Does Prophecy Continue?
Did all the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, such as tongues and prophecy, cease with the completion of the New Testament? If we take the position that prophecy continues in some form, is such a view compatible with the conviction that God has given us all the authoritative revelation He intended to give (that the the canon of Scripture is closed)?
Last January, Dr. Bruce Compton (Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary) presented a paper on these questions at the Preserving the Truth Conference. What follows is a summary reflecting my understanding of Compton’s analysis. The full paper is available at the PTC resources page.1
The two levels of prophecy view
Since Dr. Wayne Grudem’s work has been foundational for many who believe in a continuing gift of prophecy, Compton’s paper focuses on Grudem’s view2 that the NT speaks of two levels of prophecy: apostolic and non-apostolic. Grudem maintains that apostolic prophecy was authoritative and inerrant in the same way that Old Testament prophecy was and that this form of prophecy ceased when the NT Scriptures were completed.
But Grudem holds that a second level of prophecy—also a gift of the Spirit—existed simultaneously in NT times. This second level of prophecy is subject to error and not divinely authoritative. Consequently, it continues among believers to the present day.
Compton’s central question should be ours as well: does Grudem’s exegetical work truly support the idea of two levels of prophecy? Grudem’s case rests primarily on three arguments and three texts.
Ephesians 2:20
Grudem’s first argument3 is that the NT refers to two kinds of prophecy and distinguishes between them. His primary text is Ephesians 2:20: “having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” (NKJV).
Grudem understands “apostles and prophets” here to mean “apostolic prophets,” and bases his conclusion on a grammatical principle known among Greek students as Granville Sharp. Grudem’s conclusion is that only this foundational apostolic prophecy was uniquely inerrant and authoritative and that ordinary prophecy did not possess these qualities.
1 Corinthians 14:29
Grudem’s second argument4 is based on NT instructions to test the messages of prophets. His reasoning is that if prophecies had to be tested, this must mean believers had to sort out what was accurate from what was in error. And since OT prophecy and apostolic prophecy was inerrant, these verses must be referring to a different kind of prophecy, a second level of prophecy.
The primary text involved in this argument is 1 Corinthians 14:29: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.”
Grudem acknowledges that the NT passages referring to testing prophecy are similar to OT passages aimed at distinguishing true prophets from false ones, but argues that the NT passages are also different in important ways. For example, the context of 1 Corinthians 14 indicates that these were already-approved prophets and that the “judging” refers to the contents of their prophecies. He argues further that diakrino (“judge”) here has the idea of “making distinctions” and not so much to judging the individual.
Grudem also sees support in 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21: “Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.”
Acts 21:10-11
Thirdly, Grudem argues5 that there must be two levels of prophecy because the NT records at least one example of a true prophet prophesying in error. The clearest case of this is the prophecy of Agabus in Acts 21:10-11.
…a certain prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 When he had come to us, he took Paul’s belt, bound his own hands and feet, and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this belt, and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’”
In Grudem’s view, Agabus’ prediction does not match what actually occurred in Acts 21:27-35. Rather than the Jews binding Paul and delivering him to the Gentiles, Gentiles bind him and he is taken forcefully by the Romans. Since Agabus was a true prophet, yet fell short of the OT standards for true prophets, his prophecy must have been of a different type.
Grudem argues further that though Agabus’ formula, “Thus says the Holy Spirit,” is very similar to the phrase “Thus says the Lord” in the Greek version of the OT, it is not identical. It is possible that Agabus was attributing the basic content of his prophecy to the Spirit but not claiming the particular words. Apparently, Grudem’s view is that Agabus received a general prophecy but misunderstood—and then misspoke—the particulars.
Problems with Grudem’s view
In Compton’s analysis, Grudem fails to make an adequate exegetical case for two levels of prophecy in the NT.
“Apostles and prophets”
Grudem’s Granville Sharp argument has some weaknesses.6 Though it is possible to interpret a plural Granville Sharp construction in the sense of “apostolic prophets,” the NT offers no examples of a plural Granville Sharp construction working this way. NT examples suggest that the phrase “apostles and prophets” either denotes two distinct groups (equivalent to the English “apostles and prophets”) or indicates that the first group is a subset of the second (something like “apostles and other prophets”).
On the whole, the NT evidence favors seeing two distinct groups in Ephesians 2:20, both of which form the inerrant and authoritative foundation of the church.
Grudem attempts to insure his view against Ephesians 2:20 problems by saying that even if the passage refers to two groups, he’d argue for a third non-authoritative congregational type of prophet. Compton counters that the context of Ephesians 2:20 refers to the apostles and prophets of churches in general, so what is true of them in Ephesians 2:20 is true of them elsewhere.
My own observation: even if the Ephesians passage means “apostolic prophets,” the statement does not prove that that there were non-apostolic prophets or that, if this category existed, their prophecy was any different in character from that of the apostolic prophets.
“Let the others judge”
The argument from prophet-testing is similarly inconclusive.7 Grudem grants that the non-apostolic prophets would have been tested at some point to determine whether they were true prophets and that the content of their prophecies would be the basis for testing. But if that was the case, how could an approved prophet later utter untrue prophecy? The criteria used to identify him as true initially would be violated. Wouldn’t this require him to be re-classed as a false prophet?
In addition, the verb diakrino in 1 Corinthians 14:29 is more flexible than Grudem suggests. The word can mean something close to “judge” (1 Cor. 4:7, “makes you to differ”; 11:29, “discerning”). And the verb in 1 Thess 5:20-21 (“test all things”) is the same one John uses in 1 John 4:1.
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
All of the prophet-testing passages should be taken in the same sense as 1 John 4:11 and in the same sense that the OT prophets were tested.
Bound by the Jews and handed over
Was Agabus’ prediction that Paul would be bound by the Jews and handed over to the Gentiles inaccurate? It is possible to interpret his prophecy in a way that is consistent with what later occurred, and evidence elsewhere in Acts supports such an interpretation.8 The Jews in Jerusalem were certainly the ultimate cause of Paul’s imprisonment. Furthermore, in Acts 24:5-8, the Jewish lawyer Tertullus describes Paul’s case to governor Felix using the phrase, “we [the Jews] arrested him” (Acts 24:5-8). Later, Paul describes his initial arrest to Agrippa and Felix: “some Jews seized me in the temple and tried to put me to death” (Acts 26:21).
Agabus’ introductory phrase, “Thus says the Holy Spirit” is also not so easily dismissed. The formula differs only from “Thus says the Lord” in identifying the Lord as the Holy Spirit. Grudem fails to demonstrate that Agabus only meant that the gist came from God but not the words.
Conclusions
Grudem’s goal has been to safeguard the doctrine of the closed canon and simultaneously allow for ongoing prophecy. To do this, he proposes a view of continuing prophecy that is both subject to error and non-authoritative.
But in Compton’s analysis, Grudem fails to show that any legitimate NT prophecy was subject to error and non-authoritative. What’s more, the idea of non-authoritative prophecy is a problem in itself. When God truly reveals something to a prophet, how can that special revelation be anything less than authoritative? Whenever such a prophet delivers a true prophecy, it must be as binding as everything else God has revealed.
In Compton’s words, “either New Testament prophecy ceased with the writing of the New Testament and the canon is closed or New Testament prophecy continues and the canon is open. There is simply no middle ground.”9
Notes
1 The presentation and paper are entitled “A Critique of Wayne Grudem’s Two Levels of Prophecy.”
2 Grudem’s primary work on the subject is The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, Revised Ed., Crossway, 2000.
3 Compton, p. 2-4.
4 Compton, p. 5-7.
5 Compton, 8-10.
6 Compton, 3-5.
7 Compton, 6-7.
8 Compton, 9-10.
9 Compton, 11-12.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 20 views
Thanks for helping people with the history of the pre-Grudem path.
Thank you Aaron for the solid approach in the article.
The dearth of basic exegetical skills to keep people from such positions is startling.
But one thing I have noticed in response to Kevin’s question about why Grudem, Piper, et.al are accepted as they are. I believe that this broad willingness to engage in forms of sycophantic allegiance to these Teachers (who are misguiding on critical issues) is because (in a large part but not only this by any means) people have come across certain forms of pious sounding writings during their formative years and invest far, far too much of their ego or self into the arguments of these men instead of being actual students of the Bible, they become students of the arguments of such men. Hence they simply cannot bring themselves to admit that they are wrong, particularly some years down the road. They really do not have independent judgment skills per se with regard to theology, rather they have simply become extensions of Augustine, Calvin, Piper, and so on. Hence they cannot judge such men’s writings with a sufficient amount of objectivity to understand and accept where they err and sometimes seriously.
Grudem comes to his position acknowledging the weakness of the traditional Pentecostal/Charismatic viewpoint. That is, they have a problem with supposed ongoing revelation and a closed canon. Grudem wants to avoid that mistake, so he invents the ‘dumbed down New Testament prophet’ category.
One huge problem with his view that has been touched on, but not fully dealt with in this thread is with respect to the prophecy of Agabus. Agabus says, “Thus says the Holy Spirit”. Now either the HS said it or he didn’t. Paul the APOSTLE was standing right there. I kinda think he was a guy who had the HS. Yet Paul doesn’t rebuke Agabus or correct his statement. He lets it stand. This is consistent with Paul’s earlier testimony to the Ephesian elders:
Acts 20:23 except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me.
There is no good reason to say that Agabus made a mistake. There is no good reason to say that the Holy Spirit didn’t say exactly what Agabus said.
So Grudem has avoided a problem with ongoing revelation only to fall into a problem with inerrancy.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Sam’s Question: - By your last phrase, do you mean the argument for cessation is experience-based because it is based the lack of experience? Yes. A lack of experience is a big part of their argument, as far as I understand it.
Great points raised by Ed V - Note also his concluding point about 1 Cor. 14:39. What does this mean in a cessationist world? If prophecy was intended to give us God’s Word, did God go about giving everyone His Word prior to the completion of the canon? If so, given the fact that God’s Word is precisely situated in specific letters to churches, what did that pre-complete-canon giving of His Word look like?
Aaron, you’re misreading me - Aaron, I’m not directly questioning the NT prophecy argument so much as speaking generally on the cessationism debate in general. You bring up an interesting point, though. You claim that the whole point of prophets in the OT and presumably the NT too, was to give us God’s Word. But what were the guys at the school of the prophets doing? Taking turns receiving inspiration and penning a verse or two here and there? It sure seems like a ministry that didn’t involve Scripture writing, only. It seems from Scripture that prophetic ministry could happen irrespective of Scripture-authoring, Elijah and Elisha come to mind as prime examples of that. Yes, Scripture came by means of prophets, but Scripture-writing and Scripture-speaking was not their sole occupation.
The silence I see is silence in explaining that all these prophetic utterances that you are having to judge, that you are supposed to strive to participate in yourself, that these now are supposted to stop after a certain date or time period. The New Testament is mostly silent on exactly how that’s going to pan out. The lists of gifts to the church don’t come complete with modifiers to some of the gifts as bearing expiration dates.
Another relevant point, I think, is found in Rev. 19:10: “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” How does this fit in with prophecy being only the revealing of God’s Words. This could fit with that understanding, but it seems to speak of much more. Is testifying of Jesus somehow to be considered as prophecy?
sycophantic allegiance - I knew I was struggling with something… :) Seriously, though. I’m sorry, but this isn’t sycophantic allegiance to a person. I’m still studying this out in many respects, but I am bound by the Word of God and my study of it. You can say I’m beholden to my newfound popular teachers just as surely as I can say you are warped by stodgy tradition and prejudice. Either way we’re judging motives and befuddling the real question.
Agabus and others - I haven’t read Grudem on this, but from what I’ve seen here I’d have to agree his take is a big stretch. It’s interesting that Paul didn’t feel bound to listen to Agabus and not go to Jerusalem, though. In fact, prior to Agabus arriving, we find this in Acts 21:4, “And through the Spirit they were telling Paul not to go on to Jerusalem.” What does this mean from a cessationist perspective and why did Paul not listen to them??
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
We do try to put clues together in the NT all the time to come up with appropriate practices. That’s why some of our churches have elders, deacons, and deaconesses, while others have pastors and deacons. Still others have bishops or other hierarchy. Grudem is trying to put together clues that do exist.
If OT and NT prophecy were identical, you would expect to hear from Paul, “test the prophecies; if any is wrong in the least point, do not listen to that person again.” He certainly provides plenty of other standards for using the gifts. What we do NOT hear is a clue as well. I believe in the “deductive check.” What would we expect to see if something is true. Do we see it?
The reverse is also true. You do not have people labelled “exhorters” in the OT, yet some did exhort.
Even in the OT, we have cases where “prophesying” does not necessarily make one a prophet, which is an important part of this discussion. To confound the two is at best a questionable assumption. Saul, for example, prophesied and associated with that mysterious band called the “school of the prophets” (perhaps a prototype for the rabbi and disciple model later espoused by Judaism and Jesus?), 1 SAMUEL 10:10-12
10 When he and his servant arrived at Gibeah, a procession of prophets met him; the Spirit of God came powerfully upon him, and he joined in their prophesying. 11 When all those who had formerly known him saw him prophesying with the prophets, they asked each other, “What is this that has happened to the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?”I would suggest that even much (fallible) prophesying in the OT was common. But that does not mean that those who were in the school of the prophets were themselves recognized as AUTHORITATIVE prophets. Grudem doesn’t even go there, but he is not a Jewish roots guy like yours truly :) So, as those of us who practice believer’s baptism say, “Put that in your baptistry and immerse it” (well, you have to admit that sounds better than putting that in your pipe and smoking it!).
12 A man who lived there answered, “And who is their father?” So it became a saying: “Is Saul also among the prophets?”
"The Midrash Detective"
[Bob Hayton]Bob,
sycophantic allegiance - I knew I was struggling with something… :) Seriously, though. I’m sorry, but this isn’t sycophantic allegiance to a person. I’m still studying this out in many respects, but I am bound by the Word of God and my study of it. You can say I’m beholden to my newfound popular teachers just as surely as I can say you are warped by stodgy tradition and prejudice. Either way we’re judging motives and befuddling the real question.
My response which you are quoting in minimum, was a general response to a general question by Kevin S who was not asking it as if it addressed the primary issue, it simply was a related question. No where was your name mentioned and in fact I was quite clear in stating that I was responding directly to Kevin’s general question. It was your choice to take it personally but it certainly was not given personally. The distinctions between general and personal must be retained for accurate responses. This is a bit off topic so to the moderators, please forgive the sidebar, but I believed it necessary to provide a fair response to this indictment.
Now…back to the topic at hand :)
Sorry, so it wasn’t directed to me, but you still feel liberty to judge the motives of people in general. Fine, I agree that discussion is a bit off topic. Thanks for clarifying it. I still think those statements are overkill on your part though. But we can disagree charitably.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
I have to disagree with my brother here:
In I Corinthians 14:39, Paul allows speaking in tongues if interpreted, but he ENCOURAGES all believers to prophesy:I think the natural way to understand 1 Cor 14:29 is not that Paul wants every individual to prophesy, but that they should all desire prophecy in the congregation. The plural is a corporate, not individual desire. He says essentially the same thing in 1 Cor 12:31 about desiring the greater gifts…right after saying not all individuals have all the gifts…including prophecy. They should earnestly desire the greater gifts to be used in their meetings, not for themselves. 1 Cor 12:29-31 really precludes an understanding of 14:29 that Paul wants each Corinthian believer to prophesy.
Quote:
So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.
However we understand that, I think we can conclude that this is very different from the OT gift of Prophecy or the office of Prophet.
Finally, I had a class once with Grudem. He is a very gentle, sweet, godly man. His nature is to be a unifier. I think his effort to bridge the gap between people he loves in the charismatic movement and among cessationists had more of an influence on his scholarship here than he realizes. I agree with Don Johnson that this has led him to put forth an idea with dangerous ramifications for inerrency, something I am sure he did not intend to do.
That approach to 1 Cor. 14:39 doesn’t work. Compare the first few verses of that chapter:
1 Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. 2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3 On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. 5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.It is clear he is saying he wants all of them to prophesy rather than speak in tongues. Is speaking in tongues a corporate function or private? Painfully private according to Paul, instead he wants them to pursue prophesying.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
That approach to 1 Cor. 14:39 doesn’t work. Compare the first few verses of that chapter:I appreciate that point, Bob, and I can understand your reasoning, but I can’t bring myself to isolate Paul’s wish in 14:5 from what has come before. I don’t think Paul is contradicting what he already said in chp. 12, that the gifts are distributed according to the will by the Holy Spirit (12:11) and that we are all given different gifts (12:14-31). He devotes a large amount of space to our different giftedness for the common good. It is clearly established that not all have tongues and not all will have the gift of prophecy.
Quote:
1 Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. 2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3 On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. 5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.
It is clear he is saying he wants all of them to prophesy rather than speak in tongues. Is speaking in tongues a corporate function or private? Painfully private according to Paul, instead he wants them to pursue prophesying.
So I am taking what he clearly said with me when I get to chp. 14. He’s not going to contradict a core principle he’s laid out, so I believe Paul’s wish or want in 14:5 is more in the spirit of Moses’ statement in Numbers 11:29 “Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put His Spirit upon them!” But that wasn’t going to happen and he knew it, just as Paul knows it here. Moses is saying he would share his gift with all if it were up to him, that he is claiming no special privilege. I assume Paul, likewise, is saying he would love to see it, that it would be great, that he has no interest in limiting the gift to himself, for himself, or by his own desire. Still, he knows and has taught that God will limit it according to His will.
If I say to a group of hungry Bible students studying for the ministry, “I wish that you were all great and gifted pulpit men like Spurgeon,” I would not necessarily be proclaiming what will be the case or what I expect God to accomplish. But do I think it would be wonderful? Absolutely!! But I might really be saying they shouldn’t all expect to be like Spurgeon, but to work hard and yet be content with the gift God has given them.
I contend that what Paul is talking about with regards to prophecy in 1 Cor. has to be more than just the words written down on the pages of Scripture that we have today. If it is more than those words, what in the world was prophecy and is there some less authoritative secondary type prophecy similar to what Grudem refers to, or not?
I agree with Ed that we are piecing things together and trying to make sense of Scripture and our current expereince/practice. At the very least, the difficulties we’re encountering reveal this isn’t just a cut and dry, super-simplistic issue.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Bob] You claim that the whole point of prophets in the OT and presumably the NT too, was to give us God’s Word. But what were the guys at the school of the prophets doing? Taking turns receiving inspiration and penning a verse or two here and there? It sure seems like a ministry that didn’t involve Scripture writing, only. It seems from Scripture that prophetic ministry could happen irrespective of Scripture-authoring, Elijah and Elisha come to mind as prime examples of that. Yes, Scripture came by means of prophets, but Scripture-writing and Scripture-speaking was not their sole occupation.I may have overstated my point there. I don’t believe all prophecy was intended to be written down. But all prophecy was intended to communicate authoritative word from God. Grudem’s argument—indeed any continuing-prophecy argument—has to posit a dramatic change in the nature of prophecy from “Here’s what God says” to “Here’s an impression I think I got from God, possibly.”
This is a big change and requires some very strong biblical evidence. No amount of vagueness in NT references to prophecy can satisfy the evidence threshold for that particular thesis because “Prophecy = thus says the Lord” is the starting point.
There could be zero evidence in the NT of ceasing gifts (which is not the case) and we’d still have “Prophecy = thus says the Lord” as the starting point.
[Bob H.] The silence I see is silence in explaining that all these prophetic utterances that you are having to judge, that you are supposed to strive to participate in yourself, that these now are supposed to stop after a certain date or time period. The New Testament is mostly silent on exactly how that’s going to pan out. The lists of gifts to the church don’t come complete with modifiers to some of the gifts as bearing expiration dates.Pretty much answered above. The real problem is the nature of prophecy.
Belief in the closed canon has long meant belief that God has given us all the special revelation He intends to give.
A point I missed earlier: is cessationism founded on arguments from experience? Well, there is certainly a lot of corroborating evidence of that sort in reference to tongues and prophecy and healing, but a logical argument has long been more central to the case. In a nutshell it’s this:
[Bob H.] Rev. 19:10: “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” How does this fit in with prophecy being only the revealing of God’s Words. This could fit with that understanding, but it seems to speak of much more. Is testifying of Jesus somehow to be considered as prophecy?I don’t think cessationists have to answer that, because the view that prophecy=”thus says the Lord” has the OT behind it and does not really have a problem to solve in the NT. John’s statement is pretty vauge, though. He can certainly be understood to mean that “prophecy is testifying of Jesus” rather than “testifying of Jesus is prophecy.” I realize that grammaticallly “is” works in both directions, but what I mean is that he is quite possibly saying something about the character of prophecy, not saying something about the character of other forms of speaking about Jesus. This would be consistent with Jesus’ Emmaus road claim that “these are those that testify of me” in reference to the OT.
[Bob H] sycophantic allegiance… I’m sorry, but this isn’t sycophantic allegiance to a person.I agree. Spurious argument.
[Quote=Bob H] Agabus and others - I haven’t read Grudem on this, but from what I’ve seen here I’d have to agree his take is a big stretch. It’s interesting that Paul didn’t feel bound to listen to Agabus and not go to Jerusalem, though. In fact, prior to Agabus arriving, we find this in Acts 21:4, “And through the Spirit they were telling Paul not to go on to Jerusalem.” What does this mean from a cessationist perspective and why did Paul not listen to them?? I can’t speak for other cessationists on this, but my view is that Agabus reveals the information from the Spirit then makes his own application, along with the others there, that Paul should not go. The Spirit predicts what will happen but does not instruct Paul not to go. This is why Paul is comfortable going. He is probably already aware that trouble awaits him (I think there may be textual evidence for that but I can’t verify at the moment). So it seems the people did not react properly to what the Spirit revealed.
The wording of the text bears this out. You can see where the prophecy ends and the reaction begins…
12 Now when we heard these things, both we and those from that place pleaded with him not to go up to Jerusalem
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
That really is the strongest cessationist argument. I just don’t see that in 1 Cor. 14 as clearly as it’s stated here. Prophecy builds up the church, tongues builds up the individual. Neither of those functions are exclusively a sign, although there is an element of those gifts being a sign mentioned in 1 Cor. 14. I still think this whole argument is by inference and deduction. If you read the whole NT you see signs and gifts all over the place and it seems they are to function and never is an explicit teaching given saying they will cease to function and will end with the canon.
Re: Agabus. You didn’t deal with Acts 21:4 where it’s not Agabus but others who are telling Paul not to go to Jerusalem, and they are telling him that “through the Spirit”.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Aaron Blumer]Well Aaron, I thought this had been clarified earlier with Bob H, apparently not. This out of context reference by Bob which was addressed and now you quote, out of context, is a response to Kevin’s observation (I earlier said “question” but it was in fact an observation):[Bob H] sycophantic allegiance… I’m sorry, but this isn’t sycophantic allegiance to a person.I agree. Spurious argument.
[Kevin Subra] I am amazed at the wholesale followership of Grudem, Piper and others that embrace this view. It is convenient, but not consistent with Scripture.It is not an argument regarding the principle matter, rather why some people follow these men without discretion. My suggestion as to why sycophantic allegiance was but one possible cause with the acknowledgment that there can be other reasons. So it is not an argument about cessationism vs non-cessationism in the least. But as to this sidebar, if you think these men or any Teacher does not have such followers, I have car that runs on imagination that I would love to sell to you.
If you’re going to take a potshot, at least know what you’re shooting at.
P.S. I again encourage others to read Farnell’s work as a compliment to Compton’s.
But one thing I have noticed in response to Kevin’s question about why Grudem, Piper, et.al are accepted as they are. I believe that this broad willingness to engage in forms of sycophantic allegiance to these Teachers (who are misguiding on critical issues) is because (in a large part but not only this by any means) people have come across certain forms of pious sounding writings during their formative years and invest far, far too much of their ego or self into the arguments of these men instead of being actual students of the Bible, they become students of the arguments of such men. Hence they simply cannot bring themselves to admit that they are wrong, particularly some years down the road. They really do not have independent judgment skills per se with regard to theology, rather they have simply become extensions of Augustine, Calvin, Piper, and so on. Hence they cannot judge such men’s writings with a sufficient amount of objectivity to understand and accept where they err and sometimes seriously.Alex, this is a very astute observation and I agree with it. From my perspective, my generation had its prominent teachers and heroes but there was not the kind of blind loyalty I sometimes see today. Dr. J. Vernon McGee was a person I respected and had influence on me but I had no problem rejecting his gap theory of creation after I read the Genesis flood, He never changed his position. I had other differences as time went on. I recognized his great ministry and teaching but could still recognize his weaknesses. Later I would take a stronger stand on separation. In 1976 I was at a week long conference at Cannon Beach Oregon with him. We talked every day about issues. He had taken a strong stand against Fuller Seminary and Neo Evangelicalism but was soft on being involved with Billy Graham. Inconsistent? Yes! We can have heroes but recognize their weaknesses and differ. I see a blind loyalty to teachers today that may be due to what you have said.
Discussion