, ”Of course God could have...” but qualifies his answer by pointing out that God speaking to men in this age would “absolutely” and “positively” not be normative.
Clearly, the problem with this position is that if it could be demonstrated that we have evidence of even one instance of extra-biblical revelation, this side of the closing of the canon, then the door to the contuationalist position is flung wide open and Todd’s position is defeated. Whether that revelatory communication is normative or not makes no difference, Todd’s stance cannot afford for it to happen even once. So, Mr. Friel is left with a decision, he must either demand that God did not speak to James King or he must reassess both his view of Sufficiency and pneumatology.