- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Thanks for sharing your undefended opinions.There's the problem.
Upvote
0
Thanks for sharing your undefended opinions.There's the problem.
(1) Sharing an opinion is often okay. It is immoral to feign 100% certainty (insisting a message is the Word of the Lord) when one is only 99% certain. That's my big complaint with today's 'prophecies'.
(2) Fallible revelation SOUNDS like a contradiction but isn't so. Few of us, including myself, are very close to God, that is, close enough to hear Him loud and clear like Moses or Paul did, so we generally can't make out what He's saying. The dynamics of this gets into metaphysics/ontology, in my view, but I'm trying to stay on-topic.
Jones' distinction between "illumination" and "revelation" is an optical illusion. First off, he predicates it on the idea of 'new' revelation, whereas prophecy merely expounds and clarifies old revelation, as I noted in an earlier post. Secondly, there's only two ways for God to illuminate the student of Scripture.The great Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones summed it up well:
Once these New Testament documents were written the office of a prophet was no longer necessary. . . In the history of the Church trouble has arisen because people thought that they were prophets in the New Testament sense, and that they had received special revelations of truth. The answer to that is that in view of the New Testament Scriptures there is no need of further truth. That is an absolute proposition. We have all truth in the New Testament, and we have no need of any further revelations. All has been given, everything that is necessary for us is available. Therefore if a man claims to have received a revelation of some fresh truth we should suspect him immediately. . . . The answer to all this is that the need for prophets ends once we have the canon of the New Testament. We no longer need direct revelations of truth; the truth is in the Bible. We must never separate the Spirit and the Word. The Spirit speaks to us through the Word; so we should always doubt and query any supposed revelation that is not entirely consistent with the Word of God. Indeed the essence of wisdom is to reject altogether the term “revelation” as far as we are concerned, and speak only of “illumination.” The revelation has been given once and for all, and what we need and what by the grace of God we can have, and do have, is illumination by the Spirit to understand the Word.
- Christian Unity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), p189– 91.
Um...That's precisely what I said.It's immoral to present a mere opinion as a "message from God."
It's NOT different now. A true prophet WOULD both hear AND see God distinctly (loud and clear) just like the OT prophets did. (This is actually a logical necessity of spiritual maturity). Jesus summed up the lamentable Jewish condition in a nutshell, "You have never heard the Father's voice, nor seen His shape" (Jn 5:37).In the Old Testament, God spoke to the prophets so loudly that they heard Him clearly (even if, like Jonah, they didn't want to). Why should it be different now?
It's NOT different now. A true prophet WOULD both hear AND see God distinctly (loud and clear) just like the OT prophets did. (This is actually a logical necessity of spiritual maturity). Jesus summed up the lamentable Jewish condition in a nutshell, "You have never heard the Father's voice, nor seen His shape" (Jn 5:37).
That's a too-loaded statement. Like any Christian, I agree with SOME aspects of a theologian, disagree with others.Then why were you defending Grudem's concept of fallible prophetic revelation?
As Jack Deere has pointed out, no new Christian would open up the NT, read it from cover to cover, and conclude that gifts has ceased. Cessationism grows out of experience, "I don't see any gifts today so let me find some biblical support confirming that they ceased".Acts2:38 said:Yes, prophesy is one of several gifts that ceased. Other examples are raising people from the dead, healing by touch instantly and without delay, speaking many different languages without any prior study/education (tongues). They no longer happen anymore. People can claim all they want all day long that they can do these things, but the bible is straight up telling us that they lie.
Perhaps you're assuming that OT prophets were infallible.
In these cases it's still okay to share their thoughts, with appropriate disclaimers, "This is just my opinion, it is fallible, it is NOT the Word of God'.
And?If they were caught out being fallible, when acting as prophets, they were supposed to be put to death.
And so do I. Yes, as I said, I agree with Grudem on some issues.And even Grudem concedes infallibility for Old Testament prophets, when acting as prophets.
Who said it did?But any believer can do that. That doesn't require a special role or gift.
And you don't believe that God intended them for today? Out of curiosity, what's your take on Eph 4:11-16I think everyone agrees that true prophets existed in the time of the apostles.
If you have a specific question about what I believe, I can try to clarify it.OK, I'm just confused about what your position is.
Never mind.
Grudem shouldn't make such dichotomies. All genuine prophecy (anything revealed to man with such a degree of clarity that the biblical writers would classify it as 'prophecy') is infallible revelation but let's keep in mind that it has multiple possible applications. It could be for a foretelling, governing, judging of disputes, edification, encouragement (etc). Almost certainly, 99% of prophecy in both testaments was NOT for creating Scripture. (I'm not saying any of this was your view, I'm just clarifying how I compare to Grudem).This is the Wayne Grudem perspective. But Peter's quote of Joel teaches us that New Testament prophecy was indeed like Old Testament prophecy, and this is reinforced by actual descriptions of prophecy, such as Acts of the Apostles 11:28 and Acts of the Apostles 21:10-11. And Wayne Grudem concedes that that kind of prophecy has ceased.
It's interesting that everyone has their own OPINION about what a genuine Christian church/assembly is (ekklesia in the Greek). Unfortunately too many Christians care little for PAUL'S definition of an ekklesia:I think everyone agrees that true prophets existed in the time of the apostles.
And you don't believe that God intended them for today? Out of curiosity, what's your take on Eph 4:11-16
Doesn't this passage express Christ's desire for apostles and prophets (and all the other gifts and offices) to persist at least until the whole church is mature?
I don't believe today's institutions are real churches.
I'm confused. Are you citing 1Cor 14 in support of prioritizing the written Word? (Maybe you're just raising it as a topic of discussion). Because that would be odd, as that chapter spends about 40 verses trying to convince the reader to prioritize prophecy over tongues, in fact over ALL the gifts, "Follow the way of love and eagerly seek spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy."I'm a cessationist myself. The way God speaks to us today is primarily through His written word, and the Spirit's leading through the reading of it.
1 Corinthians 14 is an entirely relevant chapter for this thread's content.
Right. That's what I thought you meant. Was just confirming.When I said "I think everyone agrees that true prophets existed in the time of the apostles," I meant exactly what I said -- that I thought that was common ground between everybody (Continuationists and Cessationists).
And that's not until the whole body becomes mature? Your bifurcation would seem arbitrary. On such a capricious hermeneutic, I could argue that pastors aren't needed anymore either. Slippery slope. Much more solid hermenutic, instead of bifurcating the gifts into two categories (the expired and unexpired), to deem them as Christ's provision until we mature. If we start randomly picking and choosing, deciding for ourselves, what gifts Christ wanted to persist for our maturity, we'll be all over the place.No, merely that each of the gifts and offices should continue as long as they were needed.
Backing out now? Too bad. I've got plenty more to say in defense of Continuationism.OK, I can see that we don't have enough common ground for further discussion.
And that's not until the whole body becomes mature? Your bifurcation would seem arbitrary.
Backing out now? Too bad. I've got plenty more to say in defense of Continuationism.
Thus saith Radagast. The problem is that the NT does speak much, and highly, of prophecy - but it doesn't clearly tell us about 'the completed canon'. So I can either give primary credence to what the NT says, OR to what Radagast says. That's a tough choice. Golly, I'm REALLY scratching my head on this one.Well, no. In the presence of a complete New Testament, prophecy has become unnecessary.
Or perhaps the church is still as off-the-mark as the Galatians were (my view), and that's why it's not seeing any real prophets.Perhaps that's why I have never seen any convincing evidence of even one genuine modern prophet.
I'm not partial. I'll respond to you or anyone else whose comments seem worth responding to.Not interested, given the other views you have expressed.
Many regard stoning as sufficient ground for polarizing the OT and NT in some ways. This is a misunderstanding. God warned, "If my Presence go with Israel, it will destroy them". The more clear the revelation, the greater the judgment if we disobey Him. This is especially true if there is a massive sanctifying/reviving outpouring of the Holy Spirit because He makes obedience easier - making further sin generally inexcusable. That's why the Pentecost-outpouring resumed such judgments. For example Ananias and Saphira were struck dead, and the Corintians were dying, probably of an OT-like plague (1Cor 11:30). In essence nothing has changed. When there is NOT revival, God's compassion DOES excuse our sin somewhat. That's why Jesus didn't stone the adulteress. Whereas in Moses' day - a huge revival - both the adulterer, the false prophet, and other transgressors could be stoned.This illustrates the take it or leave it nature of prophecy in the Old Testament. There was no half way, either it was entirely true or it was a lie. Not so with the NT. One example of false prophets not getting stoned in the NT, is with the varying opinions on how the world is going to end or how Jesus is going to come back. The variance of opinion is not a big enough deal to start a war over, just take what's good from it and leave the rest.