Question about Gift of Prophecy
- Thread starter PrettyboyAndy
- Start date
It's immoral to present a mere opinion as a "message from God." In the Old Testament people doing so were executed (Deuteronomy 18:20).
This is of course why Grudem wants to distinguish Old Testament prophecy from what he calls "ordinary" non-Apostolic New Testament prophecy. The former was expected to be reliable and inspired (and woe betide the "false prophet"!).
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?
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
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.
(1) God tells the reader what a word or passage means. The reader accepts the conclusion based on the perceived authority/persuasiveness of the Father's voice.
(2) God enhances his analytical abilities (for example his proficiency in Greek) allowing him to deduce, for himself, the meaning of the text. But this implies:
(A) That those who ALREADY have superior analytical abilities (i.e. bible scholars) would discern all the mysteries of Scripture, leaving the unscholarly - even the prophet - in the dust (comparative darkness).
(B) That the illuminated (those whose analytics God has increased) would now excel in SECULAR studies as well. So is such illumination happening today? Did you become a polymath at conversion?
The kind of revelation that Jesus had in mind was not scholarship/analytics. "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children" (Mat 11:25). This is clear enough. It refers to the Father TELLING His children the meaning of a passage, as opposed to them FIGURING IT OUT by virtue of scholarly analytics.
Fundamentally,what this means is that God never intended exegesis as His primary form of illumination. He intended revelation, which cannot be meaningfully distinguished from prophecy, except to point out that prophets hear God more loud and clear than immature believers. Nonetheless to some extent it is true for all believers, "That my sheep hear my voice".
It's interesting that when Paul prays for God to illuminate the Ephesians, or the Collossians, " We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding", he never hedges it with, "Except that you'll never be allowed to get all wisdom and understanding because it's only for prophets like me, who are soon to pass away". No. He rather prays as though God wants the fullness of revelation for ALL believers.
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Um...That's precisely what I said.
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).
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
That's a too-loaded statement. Like any Christian, I agree with SOME aspects of a theologian, disagree with others.
I do agree that 'fallible revelation' is a legitimate concept. I disagree, for example, with Grudem's claim that OT and NT prophets are defined differently. Consider that the book of Acts refers to 'the prophets'. Luke is clearly referring to OT prophets and both he and Paul use the same Greek word for NT prophets. It's all the same thing.
Perhaps you're assuming that OT prophets were infallible. It's not that simple. Yes, God often gave them messages perfectly loud and clear, unmistakable, infallible. But depending on their exact level of maturity, they too had occasions of difficulty making out what God said. 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'. Thus a prophet was typically a MIXTURE of fallibility and infallibility.
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
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:
Gordon Fee, professor of NT at Regent Seminary, is a charismatic and considered by some to be the leading Pauline scholar of the past century. He made an interesting comment, "This is a dead issue in the academy. Hardly anyone is defending [cessationism] anymore." The writer who recorded this comment went on to say, "A leader from a strong, conservative evangelical denomination recently told me that only one of its top twenty national leaders still held to the doctrine of cessation." From here.
Why do you suppose cessationism has waned among scholars? Maybe because it just isn't very solid or convincing biblically?
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
And?
And so do I. Yes, as I said, I agree with Grudem on some issues.
Although I do allow the POSSIBILITY that a prophet with an infallible message MIGHT, in some cases, have the ability to lie about what God said, altering the message. This issue isn't totally lucid. But if he could lie, and actually did so, God wouldn't likely transmit 100% certainty to the audience anyway.
Who said it did?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
And you don't believe that God intended them for today? Out of curiosity, what's your take on Eph 4:11-16
"So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.16From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work
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? (Incidentally the word 'mature' there is the same Greek word used in 1Cor 2:6 and 13:8-12).
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
If you have a specific question about what I believe, I can try to clarify it.
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
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).
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
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:
"And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues" (1Cor 12:28).
I don't believe today's institutions are real churches. That doesn't mean they are of no use. We absolutely do need man-made institutions to gather us for worship and prayer until revival transforms them into real churches. The PROBLEM is that when the leaders presume them to be real churches, shoving man-made religion down God's throat (recall how Aaron's sons were burned up, and recall Uzzah), they arguably reduce the chances of revival. A leader thinks God wants him to have a choir? Fine, have one - but don't pretend (absent 100% certainty) to KNOW it to be the will of God, thereby shoving your opinion down His throat.
- In my opinion, just as people shouldn't be calling themselves prophets today (absent 100% certainty), they should be equally unwilling to call themselves pastors and teachers. Let us solemnly fear to lay our hands on the ark of God!
Upvote
0
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).
No, merely that each of the gifts and offices should continue as long as they were needed.
OK, I can see that we don't have enough common ground for further discussion.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
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."
It's interesting that the epistles never command a congregation to go out and evangelize. It just commands them to seek the gift of prophecy. The Great Commission? Was actually the Great Omission. Jesus commanded his APOSTLES (qua prophets) to evangelize the world (Acts 1:8).
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Right. That's what I thought you meant. Was just confirming.
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.
Paul said that love edifies. Using that same Greek word for edify, he said that prophecy builds up the church. Prophecy plays the same role as love! And it does this through strengthening, encouragement, and comfort (and don't even get me started on evangelism). Do Christians NOT need strengthening, encouragement, and comfort - do they NOT need edification? You see this is why cessationism is waning among scholars. It's just too weak hermeneutically.
Backing out now? Too bad. I've got plenty more to say in defense of Continuationism.
Upvote
0
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
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.
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.
I'm not partial. I'll respond to you or anyone else whose comments seem worth responding to.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
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.
Stoning isn't specific to the gift of prophecy, nor does it indicate a distinction between OT and NT prophecy. One reason that Paul didn't stone people is that, in his day, God wasn't prioritizing theocracy. Instead of acting as Monarch over the nations (as He had done with Israel), God was telling His people to obey the existing local authorities and therefore it would have been inappropriate for Christian vigilantes to go around stoning people.
Not that He doesn't want to be Monarch over the world. He would have liked to raise up enough prophets, even in political positions, to rule the whole world. But since He's got His hands full just trying to get people saved, theocracy is not really on the agenda. But hypothetically, if He ever did acquire such dominance over governments, He could very well reinstate stoning as a form of punishment. Yahweh hasn't changed. He is the same Yesterday, Today, and Forever - like it or not.
Upvote
0
