Charismatics who believe that the canon is closed argue that the inspiration received by the apostles personally selected by Jesus allowed them to write Scriptures that are foundational and authoritative for the entire church, for all people, and for all time. Their writings became part of the biblical canon that Protestants use today.

Nonetheless, they argue that the gift of prophecy continues into the present day throughout the church. The difference between Scripture and the gift of prophecy has been described in at least two ways:

• that prophecy, even in the New Testament, is inherently different from and of lesser authority than the inspiration received by the authors of Scripture.
• that non-apostolic prophecy is limited in scope and applicability in a way that the Bible, produced by the OT prophets and foundational apostles, is not.

Prophecy inherently different from inspiration

Wayne Grudem argues that New Testament "prophecy" should not be understood to be equivalent to inspiration or Old Testament prophecy:

Ordinary congregational prophecy in New Testament churches did not have the authority of Scripture. It was not spoken in words that were the very words of God, but rather in merely human words.¹

According to Grudem, the New Testament word for prophet is normally best interpreted as "one who speaks on the basis of some external influence,"² as indicated in Titus 1:12 and Luke 22:64. Thus it should not be seen as equivalent to OT prophecy or NT apostolic inspiration. He cites several passages that he argues demonstrate that even prophecy in the apostolic church was inherently of lower authority than Scripture, and even prone to distortion by the one prophesying:

• Acts 21:4: The disciples at Tyre tell Paul "through the Spirit" (to Grudem, an example of prophecy) not to go to Jerusalem, yet Paul disobeys and goes anyway, indicating the lesser authority of the prophecy.
• Acts 21:10–11: The prophecy of Agabus is apparently fallible, as it was Romans, not Jews (as predicted), that bound Paul. Grudem sees this as an example of a true message or vision given by the Spirit to Agabus that he inaccurately reported, probably unintentionally.
• 1 Thessalonians 5:19–21: Paul's instruction to "not despise prophesying" makes no sense to Grudem if prophecy is on the same level as Scripture, since elsewhere Paul says the Thessalonians received God's word with joy. Furthermore, the "test everything" instruction applies to these prophecies, suggesting that some would be good and some not.
• 1 Corinthians 14:29–38: Again, Paul suggests that some prophecy will be accepted and some rejected (listeners must "weigh what is said"). Furthermore, Paul challenges his audience, saying that they are not the source of God's word (v. 36) but he is (v. 37–38).²

On this basis, Grudem argues that NT "prophets" often spoke "simply to report something that God had laid on their hearts or brought to their minds,"² not with divine authority. Therefore, the gift of prophecy

does not threaten or compete with Scripture in authority but is subject to Scripture, as well as to the mature judgment of the congregation.¹

Post-foundational prophecy limited in scope and applicability

Other charismatic theologians approach Grudem's distinction between NT prophecy and OT prophecy/NT apostleship with caution. J. Rodman Williams admits a distinction between "occasional" prophets and "specialist" prophets in the New Testament, for example, but rejects the idea that something can be a prophecy and yet contain mistakes. Instead he argues that the passages on "testing" and "weighing" prophesies are meant as instructions to distinguish between true and false prophecy, not to determine how much of a given prophecy is true.³

Williams instead argues that the primary distinction between the Scriptures and the gift of prophecy is that the Scriptures, by virtue of being revealed through OT prophets, Jesus, and the early apostles, is the "fully declared" revelation of God's truth. "There is nothing more to be added" to this special revelation:

Accordingly, what occurs in revelation within the Christian community is not new truth that goes beyond the special revelation (if so, it is spurious and not of God). It is only a deeper appreciation of what has already been revealed, or a disclosure of some message for the contemporary situation that adds nothing essentially to what He has before made known.⁴

Similarly, W. E. Nunnally sees parallels between intertestamental and modern-day prophecy, saying:

Old Testament and New Testament are canonized Scripture. As such, they represent the culmination of a process under the direct guidance of God. Scripture is normative—eternally relevant—and is our only rule for faith and conduct. Intertestamental prophecy was not, and modern-day prophecy is not, considered Scripture. Neither has undergone a divinely directed process of popular, universal usage. Neither is eternally relevant, or normative. Both are conditioned by time, place, and situation, and therefore do not have the intrinsic authority to dictate matters of faith and practice.⁵

Along these lines, the Assemblies of God writes that the apostles "personally called and commissioned by the risen Lord" had "unique revelatory and authoritative roles in establishing the church and producing the New Testament" [emphasis added]. On this basis, then, though it allows churches to identify "contemporary apostles," it strictly limits them:

Contemporary apostles, of course, will not have seen or been commissioned by the risen Lord in the manner of the “apostles of Jesus Christ,” nor will they be adding their teachings to the canon of Scripture. Presumably they will demonstrate the other marks of an apostle taught in the New Testament.⁶

Summary

Though differing somewhat on the proper definition of "prophecy," closed-canon charismatics agree that the apostles personally commissioned by Jesus had the unique role of participating in the completion of God's special revelation, which we now have in the form of the Bible. They argue that though both originate in the same Holy Spirit, modern-day prophecy is of lesser authority and merely interprets and applies Scripture; it does not add to it.

Note: All emphasis in quotes is in the original unless otherwise stated.

References:

1. Systematic Theology, chapter 52, 1039–40.
2. Systematic Theology, chapter 53, 1049–55.
3. Renewal Theology, volume 2, 381 and 386.
4. Renewal Theology, volume 1, 44.
5. The Age of the Apostles From Biblical, Extra-biblical, Theological, and Logical Perspectives (WebCite).
6. AOG Official Statement on Apostles and Prophets, 10 (approved August 6, 2001).