"If private revelations agree with scripture, they are needless"

Pentecostals involved in theological discussion with other denoms will have or inevitably will encounter this cessationist quip, often attributed to John Owen and his critique of the Quakers, but actually from J.I. Packer's summary of John Owen's argument:

"... if their 'private revelations' agree with scripture, they are needless, and if they disagree, they are false." [1]

This quote and its simple(istic) argument is a go to, slam dunk reply by cessationists. I can almost smell their sense of victory whenever they use it. But being totally honest, it baffles me to no end how anyone can unironically accept such a non-sequitur.

And to be clear, the second half is obviously correct. The first half is the non-sequitur. Now, I haven't studied the Quakers and their claims of private revelation, so don't take me as critiquing John Owen's supposed argument necessarily, but its use today against Pentecostals and Charismatics.

With that understood here is my entire refutation:

"If private revelations agree with scripture, they are needless."

Why?

...

...

...

Okay I lied, my arguments are almost never shorter than a college essay. But that is the essence of my argument; why? On what basis? How does this follow?

I can only see this somewhat working if we happy clappies actually believed in revelation that revealed new doctrine; if scripture is needed to confirm this new doctrine, then it's not a new doctrine, but old doctrine with a new gift wrap. But we don't believe this, bar any fringe movements, which are irrelevant in critiques of a mainstream movement. This may well be a source of confusion by cessationists.

To us, prophecy clarifies direction and edifies the faithful. God comes to ordinary people and says "Do this" or "Fear not", among other things. No new doctrine is being presented, but new direction, or redirection, serves to correct the faithful's path.

So knowing this, then, how does the above argument follow at all? It doesn't, and it fails spectacularly. Private revelation is not needless if it agree with scripture because doctrinal needs are not the only needs.

But I love taking my opponent's assumptions for granted and turning it into their own defeater, so let's just cede their entire argument. Okay, if private revelations that agree with scripture are thus useless, then:

If 'divine revelations' from Yahweh agree with the Torah, they are needless.

Are Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and all the other prophets consistent with the Torah? Of course they are! So I guess they're not needed then; out of the Canon they go! 

When is the Cessationist Refined Version coming into print? I wouldn't mind a thinner, easy to carry Bible.

~~~

[1] - J.I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life, 1994. P.g. 86.