the gift of prophecy
Forum category
I’m reading I Corinthians, and in ch 14, Paul tells us to desire that we may prophesy. In chapter 11, we see that both men and women prophesied.
So here is my question.
The only definition of prophesy I’ve heard is that in the OT it was foretelling, in the NT, it’s forthtelling (preaching the Word of God). So the preacher in the pulpit is forthtelling and exercising the gift of prophecy, from what I think I have been taught.
Do you think that’s really true? … I’m confused now.
Is it possible that prophesy is a sign gift? Men and women clearly both did it. Paul made no command against that.
Are preachers in the pulpits today not prophesying but are teaching?
I’m konfyoozed.
So here is my question.
The only definition of prophesy I’ve heard is that in the OT it was foretelling, in the NT, it’s forthtelling (preaching the Word of God). So the preacher in the pulpit is forthtelling and exercising the gift of prophecy, from what I think I have been taught.
Do you think that’s really true? … I’m confused now.
Is it possible that prophesy is a sign gift? Men and women clearly both did it. Paul made no command against that.
Are preachers in the pulpits today not prophesying but are teaching?
I’m konfyoozed.
- 162 views
Hello Anne,
I asked a question regarding this passage as well in an eariler http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-music-as-prophecy] thread . It seems to me that much of what I read on 1 Corinthians 14 is in regard to the proper use of “tongues” and very little is said of the other positive principles that Paul is teaching in this passage. I know I have not read all their is to read on it, so I’ll be interested to see what others have to say on this topic in this passage.
I asked a question regarding this passage as well in an eariler http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-music-as-prophecy] thread . It seems to me that much of what I read on 1 Corinthians 14 is in regard to the proper use of “tongues” and very little is said of the other positive principles that Paul is teaching in this passage. I know I have not read all their is to read on it, so I’ll be interested to see what others have to say on this topic in this passage.
Keep us little and unknown, Prized and loved by God alone. ~Charles Wesley
“Does special revelation still happen today?” Since we have the revealed Word of God, of what benefit would prophesying (in the sense of foretelling) be? Any prophesying would still have to be based on and consistent with Scripture.
I’ll not speak for Anne, but I think the question is more about the definition of NT “prophecy.”
Can women participate? What does it look like for women to “prophecy”in a NT?
My question dealt with the musical aspect of NT prophecy, and more specifically what does 1 Corinthians 14 teach us about the proper use of the “gift of prophecy”.
Can women participate? What does it look like for women to “prophecy”in a NT?
My question dealt with the musical aspect of NT prophecy, and more specifically what does 1 Corinthians 14 teach us about the proper use of the “gift of prophecy”.
Keep us little and unknown, Prized and loved by God alone. ~Charles Wesley
my question is about 1) gender and 2) if we are correctly defining prophesy today by saying it’s forthtelling (preaching the revealed Word).
1) If prophesy is our modern day preaching, then according to I Cor 11 and 14, women should also be doing that as they were in this church and Paul had no problem with that.
2) If we are mistaken saying that this gift of prophesy is forthtelling (and hence still going on in our churches now), then we need to call it a sign gift that both men and women did in the NT and no longer functions today.
3) If #2 is true, then preaching today is really exercising the gift of teaching, not prophecy/forthtelling.
Is that analysis correct? I don’t see other options. And I’m not sure which answer is true.
1) If prophesy is our modern day preaching, then according to I Cor 11 and 14, women should also be doing that as they were in this church and Paul had no problem with that.
2) If we are mistaken saying that this gift of prophesy is forthtelling (and hence still going on in our churches now), then we need to call it a sign gift that both men and women did in the NT and no longer functions today.
3) If #2 is true, then preaching today is really exercising the gift of teaching, not prophecy/forthtelling.
Is that analysis correct? I don’t see other options. And I’m not sure which answer is true.
[Susan R] “Does special revelation still happen today?” Since we have the revealed Word of God, of what benefit would prophesying (in the sense of foretelling) be? Any prophesying would still have to be based on and consistent with Scripture.Again the danger here is tying God as to what He can and cannot do to which the cessassionist position leads .Prophecy in the sense of foretelling would have the same benefits it has always had. If God wants to tell someone something He is not bound to do it through the written Scriptures (unless WE make it a part of our theology that He can only reveal His will in this way) He can use, and I hold, that He does use any way He chooses.(This is not an endorsement of any other religion or claimed revelation outside of Christ). I don’t see a conflict between special revelation and consistency with Scripture as God is the author of both and though Scripture is His revelation God is not a book, i.e. the Bible is not our God, our God is the God of the Bible, He is much bigger.
I can’t understand how prophecy can be equated with preaching in the pulpit unless God directly intervenes or intrudes into the prepared sermon to speak a particular message to the hearers. Or are we saying that every preacher is a prophet? That seems a strange idea that has never crossed my mind. Are there any Scripture verses that would confirm this?
Richard Pajak
Richard, ongoing special revelation would undermine the direct statements of Scripture regarding the sufficiency of the Bible. It would seem the Bible is either all we need or it is not.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Richard Pajak]Okey-dokey then. So if a preacher does engage in prophesying, and he is wrong about any aspect of his prophecy, he doesn’t get 4 fouls or 3 strikes and then out. He gets the boot. I don’t buy it- there is no way to search the Scriptures to verify a prophecy.[Susan R] “Does special revelation still happen today?” Since we have the revealed Word of God, of what benefit would prophesying (in the sense of foretelling) be? Any prophesying would still have to be based on and consistent with Scripture.Again the danger here is tying God as to what He can and cannot do to which the cessassionist position leads .Prophecy in the sense of foretelling would have the same benefits it has always had. If God wants to tell someone something He is not bound to do it through the written Scriptures (unless WE make it a part of our theology that He can only reveal His will in this way) He can use, and I hold, that He does use any way He chooses.(This is not an endorsement of any other religion or claimed revelation outside of Christ). I don’t see a conflict between special revelation and consistency with Scripture as God is the author of both and though Scripture is His revelation God is not a book, i.e. the Bible is not our God, our God is the God of the Bible, He is much bigger.
Cessationists are not tying God’s hands- if God has chosen to do something a certain way, then He has bound Himself… or are we going to get into that most inane of all arguments “Can God create a rock so big He can’t lift it?” It’s the same thing IMO, to say that because God will act consistently with revealed Scripture that we’ve limited Him in some way.
[Chip Van Emmerik] Richard, ongoing special revelation would undermine the direct statements of Scripture regarding the sufficiency of the Bible. It would seem the Bible is either all we need or it is not.I don’t see how the authority of scripture is affected. By special revelation I understand that God can speak and reveal His will at any time and in any way He chooses.
Discerning the genuineness of someone’s claims to special revelation is a whole different kettle of fish.
It is notso much someone’s claims as the fact that God is sovereign and can act in any way He chooses.
To say that He cannot seems to be trying to tie God’s hands(not that they can ever really be tied) and be motivated by fear that there would be a tidal wave of of claimants as to God’s latest word to man. It is the God of the Bible who is all we need…it is the Jesus of the Bible who is all we need, it is the God and Jesus and Holy Spirit who gave us the Bible who are all that we need. Again we do not worship a Book…we worship the God of the Book.
Richard Pajak
[Susan R]I thought Scripture said the test of a true prophet is that what he says will come to pass. That seems basic.[Richard Pajak]Okey-dokey then. So if a preacher does engage in prophesying, and he is wrong about any aspect of his prophecy, he doesn’t get 4 fouls or 3 strikes and then out. He gets the boot. I don’t buy it- there is no way to search the Scriptures to verify a prophecy.[Susan R] “Does special revelation still happen today?” Since we have the revealed Word of God, of what benefit would prophesying (in the sense of foretelling) be? Any prophesying would still have to be based on and consistent with Scripture.Again the danger here is tying God as to what He can and cannot do to which the cessassionist position leads .Prophecy in the sense of foretelling would have the same benefits it has always had. If God wants to tell someone something He is not bound to do it through the written Scriptures (unless WE make it a part of our theology that He can only reveal His will in this way) He can use, and I hold, that He does use any way He chooses.(This is not an endorsement of any other religion or claimed revelation outside of Christ). I don’t see a conflict between special revelation and consistency with Scripture as God is the author of both and though Scripture is His revelation God is not a book, i.e. the Bible is not our God, our God is the God of the Bible, He is much bigger.
Cessationists are not tying God’s hands- if God has chosen to do something a certain way, then He has bound Himself… or are we going to get into that most inane of all arguments “Can God create a rock so big He can’t lift it?” It’s the same thing IMO, to say that because God will act consistently with revealed Scripture that we’ve limited Him in some way.
Richard Pajak
[Richard Pajak] I thought Scripture said the test of a true prophet is that what he says will come to pass. That seems basic.But the door is open for him to prophecy about things that are going to happen next year, or ten years from now. In the meantime, the folks are supposed to take his prognostications on faith? Faith in a man, by the way, since there would be no Scriptural verification.
The nature of prophecy is also miraculous, no? I mean, I could make some predictions about people, world events, etc… just by being a student of human nature and foreign policy. But that doesn’t mean that I received special revelation. How would one differentiate the two?
[Susan R]There is a gift of discerning of Spirits but if this is not in exercise then one is bound to search and see if this contradicts God’s word. If so you are, I reckon, safe to conclude that he may be wrong (I am nobody to suggest he is a false prophet but others may make that judgement, he may simply be barking up the wrong tree)[Richard Pajak] I thought Scripture said the test of a true prophet is that what he says will come to pass. That seems basic.But the door is open for him to prophecy about things that are going to happen next year, or ten years from now. In the meantime, the folks are supposed to take his prognostications on faith? Faith in a man, by the way, since there would be no Scriptural verification.
The nature of prophecy is also miraculous, no? I mean, I could make some predictions about people, world events, etc… just by being a student of human nature and foreign policy. But that doesn’t mean that I received special revelation. How would one differentiate the two?
If there is no contradiction then one must wait and see. Whether the congregation takes this man’s word on faith I think depends on how much under the leaders sway they are and how much they are given to critical thinking. Whenever I listen to a preacher I am fully aware of his mortality and his imperfection and am often critical(to myself) of some things they say. I never put a man on an infallible pedestal…although I have sneaking admiration for some but that admiration tends to be cos they seem so much closer to the Lord than I. I have never been used in the exercise of this gift but I would have to be unmistakably sure the Lord was speaking a word to me before I would dare to speak it.
Richard Pajak
[Richard Pajak] To say that He cannot seems to be trying to tie God’s handsRichard, this is one of the unfortunate ways that people talk past each other. Many continuationist teachers will teach exactly what you’ve said — that cessationists try to tie God’s hands.
The problem with that is, no one is trying to tie God’s hands. I’ve never heard a cessationist teach that God’s hands are tied. It isn’t what cessationists believe at all. So when a continuationist teacher says this, we know that either he doesn’t really understand what cessationists believe (most likely) or that he is not being honest about what they believe.
Just to be clear, cessationists believe that God has worked at different times in different ways. He no longer appears as a pillar of cloud by day and fire by night to lead His people through the wilderness. That ended 3400 years ago. It isn’t that we tie His hands by saying He couldn’t do that. He obviously could. But we are in a different time now, as His plan has unfolded. He doesn’t call on His people to make animal sacrifices anymore. He could require that, but it wouldn’t make sense now that Christ died, and He doesn’t do that anymore. He now calls on us to baptize and to observe Communion. He didn’t do those things in the Old Testament, but He does now.
Cessationists have never taught that God can’t do certain things anymore. Rather, cessationists believe that He has chosen not to do those things anymore as part of His plan. It isn’t at all the same thing. In one regard, every Bible believer is a cessationist, in that we all believe animal sacrifices have ceased, and most believe many other things have ceased as well. It’s not a question of whether God can do the same things He always has done, but rather, as part of His perfect plan, what has He chosen to change, when, and why.
[JG]The issue seems to be as to what God has chosen to do today and what He has chosen not to do. The continuationist sees nothing in Scripture to invalidate God using prophecy today, on the contrary, he sees that it is taught in Scripture as something for the church in the last days.[Richard Pajak] “To say that He cannot seems to be trying to tie God’s hands“Richard, this is one of the unfortunate ways that people talk past each other. Many continuationist teachers will teach exactly what you’ve said — that cessationists try to tie God’s hands”.
I appreciate how you view it and understand your reasoning however the fact that continuationists may teach that cessationists in effect try to tie God’s hands is precisely because that is what they perceive them to be doing and not to insult you or belittle you. It brings them no pleasure that members of Christ’s body should , as they perceive it, try to tie His hands as to how he must work.
Quote:
“The problem with that is, no one is trying to tie God’s hands. I’ve never heard a cessationist teach that God’s hands are tied. It isn’t what cessationists believe at all. So when a continuationist teacher says this, we know that either he doesn’t really understand what cessationists believe (most likely) or that he is not being honest about what they believe.”
Cessationists may deny they teach it but the end result seems to be the same. Putting yourself into the shoes of a continuationist(if you can for a brief scary moment) , though you may disagree, can you not see how reasonable(from their viewpoint) this idea seems to be?
Quote:
“Just to be clear, cessationists believe that God has worked at different times in different ways. He no longer appears as a pillar of cloud by day and fire by night to lead His people through the wilderness. That ended 3400 years ago. It isn’t that we tie His hands by saying He couldn’t do that. He obviously could. But we are in a different time now, as His plan has unfolded. He doesn’t call on His people to make animal sacrifices anymore. He could require that, but it wouldn’t make sense now that Christ died, and He doesn’t do that anymore. He now calls on us to baptize and to observe Communion. He didn’t do those things in the Old Testament, but He does now. Cessationists have never taught that God can’t do certain things anymore. Rather, cessationists believe that He has chosen not to do those things anymore as part of His plan. It isn’t at all the same thing. In one regard, every Bible believer is a cessationist, in that we all believe animal sacrifices have ceased, and most believe many other things have ceased as well. It’s not a question of whether God can do the same things He always has done, but rather, as part of His perfect plan, what has He chosen to change, when, and why.
Some of the things God has chosen not to do nowadays we would agree on. You can build a Scriptural case for no animal sacrifices but can you do the same for prohecy. I don’t see it myself.
Richard Pajak
[Richard Pajak] The issue seems to be as to what God has chosen to do today and what He has chosen not to do.Yes, that is precisely the question. It isn’t what He can or can’t do, but what He has chosen to do.
One of the most foundational Scriptures for many cessationists is II Timothy 3:16-17. It tells us that the Scriptures provide all the doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction that we need to be perfect/mature/complete. So once the Scriptures were completed, there was no further need for prophecy. If the Scripture provides everything we need to be thoroughly equipped, why do we need prophecy any more?
That is why Chip talked about the sufficiency of Scripture. It’s a question that many continuationists don’t really come to grips with. If II Timothy 3:16-17 is really true, and Scripture really does provide everything we need to completely equip us, why would there be further revelation? We already have everything we need.
[JG]That is like saying we have Scripture so we don’t need God any more.[Richard Pajak] The issue seems to be as to what God has chosen to do today and what He has chosen not to do.Yes, that is precisely the question. It isn’t what He can or can’t do, but what He has chosen to do.
One of the most foundational Scriptures for many cessationists is II Timothy 3:16-17. It tells us that the Scriptures provide all the doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction that we need to be perfect/mature/complete. So once the Scriptures were completed, there was no further need for prophecy. If the Scripture provides everything we need to be thoroughly equipped, why do we need prophecy any more?
That is why Chip talked about the sufficiency of Scripture. It’s a question that many continuationists don’t really come to grips with. If II Timothy 3:16-17 is really true, and Scripture really does provide everything we need to completely equip us, why would there be further revelation? We already have everything we need.
“So once the Scriptures were completed, there was no further need for prophecy” is a conclusion you have formed but this is not backed up by the verses you referred to.
I am familiar with your Timothy reference but have never thought it a verse to “have to get over” for this same Scripture which provides the doctrine we need is that very same Scripture that talks of the gifts being operational in the last days…the promise is to you and your children and those who are far off etc.
Richard Pajak
You said you didn’t see any Scriptural basis for cessationism, so I tried to give you a little better understanding of it.
A cessationist looks at Acts 2:38-39 which you cited and sees a promise that all believers will be given the Holy Spirit. Cessationists would not say that the Holy Spirit is no longer given, or that we do not need the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures are very clear that we do need the Holy Spirit, and that He is given to all believers. In fact, the only people who deny that all believers have the Holy Spirit are continuationists (some continuationists deny this, some don’t).
For cessationists, the question is not whether believers today have the Spirit, or whether the Spirit gives spiritual gifts today, but whether or not all of the gifts given in NT times are still given today. Neither continuationist nor cessationist belief need have any difficulty with Acts 2:38-39, really. The question has to be settled based on other Scriptures. We were told in I Corinthians 13 that some gifts would cease, though the exact timeline, and whether there are differing timelines for different gifts, is debated.
My personal view in regards to prophecy is that many cessationist and many continuationists fail to adequately come to terms with all the Biblical evidence. Despite what you’ve said, the Scripture does say clearly we don’t need any new revelation, for the Scriptures are sufficient. It doesn’t mean we don’t need God, but it does mean He has given us all the revelation we need.
On the other hand, cessationists have to come to terms with the fact that the two witnesses in Revelation are prophets. A simple “Scripture is sufficient” approach to prophecy doesn’t explain why prophecy is apparently needed in the Tribulation. If we believe that God is going to preserve His Word, then it will still be preserved and sufficient in the Tribulation — so why prophets then, but not now? I believe there are answers to that question, but I’m not looking to enter into a debate on the topic at this point. Suffice to say that I’ve heard a lot of teaching from both viewpoints that falls short of proclaiming the whole counsel of God on the question.
***
Returning to the original post, women could definitely prophesy in the NT (Philip’s daughters, etc). I Cor. 11 implies they could even prophesy (under authority) in the church. Yet, they could not teach (I Tim. 2), and any preaching includes teaching.
I do not see any reason to redefine prophecy between Old and New Testament. There is no real Biblical basis to say that NT prophecy is different. Both OT and NT prophecy are foretelling AND forthtelling. In fact, in OT prophecy there is a lot more forthtelling (“stop sinning and return to the Lord”) than there is foretelling (“this is going to happen”). A lot of the foretelling was actually forthtelling (“this is going to happen if you don’t stop sinning and return to the Lord”) — the foretelling was conditional.
The fact that women could prophesy in the NT, but not preach/teach, is just further evidence that preaching and prophesying are not the same thing. The blending of the two has been used horribly in some cases for preachers/pastors to claim authority for their teaching far beyond what is appropriate.
A cessationist looks at Acts 2:38-39 which you cited and sees a promise that all believers will be given the Holy Spirit. Cessationists would not say that the Holy Spirit is no longer given, or that we do not need the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures are very clear that we do need the Holy Spirit, and that He is given to all believers. In fact, the only people who deny that all believers have the Holy Spirit are continuationists (some continuationists deny this, some don’t).
For cessationists, the question is not whether believers today have the Spirit, or whether the Spirit gives spiritual gifts today, but whether or not all of the gifts given in NT times are still given today. Neither continuationist nor cessationist belief need have any difficulty with Acts 2:38-39, really. The question has to be settled based on other Scriptures. We were told in I Corinthians 13 that some gifts would cease, though the exact timeline, and whether there are differing timelines for different gifts, is debated.
My personal view in regards to prophecy is that many cessationist and many continuationists fail to adequately come to terms with all the Biblical evidence. Despite what you’ve said, the Scripture does say clearly we don’t need any new revelation, for the Scriptures are sufficient. It doesn’t mean we don’t need God, but it does mean He has given us all the revelation we need.
On the other hand, cessationists have to come to terms with the fact that the two witnesses in Revelation are prophets. A simple “Scripture is sufficient” approach to prophecy doesn’t explain why prophecy is apparently needed in the Tribulation. If we believe that God is going to preserve His Word, then it will still be preserved and sufficient in the Tribulation — so why prophets then, but not now? I believe there are answers to that question, but I’m not looking to enter into a debate on the topic at this point. Suffice to say that I’ve heard a lot of teaching from both viewpoints that falls short of proclaiming the whole counsel of God on the question.
***
Returning to the original post, women could definitely prophesy in the NT (Philip’s daughters, etc). I Cor. 11 implies they could even prophesy (under authority) in the church. Yet, they could not teach (I Tim. 2), and any preaching includes teaching.
I do not see any reason to redefine prophecy between Old and New Testament. There is no real Biblical basis to say that NT prophecy is different. Both OT and NT prophecy are foretelling AND forthtelling. In fact, in OT prophecy there is a lot more forthtelling (“stop sinning and return to the Lord”) than there is foretelling (“this is going to happen”). A lot of the foretelling was actually forthtelling (“this is going to happen if you don’t stop sinning and return to the Lord”) — the foretelling was conditional.
The fact that women could prophesy in the NT, but not preach/teach, is just further evidence that preaching and prophesying are not the same thing. The blending of the two has been used horribly in some cases for preachers/pastors to claim authority for their teaching far beyond what is appropriate.
Thanks for the background discussion.
but Continuationist or Cessationist:
What is a quality definition of the NT gift of prophecy?
Yes or No - Is it in operation today?
Is it gender specific?
Is there a musical element (per my original question on 1 Corinthians 14)?
but Continuationist or Cessationist:
What is a quality definition of the NT gift of prophecy?
Yes or No - Is it in operation today?
Is it gender specific?
Is there a musical element (per my original question on 1 Corinthians 14)?
Keep us little and unknown, Prized and loved by God alone. ~Charles Wesley
sorry, missed that this was going on. I’m w/ anthony wanting to know these things.
about cessationist, etc., I will say that I think on a personal level about personal issues God does still communicate to us outside (but in accordance with) His Word. How did I know I was to marry Vitaliy? to go to Ukraine? to NOT go to all the other missions opportunities I had before? There was personal communication from the Holy Spirit convicting me about these things in very particular ways.
about cessationist, etc., I will say that I think on a personal level about personal issues God does still communicate to us outside (but in accordance with) His Word. How did I know I was to marry Vitaliy? to go to Ukraine? to NOT go to all the other missions opportunities I had before? There was personal communication from the Holy Spirit convicting me about these things in very particular ways.
[Anne Sokol] There was personal communication from the Holy Spirit convicting me about these things in very particular ways.Many believers claim this sort of communication. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no basis in Scripture for this sort of subjective communication.
- No instruction to expect it.
- No definition to determine what it is or is not.
- No guidelines for using it.
- No examples of it taking place.
- Nothing!
Instead we have statements in Scripture that Scripture is all we need. The very notion of subjective, extra-biblical communication is contrary to Scripture, therefore any communication must itself be contrary to Scripture by default regardless of the supposed content.
I cannot recommend strongly enough the book Decison Making and the Will of God for reading on this topic.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
There is nothing stated in the NT about prophecy ending. However it is believed that since all the apostles and disciples have died out and after they died there is no inspired record of any prophecy other than what is in the NT. But, since nothing in the NT forbid or stated that prophecy ended it may very well be possible God could use someone to prophecy through. We do not, however, have any way of “trying” their prophecies to see if they are true. Therefore, to stay on the safe side it is best to not take modern day “prophecies” as true or credible.
Steve Schmidt
QUOTE:
“One of the most foundational Scriptures for many cessationists is II Timothy 3:16-17. It tells us that the Scriptures provide all the doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction that we need to be perfect/mature/complete. So once the Scriptures were completed, there was no further need for prophecy. If the Scripture provides everything we need to be thoroughly equipped, why do we need prophecy any more?
That is why Chip talked about the sufficiency of Scripture. It’s a question that many continuationists don’t really come to grips with. If II Timothy 3:16-17 is really true, and Scripture really does provide everything we need to completely equip us, why would there be further revelation? We already have everything we need”When this letter to Timothy was written telling that Scripture provides “all the doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction that we need to be perfect/ mature/ complete”
the exercise of prophecy was in use. Yet Paul didn’t use this argument of the sufficiency of the Scriptures to say that prophecy was no longer needed.
If the Scriptures were sufficient at the time Paul wrote and the gifts were in operation at that same time Paul wasn’t making the conclusion that you are making, namely that ‘we don’t need prophecy any more because we have the Scriptures which are sufficient’. So you can’t use these verses to say Paul would have agreed with you.
If you were around in Paul’s time I could imagine you arguing with Paul telling him that he shouldn’t be encouraging the use of Spiritual gifts because we have the Scriptures. Paul didn’t see the fact of having the Scriptures as making the gifts void.
“One of the most foundational Scriptures for many cessationists is II Timothy 3:16-17. It tells us that the Scriptures provide all the doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction that we need to be perfect/mature/complete. So once the Scriptures were completed, there was no further need for prophecy. If the Scripture provides everything we need to be thoroughly equipped, why do we need prophecy any more?
That is why Chip talked about the sufficiency of Scripture. It’s a question that many continuationists don’t really come to grips with. If II Timothy 3:16-17 is really true, and Scripture really does provide everything we need to completely equip us, why would there be further revelation? We already have everything we need”When this letter to Timothy was written telling that Scripture provides “all the doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction that we need to be perfect/ mature/ complete”
the exercise of prophecy was in use. Yet Paul didn’t use this argument of the sufficiency of the Scriptures to say that prophecy was no longer needed.
If the Scriptures were sufficient at the time Paul wrote and the gifts were in operation at that same time Paul wasn’t making the conclusion that you are making, namely that ‘we don’t need prophecy any more because we have the Scriptures which are sufficient’. So you can’t use these verses to say Paul would have agreed with you.
If you were around in Paul’s time I could imagine you arguing with Paul telling him that he shouldn’t be encouraging the use of Spiritual gifts because we have the Scriptures. Paul didn’t see the fact of having the Scriptures as making the gifts void.
Richard Pajak
[Richard Pajak] If the Scriptures were sufficient at the time Paul wrote and the gifts were in operation at that same time Paul wasn’t making the conclusion that you are making, namely that ‘we don’t need prophecy any more because we have the Scriptures which are sufficient’. So you can’t use these verses to say Paul would have agreed with you.That is a good answer to the sufficiency argument. In case you didn’t notice, I gave another answer by mentioning the prophets in Revelation. If a cessationist viewpoint is built solely on the sufficiency argument, it doesn’t stand very well. The sufficiency argument only demonstrates that new revelation is not needed, it does not demonstrate that revelation has ended.
[Richard Pajak] If you were around in Paul’s time I could imagine you arguing with Paul telling him that he shouldn’t be encouraging the use of Spiritual gifts because we have the Scriptures.I’m sure you can imagine that, but it’s just imagination. I am willing to discuss this topic with continuationists, but I don’t want to argue it with anyone. And statements like yours show that the spirit in which I have wanted to carry on this conversation has not been received, either because of my failure in communicating it or because of your failure to recognize it. Thus, I will opt out of any further comment here. In any event, as others have said this is all somewhat off-topic re: the original question.
[ I am willing to discuss this topic with continuationists, but I don’t want to argue it with anyone. And statements like yours show that the spirit in which I have wanted to carry on this conversation has not been received,
One mustn’t presume that because we continue to disagree on this issue that there is some desire to argue or be unpleasant or that any failure to come to a convergence of view is a sign of stubbornness. It is disconcerting to have it implied that one is displaying a wrong spirit when to my mind all I have done is to try to present my view on the issue.
I may not have articulated my stance well or this thread may have as you said wandered off from the original question but a lot of these side issues are interconnected and relate to each other but I simply presented my view and waited eagerly to see the response and whether such response was convincing.
Anyway, no ill will is intended.
Richard Pajak
My statement was not about you displaying a wrong spirit, but rather that your statement gave the appearance that you thought I was. You seemed to be suggesting that I was just being argumentative, and if I was giving that impression, I did not want to continue.
Anyway, no ill will is intended.I am glad. It is certainly mutual. Differing views on this topic need not mean conflict. It is certainly an important difference, but it does not negate our responsibilities to treat each other as brothers. I’d like to leave it there.
[JG] My statement was not about you displaying a wrong spirit, but rather that your statement gave the appearance that you thought I was. You seemed to be suggesting that I was just being argumentative, and if I was giving that impression, I did not want to continue.Perhaps my use of the word “you” sounded as if it was being used pejoratively. One could have used the term “any christian” who in the time of Paul could have argued that being as they had Scripture there was no need of any further revelation through things like prophecy. But prophetic gifts were being used at that time without any indication in Scripture that it was considered as negating sufficiency of Scripture.Anyway, no ill will is intended.I am glad. It is certainly mutual. Differing views on this topic need not mean conflict. It is certainly an important difference, but it does not negate our responsibilities to treat each other as brothers. I’d like to leave it there.
I would suggest that if it didn’t undermine sufficiency then that there is no reason that it should do so now.
Apologies if I seem to be belabouring the point.
Richard Pajak
[Chip Van Emmerik]I will just have to disagree with you :) … and I’ll double disagree—I don’t think the notion of it is contrary to Scripture.[Anne Sokol] There was personal communication from the Holy Spirit convicting me about these things in very particular ways.Many believers claim this sort of communication. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no basis in Scripture for this sort of subjective communication.
- No instruction to expect it.
- No definition to determine what it is or is not.
- No guidelines for using it.
- No examples of it taking place.
- Nothing!
Instead we have statements in Scripture that Scripture is all we need. The very notion of subjective, extra-biblical communication is contrary to Scripture, therefore any communication must itself be contrary to Scripture by default regardless of the supposed content.
I cannot recommend strongly enough the book Decison Making and the Will of God for reading on this topic.
I agree with you Anne. It does show however that sometimes we cherish and cling to our presuppositions so intensely that we do not see things clearly, “Hearing they hear not, though seeing they do not see”.
Richard Pajak
Anne/Richard,
It’s fine to disagree, but on what basis? Where do you see a command or instruction or example or definition or guidelines or…. in Scripture pointing believers to a subjective, individual, inner communication from the Holy Spirit? As I said already, I contend that not only is the positive assertion missing from Scripture, the opposite teaching is present. The whole concept of ongoing, special, private, individual revelation runs contrary to the sufficiency Scripture claims for itself. Along this line, Richard (per post 21), the sufficiency of Scripture was not complete until the cannon was complete. It wasn’t even all written until around 90 AD and wasn’t recognized as a complete cannon for another 150 years or so. A cessationist would expect to see all the gifts of the Spirit continue in the early church at least until the completion of the cannon, perhaps even until the cannon was gathered and recognized by the church (haven’t thought of that until just now).
It’s fine to disagree, but on what basis? Where do you see a command or instruction or example or definition or guidelines or…. in Scripture pointing believers to a subjective, individual, inner communication from the Holy Spirit? As I said already, I contend that not only is the positive assertion missing from Scripture, the opposite teaching is present. The whole concept of ongoing, special, private, individual revelation runs contrary to the sufficiency Scripture claims for itself. Along this line, Richard (per post 21), the sufficiency of Scripture was not complete until the cannon was complete. It wasn’t even all written until around 90 AD and wasn’t recognized as a complete cannon for another 150 years or so. A cessationist would expect to see all the gifts of the Spirit continue in the early church at least until the completion of the cannon, perhaps even until the cannon was gathered and recognized by the church (haven’t thought of that until just now).
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Chip, just to be sure we’re talking about the same thing (definitions, definitions), let me give you a few examples in my own life of when God has personally communicated to me:
1. I am abourt 12 years old, cleaning our house, I’m there all by myself. I don’t remember what I was thinking about, but into my head comes this clear thought/sentence: “Anne, you need to be saved.” I got down by the chair and prayed, and that is the moment when I really grasped saving faith.
2. Similarly, I was young, cleaning the house, and I don’t remember what had happened, but I remember a distinct thought or voice coming to me that I needed to forgive someone.
3. When I was in college and grad school, I really wanted to go to the missionfield, and I had several opportunities, every “door” wide open (even Scripturally). But there was always a moment when God, in my heart, would give me the conviction that if I did that, it would be sin for me… . Then, when i got a certain e-mail asking for an english teacher in Kiev, this very definite unwavering, specific conviction from the Holy Spirit came to me, and I knew, I knew that that was my job… . This is how I met Vitaliy, now my husband, and when we were dating, because it was such a huge decision, I didn’t want to agree to marry him without that inner conviction from the Holy Spirit that this was His will for me. I fasted for a long time and prayed, and then one day I was reading a book in the kitchen (here in Ukraine) and God sent that conviction in my heart that this was His specific will for my life… .
I have other examples, but those are a few.
I don’t consider them “revelations.” I rarely even talk about them. I dont teach other people that they need to have these experiences b/c they are quite personal, and while I think it happens more than we know, I dont think it happens to everyone. I just think we have a communicative God, and He has given us His Spirit for certain purposes.
So, when we are having this discussion, this is what I’m talking about… .
1. I am abourt 12 years old, cleaning our house, I’m there all by myself. I don’t remember what I was thinking about, but into my head comes this clear thought/sentence: “Anne, you need to be saved.” I got down by the chair and prayed, and that is the moment when I really grasped saving faith.
2. Similarly, I was young, cleaning the house, and I don’t remember what had happened, but I remember a distinct thought or voice coming to me that I needed to forgive someone.
3. When I was in college and grad school, I really wanted to go to the missionfield, and I had several opportunities, every “door” wide open (even Scripturally). But there was always a moment when God, in my heart, would give me the conviction that if I did that, it would be sin for me… . Then, when i got a certain e-mail asking for an english teacher in Kiev, this very definite unwavering, specific conviction from the Holy Spirit came to me, and I knew, I knew that that was my job… . This is how I met Vitaliy, now my husband, and when we were dating, because it was such a huge decision, I didn’t want to agree to marry him without that inner conviction from the Holy Spirit that this was His will for me. I fasted for a long time and prayed, and then one day I was reading a book in the kitchen (here in Ukraine) and God sent that conviction in my heart that this was His specific will for my life… .
I have other examples, but those are a few.
I don’t consider them “revelations.” I rarely even talk about them. I dont teach other people that they need to have these experiences b/c they are quite personal, and while I think it happens more than we know, I dont think it happens to everyone. I just think we have a communicative God, and He has given us His Spirit for certain purposes.
So, when we are having this discussion, this is what I’m talking about… .
[Chip Van Emmerik] Anne/Richard,The scripture which tends to be used to back up your sufficiency argument (and I have no argument about sufficiency) 2 Timothy 3:16, 17, was written before this”close of the canon” and the gifts of the Spirit were in use then without any conflict between revelational gifts and Scriptural sufficiency.
It’s fine to disagree, but on what basis? Where do you see a command or instruction or example or definition or guidelines or…. in Scripture pointing believers to a subjective, individual, inner communication from the Holy Spirit? As I said already, I contend that not only is the positive assertion missing from Scripture, the opposite teaching is present. The whole concept of ongoing, special, private, individual revelation runs contrary to the sufficiency Scripture claims for itself. Along this line, Richard (per post 21), the sufficiency of Scripture was not complete until the cannon was complete. It wasn’t even all written until around 90 AD and wasn’t recognized as a complete cannon for another 150 years or so. A cessationist would expect to see all the gifts of the Spirit continue in the early church at least until the completion of the cannon, perhaps even until the cannon was gathered and recognized by the church (haven’t thought of that until just now).
Richard Pajak
[Chip Van Emmerik]There are, in fact, apostolic examples of it taking place — for instance, the Macedonian call of Paul. The OT prophets certainly experienced things like this.[Anne Sokol] There was personal communication from the Holy Spirit convicting me about these things in very particular ways.Many believers claim this sort of communication. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no basis in Scripture for this sort of subjective communication.
- No instruction to expect it.
- No definition to determine what it is or is not.
- No guidelines for using it.
- No examples of it taking place.
- Nothing!
But no one answered Chip’s other three points. Where is the Biblical instruction to expect it, the Biblical explanation of it, or the guidelines for using it? How do we know this is the experience of anyone besides apostles and prophets?
How Biblically can we know it is any different from the Mormon “burning in the bosom”? How Biblically can we know that it wasn’t just indigestion? How do you know who the thoughts are from, and how can we know that your experience tells us anything about how God works? How can we know it isn’t sometimes Satan, who can appear as an angel of light, playing tricks?
Just because it worked out well, and someone has a happy marriage, for instance, doesn’t mean that it was actually the Spirit directly leading. That happy marriage comes out of obedience to God’s principles in the marriage, doesn’t it? God can bring good out of even Satan’s tricks — He’s done it uncounted times.
It’s not really good enough for believers to say, “I disagree,” or state opinions on what God does. Opinions aren’t worth very much. Chip’s questions should be answered Biblically.
I’m not saying that Anne’s experience was a trick of Satan, or indigestion, or anything else. I don’t have any idea what it was. All I’m saying is that our authority is Scripture, and it isn’t answering Chip’s question about what the Bible says to say that it worked out well, or to express an opinion.
I am not saying there is no Biblical answer to Chip. I’m saying it hasn’t been given on this thread.
Anne - I want to say this as respectfully as possible, because I understand it is a deeply personal topic for you and many other people. However, I want to challenge your assertion. On what basis do you have confidence that it was “God’s voice” you were hearing? How do you know it wasn’t your own thoughts you were working through? Where in Scripture is your position validated that have received the validated, irrefutable word of God? And yes, if you are hearing God speak to you, it is indeed direct revelation. What you are claiming is on par with the word of God received by the prophets. It is simply a personal message instead of a corporate message, like Abraham received.
Richard - I tried to answer this query in last response, but I was afraid it might get lost in the rest of the post. I will quote it here:
JG - it’s great to have you back on SI - seems like you were gone for awhile. I seem to remember having a similar discussion with you on the old SI in a now lost thread. Re the Macedonian call. Can you tell me exactly how the Holy Spirit communicated with Paul? It could have been a dream, or a vision, or a personal visit, or an audible voice. The passage doesn’t explicitly tell us how the communication occurred. However, if we are going to use a consistent hermeneutic, I believe it would have had to have been one of these methods since one rule of hermeneutics is to use the clear, explicit passages of Scripture to understand the unclear. Nowhere is there a scriptural example of someone receiving a word from God explicitly described as some kind of inner feeling, notion or understanding. Perhaps that’s what happened to Paul, but, if so, we cannot know it because we are not told (I would contend because even if it happened that way to Paul it is unimportant to us because we don’t receive the same direct revelation).
Richard - I tried to answer this query in last response, but I was afraid it might get lost in the rest of the post. I will quote it here:
Along this line, Richard (per post 21), the sufficiency of Scripture was not complete until the cannon was complete. It wasn’t even all written until around 90 AD and wasn’t recognized as a complete cannon for another 150 years or so. A cessationist would expect to see all the gifts of the Spirit continue in the early church at least until the completion of the cannon, perhaps even until the cannon was gathered and recognized by the church (haven’t thought of that until just now).It was impossible for the sufficiency passages (I Tim 3 is only one, though perhaps the clearest) to be consider enacted at the time they were written, because God didn’t consider the Scriptures sufficient yet - He was still giving Scripture. However, with the completion of the cannon came the full sufficiency of Scripture and the end of the need for direct revelation from God. God says we have all we need.
JG - it’s great to have you back on SI - seems like you were gone for awhile. I seem to remember having a similar discussion with you on the old SI in a now lost thread. Re the Macedonian call. Can you tell me exactly how the Holy Spirit communicated with Paul? It could have been a dream, or a vision, or a personal visit, or an audible voice. The passage doesn’t explicitly tell us how the communication occurred. However, if we are going to use a consistent hermeneutic, I believe it would have had to have been one of these methods since one rule of hermeneutics is to use the clear, explicit passages of Scripture to understand the unclear. Nowhere is there a scriptural example of someone receiving a word from God explicitly described as some kind of inner feeling, notion or understanding. Perhaps that’s what happened to Paul, but, if so, we cannot know it because we are not told (I would contend because even if it happened that way to Paul it is unimportant to us because we don’t receive the same direct revelation).
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Quote:
“It was impossible for the sufficiency passages (I Tim 3 is only one, though perhaps the clearest) to be consider enacted at the time they were written, because God didn’t consider the Scriptures sufficient yet - He was still giving Scripture. However, with the completion of the cannon came the full sufficiency of Scripture and the end of the need for direct revelation from God. God says we have all we need.”
If it was impossible to consider the sufficiency passages as enacted at the time they were written then the passages cannot be seen as support for sufficiency…there is no caveat that it will only become sufficient in the future. It is spoken of in the present.
You make a gigantic assertion when you say that “God didn’t consider the scriptures sufficient yet” based not on scriptural support but on another supposition, namely that God was waiting for the completion of the canon and then another assertion that the full sufficiency of scripture came with the completion of the canon.
Nowhere is this issue of a “completed canon” taught in Scripture let alone that sufficiency is dependent on it or that the gifts of the Spirit are thereafter invalidated.
It seems to be all based on one supposition after another and all to fit into a man made tradition, that of cessationism.
Richard Pajak
I agree that no one has answered Chip, but has anyone really answered Anne’s original question yet about the specific definition and nature of the gift of prophecy.
We have been side-tracked with the cessation and continuation question.
Now we are discussing the “inner voice” question.
What is the NT gift of Prophecy? and is their some musical dimension?
Has it ceased? YES or NO
Is it gender specific?
We have been side-tracked with the cessation and continuation question.
Now we are discussing the “inner voice” question.
What is the NT gift of Prophecy? and is their some musical dimension?
Has it ceased? YES or NO
Is it gender specific?
Keep us little and unknown, Prized and loved by God alone. ~Charles Wesley
[Chip Van Emmerik] Anne - I want to say this as respectfully as possible, because I understand it is a deeply personal topic for you and many other people. However, I want to challenge your assertion. On what basis do you have confidence that it was “God’s voice” you were hearing? How do you know it wasn’t your own thoughts you were working through? Where in Scripture is your position validated that have received the validated, irrefutable word of God? And yes, if you are hearing God speak to you, it is indeed direct revelation. What you are claiming is on par with the word of God received by the prophets. It is simply a personal message instead of a corporate message, like Abraham received.When it is God, I know it with no doubt. When it is my conscience or some other source, I doubt it.
Related topic: My conscience has almost killed me actually :) I have had to learn to discern the difference between the work of the Holy Spirit in me and my conscience.
You can talk about it, Chip. I don’t feel attacked. Honestly, I would not categorize the voice of the Holy Spirit in a believer as direct revelation, I would just phrase it as one way God can communicate to His children if He so chooses. And I generally consider myself a cessationist (I think there can be exceptions), and I say that having a lot of charasmatic friends whom I love and respect their walks with the Lord.
I have another acquaintance: I can provide her name, phone, email, etc., if anyone wants to verify. They were having a get-together at her house and she, at one point, heard a distinct voice not from a person (inner or outer voice, dont remember) telling her to go look in her pool. So she goes, and finds one of her children alone drowning, and they were able to save the child.
I just think, generally, God has a voice, and He communicates Himself in a personal way to His children. I don’t ever expect God to speak to me His will for another person. I don’t trust people who say they have been told such-and-such from God and it involves other people.
As far as examples in Scripture, I will think it over… .
[Anthony Hayden] I agree that no one has answered Chip, but has anyone really answered Anne’s original question yet about the specific definition and nature of the gift of prophecy.I also still want the original post answered :)
We have been side-tracked with the cessation and continuation question.
Now we are discussing the “inner voice” question.
What is the NT gift of Prophecy? and is their some musical dimension?
Has it ceased? YES or NO
Is it gender specific?
Ann,
The NT gift of prophecy is preaching and proclaiming the Gospel. Prophecy in the OT was known as “foretelling” or the telling of events yet to transpire. Prophecy in the NT is “forthtelling” or proclaiming truth already put forth.
OT prophecy has ceased. NT prophecy or “forthtelling” is commanded of all believers, Male or Female.
The NT gift of prophecy is preaching and proclaiming the Gospel. Prophecy in the OT was known as “foretelling” or the telling of events yet to transpire. Prophecy in the NT is “forthtelling” or proclaiming truth already put forth.
OT prophecy has ceased. NT prophecy or “forthtelling” is commanded of all believers, Male or Female.
Steve Schmidt
[S_Schmidt] Ann,Thank you for the concise answer.
The NT gift of prophecy is preaching and proclaiming the Gospel. Prophecy in the OT was known as “foretelling” or the telling of events yet to transpire. Prophecy in the NT is “forthtelling” or proclaiming truth already put forth.
OT prophecy has ceased. NT prophecy or “forthtelling” is commanded of all believers, Male or Female.
Can you elaborate a little and add some biblical support for the “foretelling / forthtelling” distinction.
Why does the definition change?
What did this gift “look like” in the Corinthian church (1 Corinthians 14) and what does it look like today?
thanks again for the answer :)
Keep us little and unknown, Prized and loved by God alone. ~Charles Wesley
There is no consensus regarding the definition of prophecy. I believe it is best described, not as foretelling, but as declaring a message received directly from God. There isn’t strong evidence, imo, to distinguish between OT and NT prophecy. Consequently, modern preaching would not be considered prophecy since the preacher is not receiving direct, personal revelation from God. He has what all people today have, the preserved Word of God. Generally, the definition of prophecy is shaded by one’s understanding of sign gifts. Therefore you often get continuationists espousing the definition provided by S_Schmidt (don’t know Steve’s position) and cessationists espousing more or less the position I have just spelled out.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
I believe, Mr, Van Emmerik, that I made my position clear very early in the thread:
The Word for prophecy or prophesying is found 19 times in the NT: Mat 13:14, Rom 12:6, 1 Cor 12:10, 13:2, 13:8, 14:6. 14:22, 1 Thess 5:20, 1Tim 1:18, 4:14, 2 Pet 1:20, 1:21, Rev 1:3, 11:6, 19:10. 22:7, 22:10, 22:18 and 22:19.
The word in the Greek is προφητεία (English transliteration is: prophēteia)
The Strong’s definition is:1) prophecy
a) a discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God, whether by reproving and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things hidden; esp. by foretelling future events
I believe most of this definition covers preaching and proclaiming truth.
Even Dictionary.com defines prophecy as: a. a message of divine truth revealing God’s will
b. the act of uttering such a message
Whether you are in the pulpit preaching or sharing the Gospel you are “declaring the purposes of God”. And these “purposes” are obviously “emanating” from divine inspiration (i.e. the Bible).
I believe God has revealed everything He has in regards to “foretelling”. He has revealed everything in His Word with regards to the beginning of time all the way through the end of time. There is no need for more prophecy. However, there is a great and dire need for “forthtelling” or proclaiming God’s will for man (i.e. Salvation)
[S_Schmidt] There is nothing stated in the NT about prophecy ending. However it is believed that since all the apostles and disciples have died out and after they died there is no inspired record of any prophecy other than what is in the NT. But, since nothing in the NT forbid or stated that prophecy ended it may very well be possible God could use someone to prophecy through. We do not, however, have any way of “trying” their prophecies to see if they are true. Therefore, to stay on the safe side it is best to not take modern day “prophecies” as true or credible.Also, sir I do not see what forth and foretelling has to do with cessationism and contiuationism, or whatever it is you are categorizing everything as. You have made your position very clear multiple times and you need to redirect your hobby horse to something more meaningful, with all due respect.
The Word for prophecy or prophesying is found 19 times in the NT: Mat 13:14, Rom 12:6, 1 Cor 12:10, 13:2, 13:8, 14:6. 14:22, 1 Thess 5:20, 1Tim 1:18, 4:14, 2 Pet 1:20, 1:21, Rev 1:3, 11:6, 19:10. 22:7, 22:10, 22:18 and 22:19.
The word in the Greek is προφητεία (English transliteration is: prophēteia)
The Strong’s definition is:1) prophecy
a) a discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God, whether by reproving and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things hidden; esp. by foretelling future events
I believe most of this definition covers preaching and proclaiming truth.
Even Dictionary.com defines prophecy as: a. a message of divine truth revealing God’s will
b. the act of uttering such a message
Whether you are in the pulpit preaching or sharing the Gospel you are “declaring the purposes of God”. And these “purposes” are obviously “emanating” from divine inspiration (i.e. the Bible).
I believe God has revealed everything He has in regards to “foretelling”. He has revealed everything in His Word with regards to the beginning of time all the way through the end of time. There is no need for more prophecy. However, there is a great and dire need for “forthtelling” or proclaiming God’s will for man (i.e. Salvation)
Steve Schmidt
Discussion