--------------
As we've noted many times, we are in search of a biblical explanation of cessationism, including the cessation of the gift of prophecy. Let's see how Mr. Busenitz does. A commentary on another of his articles is here.
This is a long article. We've deleted the introduction and several irrelevant passages.
------------------
(...)
The Bible articulates three criteria for identifying a false prophet. (The author is unable to cite the Scriptures that articulate these three criteria.)
And Tom Pennington hit on these quickly in his seminar just this morning. These three tests, I’m just going to state them briefly and then we’ll go through them in more detail. The first would be the test of doctrinal orthodoxy. (We would counter with biblical orthodoxy. "Things that agree with my doctrine" is not the same as "things that agree with the Bible.")
God’s true prophets proclaim doctrines that are right and true. New Revelation is always consistent with previous revealed truth.
Second, moral integrity. God’s true prophets are characterized by personal holiness. Those who claim to speak for God must also live out that truth in their lives.
And then thirdly, predictive accuracy…predictive accuracy. God’s true prophets foretell future events or reveal hidden things with 100 percent accuracy. (We have a quibble with this, so we will skip the first two criteria and move right to this one.)
(...)
Well that brings us then to a third test of false prophets, predictive accuracy. And this is where we’re going to spend more of our time this afternoon. When a true prophet speaks about future events or other unknown things, he speaks with 100 percent accuracy. And that’s because God knows all things. So if someone is accurately speaking on God’s behalf, what he says will invariably be true. (Which of course concedes the possibility of a present-day prophecy, if the prophet is 100% accurate.
However, we do not agree with Mr. Busenitz that this is a requirement of present-day prophecy.
Indeed, the pastor's sermon would have to be included in this. Every sermon would apparently need to be 100% accurate. 2Pe. 2:1: But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them — bringing swift destruction on themselves.)
Now once again, there are a number of scriptures that we could look at on this point, but we will consider just two. The first is Deuteronomy 18 which Tom Pennington referenced this morning, but it’s worth reading again. Here God Himself says this, “The prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know if the Word, or how will we know the Word which the Lord has not spoken?’” In other words, how will we know if this is a true prophet or a false prophet. (The author will never demonstrate biblically that NT prophecy must conform to the OT standard.)
“When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you shall not be afraid of him” Well that’s just about as clear as you could possibly make it. God says if a prophet claims to speak for God, but then says things that do not come to pass or are inaccurate, then that prophet has spoken presumptuously and he can be considered a false prophet. (Um, yeah. What about that "death" part? Doesn't that apply as well?)
The rest of Scripture reverberates the same truth. According to Isaiah 44:26, God confirms the words of His true messengers. According to Jeremiah 28:9 the true prophet is the one whose predictions come true. According to Ezekiel 12:25, “The Word which God speaks will come to pass.”
By contrast a false prophet, all he can do is hope in the wishful thinking sort of hope, hope that what he has predicted will actually happen. Here’s what Ezekiel 13 says, “Thus says the Lord God, ‘Woe to the foolish prophets who are following their own spirit and have seen nothing. O Israel, your prophets have been like foxes among ruins. You have not gone up into the breaches nor did you build the wall around the house of Israel to stand in the battle on the day of the Lord. These prophets, they see falsehood and lying divination who are saying, The Lord declares, when the Lord has not sent them. Yet…notice this…they hope for the fulfillment of their word.’ Did you not see a false vision and speak a lying divination when you said the Lord declares? But it is not I who have spoken. Therefore thus says the Lord God, because you have spoken falsely and seen a lie, therefore behold, I am against you, declares the Lord God. So My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will have no place in the council of My people, nor will they be written down in the register of the house of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel that you may know that I am the Lord God.”
So a prophet who claims to speak for God and then what he says turns out to be a lie, turns out to be false, God Himself says that He is against those prophets. So God’s Word is very clear. (Now it falls to the author to establish that NT prophecy must conform to O.T. requirements.
Tim Challies, a cessationist, linked to an interesting article about the baptism of the Holy Spirit, presumably to claim the right to say, "we believe in the Holy Spirit, too!" Actually, despite its reformed origins, it's a very good article. One thing of note was this:
(...)
Those kinds of stories, of course, could be multiplied many times over. And those are just a few more egregious examples to make a point. If we were to apply the standard of Deuteronomy 18, we would have to consider these men to be false prophets. (De. 18:20 says, But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death. Again, death is the remedy. Is the author really committed to applying the standard of Deuteronomy 18? If not, on what basis should we accept one part as true and the other part as not relevant for today?)
But Charismatics are quick to say, just because a modern prophet gets a prediction or many predictions wrong, that doesn’t make him a false prophet. How can they say that?
Well the answer may surprise you. Defenders of modern prophecy generally claim that there are actually two categories of prophets or prophecy depicted in Scripture. The first kind of prophet is the one that is described in Deuteronomy 18. That kind of prophet had to be 100 percent accurate. And in that category they would include the Old Testament prophets, along with the Apostles and the writers of any other New Testament books. So they have to be 100 percent accurate.
But then they would contend that there’s a second lower category of prophet, a second tier of prophet in the New Testament. They refer to these as New Testament congregational prophets and they claim that these prophets were not held to a standard of 100 percent accuracy. So the argument essentially goes like this. While first tier prophets like Moses, Isaiah, Peter and Paul were held to a standard of absolute, orthodoxy and correctness, these congregational prophets were allowed to deliver revelations from God that weren’t actuality full of errors and mistakes. Because this second tier form of prophecy was not accurate, it also was not considered authoritative. And so, as a result you don’t have to obey the word of a prophet.
In a sense then, this congregational form of prophecy was essentially nothing more than Spirit-led advice. It was optional for people to follow because it may or may not be accurate. In fact, Wayne Grudem himself speaking of modern prophecy says, “I would put this idea of God bringing things to mind in the same category of authority as advice or counsel from a godly person.”
Now there’s a significant pastoral issue with that redefinition of biblical prophecy because modern prophecy unlike mere advice, can be used to abuse, manipulate, and coerce people who think that they’re obeying the Lord when in fact they are not. (Indeed. But of course, cessationists have the same kinds of risks with other pastoral abuses. In all matters of church process, there are biblical ways these things are dealt with. Prophecy is no exception.)
Kim Crutchfield(?), Charismatic author, an advocate of modern prophecy acknowledges this fact. He says, “Some churches and church leaders become abusive. Abusive church leaders use prophecy to castigate, vilify and place fear in a person’s heart. These are false prophecies, uttered as a tool of social control. They predict doom for those who leave a church. Such leaders do not allow people to question the prophet, judge the prophecy or call the message into question. This is a clear abuse of spiritual authority, Unscrupulous leaders often use prophecies and words from the Lord to manipulate their flock. It is a crass form of spiritual manipulation. It leaves people vulnerable to the whims and manipulations of would-be prophets.” I think that is absolutely true.
On a practical level, if you tell me that you’ve received a Word from God for my life, that’s definition more than you just telling me that you’re sharing a Word of advice or counsel that comes from your own opinion. So you can see the devastating effects this type of prophecy can have in the church. It can really become a burden on well-meaning people. (Indeed again. But of course, we are not dealing with biblical arguments here. We'd like to know the biblical case for the author's beliefs.)
But there’s an even bigger problem. Continuationists justify errant prophecy by suggesting a lower-class of New Testament prophets. The bigger problem than just the pastoral implications is that this is simply not a biblical way to define prophecy, either in the Old Testament, or in the New Testament. The notion of a lower tier of prophets who are frequently inaccurate in their prophetic declarations is completely absent from the New Testament record. (Well, except for Agabus. See discussion below.)
The New Testament nowhere suggests that prophets in the church were to be held to a lesser standard than their Old Testament counterparts. In fact, the evidence indicates exactly the opposite. New Testament prophets, no matter what church congregation they were part of, were held to the very same standard as those used…the very same standards as those used in the Old Testament.
So, for starters, the New Testament refers to both Old Testament and New Testament prophets using the exact same terminology. There is no distinction in the way the New Testament talks about Old Testament prophets, or New Testament prophets. We see this in the book of Acts where time after time references are made to Old Testament prophets and then references to New Testament prophets are interspersed throughout the book of Acts without any sort of distinction, comment or caveat being used.
Sam Waldron says this, “If New Testament prophecy in distinction from Old Testament prophecy was not infallible in its pronouncements, this would have constituted an absolutely fundamental contrast between the Old Testament institution and the New Testament institution. So suppose that a difference as important as this would be passed over without explicit comment is unthinkable.” So the New Testament never defines prophecy in a New Testament context as being anything different than what it was in an Old Testament context. (This is quite a claim. As we noted above, things have indeed changed.
In addition, there is no indication in the O.T. that the following should happen: ...two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 1Co. 14:29 -30. Clearly a new order has come.)
But there is more than just evidence from silence to support the fact that there’s only one kind of prophet described in Scripture. In Acts 2:18, for example, Peter quotes from Joel 2:28 to describe the type of prophecy that would characterize the New Testament age. Joel 2:28 is an Old Testament passage, it’s describing Old Testament quality prophecy. So by using that passage, Peter was declaring that New Testament prophecy would be of the same kind as the Old Testament prophecy that Joel had just described. (Well, no. Not at all. Peter's quote of Joel was earth shaking, because God clearly communicated He was changing things. A new move of God was playing out before their eyes. It was nothing like what had happened before. There had been no expression of the prophetic that was so widespread that ...even my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. Ac. 2:18
The prophets of the O.T. were few, specific, and very special. Now in the N.T. the gift of prophecy is widespread, common, and even the "lowest" have the Spirit poured out upon them.
He. 2:4 says, God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. That is, they were [and should be] widely found in the church.)
Not only that, but the New Testament describes prophets in the New Testament in a way that is equivalent to how the Old Testament describes prophets as well. So we have the same terminology and now we have the same descriptions. Dr. David Farnell(?) who teaches New Testament here at the Master’s Seminary, after a lengthy study of this issue in the New Testament says this, this is about the prophet Agabus in particular, we’ll talk more about Agabus in just a few minutes. But he’s showing how Agabus is described in the same way as Old Testament prophets were described. Agabus introduced his prophecy with the formula, “This is what the Holy Spirit says,” or “Thus says the Holy Spirit,” which closely parallels the Old Testament prophetic formula of “Thus says the Lord.” It’s the same introductory phrase, in fact, that the Lord Jesus used when He declared words of prophecy to the seven churches in the book of Revelation. And certainly, we would not accuse the Lord Jesus of using …of using fallible or errant prophecy. (Well, no. Ac. 15:28: It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements... Where is the "Thus says the Lord" here?)
Like many Old Testament prophets, Agabus presented his prophecies through symbolic actions. Again as a similarity. Like the Old Testament prophets, Agabus was empowered by the Holy Spirit and like the Old Testament prophets, Agabus’ prophecies were accurately fulfilled. Now on that last point, we’re going to go into a little bit more detail because Continuationists would argue that perhaps Agabus was not accurate in his prediction.
But Dr. Farnell summarizes the evidence and says, “Look, in summary, the early post-apostolic church judged the genuineness of New Testament prophets by Old Testament standards. Prophets in the New Testament era who were ecstatic, who made wrong applications of Scripture or who prophesied falsely were considered false prophets because such actions violated Old Testament stipulations regarding what characterized a genuine prophet of God.
The New Testament church during the apostolic age, their scriptures consisted of the Old Testament. So when they went to the Bible to decipher how to judge a true prophet from an false prophet, they derived the same principles from the Old Testament that we have articulated this afternoon.
The bottom line then is this, nothing in the New Testament suggests that there was a second tier of congregational prophets in the early church that was held to a lower standard of one hundred percent prophetic accuracy. The New Testament indicates the prophets and the church were measured by the very same criteria as Old Testament prophets: doctrinal orthodoxy, moral integrity, and predictive accuracy.
So there are two types of prophets in the Bible, true prophets and false prophets. But there is not this third middle ground that the contemporary Charismatic Movement wishes to hold to.
Now, someone will say, “Well there are some objections that Charismatics will raise to what you have just articulated.” So let’s take a moment to answer three of the most common Charismatic objections.
The first is an appeal to Romans 12:6, proponents of fallible prophecy, or prophecy that has mistakes and errors in it, will often point to Romans 12:6 which in the NAS reads as follows, “Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly. If prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith.” Based on this verse, Charismatics and Continuationists argue that the accuracy of one’s prophecy can vary depending on how much faith you have. So if you have 80 percent faith, then you can deliver a prophecy that is 80 percent accurate. (Of course this is preposterous. And we have never heard a charismatic phrase this this way.)
But that is actually a misunderstanding of the Greek in this verse. And, in fact, though I like the New American Standard, they have mistranslated this verse. The pronoun, the possessive pronoun “his” before the word “faith” is not in the Greek. In Greek it is the definite article THE. It should read, “According to the proportion of the faith.” Now a number of translations like the ESV and others do better they say, “In proportion, or in measure to our faith,” sort of a collective sense. But the Greek itself is explicit. It is THE faith.
What this means then is this is not saying that the accuracy of your prophecy fluctuates depending on how much faith you have. Rather it is saying that whatever a prophet speaks, it must perfectly accord with THE faith, those things that were previously revealed. Jude 3 and 4 talks about contending earnestly for the faith, once for all delivered to the saints. And Romans 12:6 should be understood in that same light. If someone prophesies, if someone claims to speak for God, their message must be measured against the faith…as it has been delivered in previous revelation. So this is simply affirming that Old Testament principle of doctrinal orthodoxy. You must be perfectly accurate theologically when you claim to speak for God.
Now there’s another objection that Charismatics often raise and that is an appeal to 1 Thessalonians chapter 5 verses 20 through 22. This verse reads, or these verses read as follows, “Do not despise prophetic utterances, but examine everything carefully. Hold fast to that which is good and abstain from every form of evil.” Based on this verse, continuationists ask, if New Testament prophecy was infallible like Old Testament prophecy, then why did Paul tell the Thessalonians to test it carefully, or to examine it carefully?
Well, we would respond with the following observations. First of all, I think it’s important to note that Paul’s statement “Do not despise prophetic utterances” was written at a time when everyone agrees that the gift of prophecy was still active. So when cessationists reject the false predictions being made by self-appointed modern prophets, they’re not disobeying Paul’s command, rather they’re taking the command to test things seriously. When we test modern prophets using the biblical standards, we are right then to reject those who do not pass the test. (In other words, the author offers his premise as evidence and bases his conclusion on his premise.)
Verse 22, Paul states that those prophecies which do not pass the test, and I think by implication those who declare such prophecies, that they are to be regarded as evil (No, as mentioned before, ignored or overcome.
The text, which the author does not quote, says, Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22 Avoid every kind of evil. 1Th. 5:21-22 It is clear that Paul is making a blanket statement. What the author infers is not relevant.)
and believers are to abstain from them. This indicates that there is a seriousness, a gravitas to that kind of rejection of error and cessationists seek to apply that in a meaningful way.
Now the fact that Paul instructed his readers to examine prophecy carefully, it does not mean that New Testament prophecy was fallible or full of errors. Rather it indicates that false prophets posed a real threat to the New Testament church. (Bare assertion.)
Consequently believers needed to test all supposed prophecies so as to distinguish between true prophets and false prophets. False prophets wreaked havoc in the Thessalonian church. As John MacArthur explains, the Thessalonians in particular needed to be wary of false prophets. Paul’s two epistles to them indicate that some within their congregation had already been misled, both with regard to Paul’s personal character, and with regard to the eschatological future of the church. Much of Paul’s instruction was in response to the erroneous teaching that was wreaking havoc within the Thessalonian church.
Finally, the idea that New Testament prophecy had to be examined or tested, that does not make it qualitatively different than Old Testament prophecy. (Bare assertion.)
In fact, the very reason that God gave those tests in Deuteronomy 13 and in Deuteronomy 18, was so that Old Testament saints could test prophecy too, just as New Testament believers were commanded to do it in 1 Thessalonians 5.
Now why did Old Testament prophecy need to be tested? Because just as in New Testament times, the threat of false prophets was in ever-present danger. I think it’s important to note as well that in Acts 17:11the Bereans were considered noble for examining the things that even the Apostle Paul was telling them. So even apostolic teaching should be tested by that which had been previously revealed.
So, Dr. MacArthur says this, putting all this together, we see that 1 Thessalonians 5 does not support the Charismatic case for fallible prophecy. Rather it leads to the opposite conclusion because it calls Christians to test any message, or messenger that claims to come from God. When we apply the test of Scripture to the supposed revelations of modern-day Charismatics, we quickly see their prophesying for what it really is, a dangerous counterfeit.
Now there’s one more objection that Charismatics raise, and perhaps this is the most common objection of all. Tom hinted at it this morning in his message. But let’s talk just a little bit about the prophet Agabus.
In Acts 11:28, Agabus is affirmed as a true prophet who accurately foretold the coming of a severe famine. But controversy surrounds Acts chapter 21 verses 10 and 11, according to continuationists, Agabus was a true prophet who got the predictive details of his prophecy wrong. In their minds then, he provides an example…in fact, really the only New Testament example of a prophet who failed to make an accurate prediction but was still considered a true prophet.
Here’s what Luke says in Acts 21:10 and 11. “As we were staying there for some days, a prophet named Agabus came from Jerusalem….from Judea. And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, ‘This is what the Holy Spirit says, in this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’” Now according to continuationists, the overall gist of Agabus’ prophecy is correct, but the details are wrong. In particular, according to continuationists, Agabus erred when he stated, number one, that the Jews would bind Paul and number two, that the Jews would deliver Paul into the hands of the Romans. So here Wayne Grudem says this, “This is a prophecy whose two elements of binding and giving over by the Jews are explicitly falsified by the subsequent narrative.” In another place, Grudem says, “The prediction was not far off, but it had inaccuracies and detail that would have called into question the validity of any Old Testament prophet.”
So how are we to think about Agabus? Are the details of his prophecy explicitly falsified? Did he err when he predicted that the Jews would bind Paul and hand him over to the Romans? I think the answer to this question is no. I don’t think Agabus got anything wrong in his prophecy. Let me give you five reasons why.
Number one, nothing in the text states that Agabus got his prophecy wrong. (Argument from silence.)
So the idea that this is explicitly falsified is in itself explicitly false. Neither Luke nor Paul, nor anyone else in Scripture, criticizes the accuracy of Agabus’ prediction or says that he erred. (This presumes that Luke or Paul required 100% accuracy. Perhaps they didn't criticize since they already accepted the possibility of error and thus weren't concerned!)
Thus at best, the continuationists’ conclusion about Agabus is based on an argument from silence. (Irony.)
Secondly, Luke’s description of what happened to Paul in Jerusalem farther down in Acts chapter 21 implies that the Jews bound him just as Agabus predicted. In fact, Luke doesn’t need to repeat those details because he’s already given us those details through the words of Agabus. But the details are implied as being perfectly fulfilled. (An implication imposed by the author's preconceptions.)
So the rest of Acts 21 explains the Jews laid hands on Paul. They seized him, they dragged him and they sought to kill him and they were beating him when the Roman soldiers finally arrived.
Later when Paul stands before Agrippa, he reiterates that the Jews seized him in the Temple and tried to kill him. The mob would have had to restrain Paul in some way in order to do all of this to him, since Paul did not subject himself to it willingly. As they forcibly removed him from the Temple, the would have used whatever means were necessary to seize him and to bind him. (The text does not say they bound him.
So the implication in both Acts 21 and Acts 26 is that Paul was bound exactly as Agabus said he would be. In fact, the Greek word “to bind” can mean to arrest or to imprison, but it can also simply mean to tie someone up, or to wrap someone up with rags. So when Agabus says you’re going to be bound in this way, that’s exactly what happened.
Number three, Paul’s later testimony confirms that the Jews delivered him over, or handed him over to the Romans. Continuationists claim that Agabus also erred when he predicted that the Jews would deliver Paul over to the Romans, but that error is not demanded by the text. In fact, in Acts 21:32, Paul is being beaten when the Roman cohort arrives, the Jews upon seeing the soldiers stop assaulting Paul and the implication of the text is that when the Roman soldiers arrived, the angry mob dispersed and relinquished Paul into the hands of the Roman soldiers. (Actually, no. Ac. 21:33 The commander came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains. Then he asked who he was and what he had done.)
That, of course, accords perfectly with Agabus’ prediction. But there’s an even more explicit statement in Acts 28 where Paul has just arrived in Jerusalem. He’s under house arrest in Rome. Here’s what Luke says. “When we entered Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself with a soldier who was guarding him. After three days, Paul called together those who were the leading men of the Jews and when they came together, he began to say to them,” and this is Paul speaking, “Brethren, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered.” That word for delivered is the exact same word that Agabus used when he said that Paul would be delivered by the Jews into the hands of the Romans. Here he says, “I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.”
So you can see, there’s no reason to cast aspersion or doubt on the details of Agabus’ prophecy. Now here’s probably the most important reason why I think it’s very dangerous to accuse Agabus of getting the details wrong. Agabus is quoting the Holy Spirit. In Acts 21:11 Agabus begins his prophecy by saying, “Thus says the Holy Spirit.” Just like the Old Testament prophets would declare, “Thus says the Lord.” Nothing in the text indicates that he was wrong to do that, and, in fact, the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to record Agabus’ prophecy in exactly this way. (Argument from silence.)
So, those who accuse Agabus of error ought to be very careful. And I don’t say this flippantly but meaningfully, Agabus is quoting the Holy Spirit and I believe it is dangerous to then accuse the following words of being inaccurate. (Only because of the author's preconceptions. Maybe he's afraid that he would have to put to death false prophets?)
Now finally and probably least important in our list of five, but one that I appreciate because I teach church history, no one in church history ever accused Agabus of errant prophecy until the modern Charismatic Movement. (Argument from silence.)
And we don’t have time this morning for me to read to you from Augustine and Chrysostom and Gregory of Nanzianzus, and Ambrose and others who talk about Agabus. But when they do talk about Agabus, which isn’t very frequently, they acquaint him with the Old Testament prophets like Isaiah and Ezekiel and they never ever imply that his prophecy was wrong.
So, based on these five reasons, I feel confidence stating that there is no hint of fallible prophecy not only in church history but in a straight-forward reading of the biblical text, no hint of fallible prophecy in Agabus’ prediction. Which means if Agabus didn’t get the details wrong, then there is no New Testament example of a prophet who got the details wrong.
Now, what are the implications of what it is that we are discussing? We have just a few minutes left this afternoon, and I want to talk just a little bit about what it is that we’ve been discussing and what the implications of this are.
Terms of a review, the Bible articulates three criteria by which to evaluate a true prophet from a false prophet. Those criteria are, number one, doctrinal orthodoxy. Number two, moral integrity. And number three, predictive accuracy. A word that truly comes from God will be consistent with what has previously been revealed and will come from the life of someone who is consistent in their own walk with the Lord and if it includes details of prediction, or of hidden knowledge that is being revealed, those details will be perfectly accurate because the source of that prophecy is the God who knows everything and who cannot speak falsehood.
Self-proclaimed prophets who fail any of those three tests should consider the serious biblical warnings against falsely claiming to speak for God. So quote from the Strange Fire book, John MacArthur says, “Fallible prophets are false prophets. Or at best, misguided non-prophets who should immediately cease and desist from presumptively pretending to speak for God. When compared to the clear criteria set forth in the Word of God, nothing about modern prophecy measures up.”
Now, from a cessationists standpoint, and I appreciated Tom Pennington’s defense of cessationism this morning, we would say that the true gift of prophecy has ceased. According to Ephesians 2:20, the foundation of the church built on the foundation…the church being built on the foundation of the Apostles and the prophets, the foundational age, once that age passes, both Apostles and prophets, those gifts associated with those offices pass away as well. So the foundation age has passed and so we would contend that the gift of prophecy passed along with it. (Perhaps now he is going to present the affirmative biblical case for cessationism?)
With the canon of Scripture complete, there is no longer any need for us to receive new revelation from God. (Scripture reference?)
We have the prophetic word and it contains all that we need for life and godliness. (Then why are there pastors? Sermons? Articles like the author's? And the Body of Christ?)
And I appreciate the emphasis that’s been made in the keynote sessions and that will be made with Dr. Lawson’s upcoming message, and that emphasis is that the sufficiency of Scripture itself is at stake. Any concept of new revelation from God undermines the authority of Scripture and it also competes with the exclusivity of biblical revelation. And that is what makes the concept of modern prophecy, even if you redefine it as Spirit-led advice, the concept itself is dangerous.
So the idea that new revelation is still being given, undermines the doctrine of Scripture sufficiency. (Bare assertion.)
It also enables unscrupulous leaders to abuse their people supposedly in the name of God and I recognize that not everyone who claims to be a Charismatic prophet is guilty of abusing people, but it does happen and the problem comes by labeling error as prophecy. It shows us how dangerous the idea of modern prophecy really is. (A danger adequately checked by biblical instruction.)
Now I’d like to close our time by citing three well-known figures from history…two from church history, and one from biblical history. All three of these extended quotations are going to be included in the Strange Fire book, so you will have these tomorrow when you get the book. But I think they provide a fitting conclusion to our discussion about modern prophecy.
The first comes from a well-known British pastor of the early twentieth century, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Here’s what he said in his work on Ephesians chapter 4. He said, “Try to imagine our position if we did not possess these New Testament epistles but the Old Testament only. That was the position of the early church. Truth was imparted to it primarily by the teaching and preaching of the Apostles but that was supplemented by the teaching of the prophets to whom truth was given and also the ability to speak it with clarity and power in the demonstration and authority of the Spirit. But once these New Testament documents were written, the office of a prophet was no longer necessary. (Bare assertion!)
Again, we must note that often in the history of the church, trouble has arisen because people thought they were prophets in the New Testament sense and that they had received special revelations of truth.
The answer to that is that in view of the New Testament scriptures, there is no need of further truth. That is an absolute proposition. We have all truth in the New Testament and we have no need of any further revelations. All has been given, everything that is necessary for us is available. Therefore, if a man claims to have received a revelation of some fresh truth, we should suspect him immediately. The answer to all this is that the need for prophets ends once we have the canon of the New Testament. We no longer need direct revelations of truth, the truth is in the Bible. We must never separate the Spirit and the Word. The Spirit speaks to us through the Word so we should always doubt and query any supposed revelation that is not entirely consistent with the Word of God. Indeed the essence of wisdom is to reject all together the term revelation and speak only of illumination. The revelation has been given once and for all. And what we need and what by the grace of God we can have and do have is illumination by the Spirit to understand the Word. (Not a single biblical reference for these assertions...)
Now this next quote that I want to read to you comes from another well-known British pastor, a couple of generations before Lloyd-Jones, and that’s Charles Spurgeon. This quote is direct. So I want to hide behind the fact that this is Charles Spurgeon’s quote. Okay…good. He says this, “Honor the Spirit of God as you would honor Jesus Christ if He were present. If Jesus Christ were dwelling in your house, you would not ignore Him. You would not go about your businesses if He were not there. Do not ignore the presence of the Holy Spirit in your soul. To Him pay your constant adorations, reverence the august guest who has been pleased to make your body his sacred abode. Love Him, obey Him, worship Him. Take care never to impute the vain imaginings of your fancy to Him. I have seen the Spirit of God shamefully dishonored by persons—I hope they were insane—who have said they have had this and that revealed to them. There has not, for some years, passed over my head a single week in which I have not been pestered with the revelations of hypocrites or maniacs. Semi-lunatics are very fond of coming with messages from the Lord to me, and it may save them some trouble if I tell them once and for all that I will have none of their stupid messengers. Never dreamed that events are revealed to you by heaven, or you may come to be like those idiots who dare impute their blatant follies to the Holy Spirit. If you feel your tongue itch to talk nonsense, trace it to the devil, not to the Spirit of God. Whatever is to be revealed by the Spirit to any of us is in the Word of God already. He adds nothing to the Bible and never will. Let persons who have revelations of this, that and the other go to bed and wake up in their senses. I only wish they would follow the advice and no longer insult the Holy Spirit by laying their nonsense at His door.”
That was harsh but I would add this, I didn’t read that intending it to be funny, I read it intending it to be sobering because I think Spurgeon intended it to be received in a spirit of sobriety, recognizing just what an offense it is to claim to speak for God and then to speak words that don’t actually come from God.
Last place I’d like to read to you from is from Jeremiah, this is the Lord Himself speaking through the prophet Jeremiah. Jeremiah chapter 23:16 to 32, this, I believe, underscores just how serious God takes it when people claim to be prophets but the revelation they’ve supposedly received is from their own imaginations and not from Him.
“Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you. They make you worthless. They speak a vision of their own heart, not from the mouth of the Lord. I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran. I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in My council and had caused My people to hear My Words, then they would have turned them from their evil way and from the evil of their doings. I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy lies in My name saying, ‘I have dreamed, I have dreamed. How long will this be in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies? Indeed they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart.’ Behold, I am against the prophets, says the Lord, who used their tongues and say, ‘The Lord says,’ behold, I am against those who prophesy false dreams, says the Lord, and tell them and cause My people to err by their lies and by their recklessness. Yet I did not send them or command them, therefore they shall not prophet this people at all.”
(...)
(So the author never gets around to presenting the biblical case for the cessation of prophecy. In fact, he is regrettably reluctant to quote Scripture at all, except for some O.T. verses.
It remains for cessationists to offer to us verses that explain that prophecy has ceased. Period. This the author hasn't done.)
As we've noted many times, we are in search of a biblical explanation of cessationism, including the cessation of the gift of prophecy. Let's see how Mr. Busenitz does. A commentary on another of his articles is here.
This is a long article. We've deleted the introduction and several irrelevant passages.
------------------
(...)
The Bible articulates three criteria for identifying a false prophet. (The author is unable to cite the Scriptures that articulate these three criteria.)
And Tom Pennington hit on these quickly in his seminar just this morning. These three tests, I’m just going to state them briefly and then we’ll go through them in more detail. The first would be the test of doctrinal orthodoxy. (We would counter with biblical orthodoxy. "Things that agree with my doctrine" is not the same as "things that agree with the Bible.")
God’s true prophets proclaim doctrines that are right and true. New Revelation is always consistent with previous revealed truth.
Second, moral integrity. God’s true prophets are characterized by personal holiness. Those who claim to speak for God must also live out that truth in their lives.
And then thirdly, predictive accuracy…predictive accuracy. God’s true prophets foretell future events or reveal hidden things with 100 percent accuracy. (We have a quibble with this, so we will skip the first two criteria and move right to this one.)
(...)
Well that brings us then to a third test of false prophets, predictive accuracy. And this is where we’re going to spend more of our time this afternoon. When a true prophet speaks about future events or other unknown things, he speaks with 100 percent accuracy. And that’s because God knows all things. So if someone is accurately speaking on God’s behalf, what he says will invariably be true. (Which of course concedes the possibility of a present-day prophecy, if the prophet is 100% accurate.
However, we do not agree with Mr. Busenitz that this is a requirement of present-day prophecy.
Indeed, the pastor's sermon would have to be included in this. Every sermon would apparently need to be 100% accurate. 2Pe. 2:1: But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them — bringing swift destruction on themselves.)
Now once again, there are a number of scriptures that we could look at on this point, but we will consider just two. The first is Deuteronomy 18 which Tom Pennington referenced this morning, but it’s worth reading again. Here God Himself says this, “The prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know if the Word, or how will we know the Word which the Lord has not spoken?’” In other words, how will we know if this is a true prophet or a false prophet. (The author will never demonstrate biblically that NT prophecy must conform to the OT standard.)
“When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you shall not be afraid of him” Well that’s just about as clear as you could possibly make it. God says if a prophet claims to speak for God, but then says things that do not come to pass or are inaccurate, then that prophet has spoken presumptuously and he can be considered a false prophet. (Um, yeah. What about that "death" part? Doesn't that apply as well?)
The rest of Scripture reverberates the same truth. According to Isaiah 44:26, God confirms the words of His true messengers. According to Jeremiah 28:9 the true prophet is the one whose predictions come true. According to Ezekiel 12:25, “The Word which God speaks will come to pass.”
By contrast a false prophet, all he can do is hope in the wishful thinking sort of hope, hope that what he has predicted will actually happen. Here’s what Ezekiel 13 says, “Thus says the Lord God, ‘Woe to the foolish prophets who are following their own spirit and have seen nothing. O Israel, your prophets have been like foxes among ruins. You have not gone up into the breaches nor did you build the wall around the house of Israel to stand in the battle on the day of the Lord. These prophets, they see falsehood and lying divination who are saying, The Lord declares, when the Lord has not sent them. Yet…notice this…they hope for the fulfillment of their word.’ Did you not see a false vision and speak a lying divination when you said the Lord declares? But it is not I who have spoken. Therefore thus says the Lord God, because you have spoken falsely and seen a lie, therefore behold, I am against you, declares the Lord God. So My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will have no place in the council of My people, nor will they be written down in the register of the house of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel that you may know that I am the Lord God.”
So a prophet who claims to speak for God and then what he says turns out to be a lie, turns out to be false, God Himself says that He is against those prophets. So God’s Word is very clear. (Now it falls to the author to establish that NT prophecy must conform to O.T. requirements.
Tim Challies, a cessationist, linked to an interesting article about the baptism of the Holy Spirit, presumably to claim the right to say, "we believe in the Holy Spirit, too!" Actually, despite its reformed origins, it's a very good article. One thing of note was this:
In the Old Testament, the prophetic role was exclusive. A select few among Israel were prophets, endowed with the Holy Spirit in a unique way. In Numbers 11, Moses prayed for the expansion of this exclusivity: “Would that all the LORD’s people were prophets, that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!” (v.29).
The answer to this prayer is promised by Joel in Joel 2:28-29, and fulfilled in Acts 2. Hence Peter could say to describe the events of that day, “this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel” (v.16). At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was democratized, meaning that it wasn’t just the religious elite in Israel who could be identified as “prophets,” but that a universal prophethood of believers was being ushered in where men and women, young and old, rich and poor, would be filled with God’s Spirit.What this points to is a new order of things under the new covenant, including the way the Holy Spirit works in people. Formerly, prophets were rare and special. Now they are everywhere. Formerly, false prophets were required to be 100% accurate, or to be put to death. Now, prophecy is to be weighed and discerned. False prophets were put to death, now they are to be ignored or overcome.
1Co. 14:37-38 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.
1Jn. 4:4 You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.Once again we've deleted a long passage regarding what certain charismatics believe, since it's not relevant to the biblical argument.)
(...)
Those kinds of stories, of course, could be multiplied many times over. And those are just a few more egregious examples to make a point. If we were to apply the standard of Deuteronomy 18, we would have to consider these men to be false prophets. (De. 18:20 says, But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death. Again, death is the remedy. Is the author really committed to applying the standard of Deuteronomy 18? If not, on what basis should we accept one part as true and the other part as not relevant for today?)
But Charismatics are quick to say, just because a modern prophet gets a prediction or many predictions wrong, that doesn’t make him a false prophet. How can they say that?
Well the answer may surprise you. Defenders of modern prophecy generally claim that there are actually two categories of prophets or prophecy depicted in Scripture. The first kind of prophet is the one that is described in Deuteronomy 18. That kind of prophet had to be 100 percent accurate. And in that category they would include the Old Testament prophets, along with the Apostles and the writers of any other New Testament books. So they have to be 100 percent accurate.
But then they would contend that there’s a second lower category of prophet, a second tier of prophet in the New Testament. They refer to these as New Testament congregational prophets and they claim that these prophets were not held to a standard of 100 percent accuracy. So the argument essentially goes like this. While first tier prophets like Moses, Isaiah, Peter and Paul were held to a standard of absolute, orthodoxy and correctness, these congregational prophets were allowed to deliver revelations from God that weren’t actuality full of errors and mistakes. Because this second tier form of prophecy was not accurate, it also was not considered authoritative. And so, as a result you don’t have to obey the word of a prophet.
In a sense then, this congregational form of prophecy was essentially nothing more than Spirit-led advice. It was optional for people to follow because it may or may not be accurate. In fact, Wayne Grudem himself speaking of modern prophecy says, “I would put this idea of God bringing things to mind in the same category of authority as advice or counsel from a godly person.”
Now there’s a significant pastoral issue with that redefinition of biblical prophecy because modern prophecy unlike mere advice, can be used to abuse, manipulate, and coerce people who think that they’re obeying the Lord when in fact they are not. (Indeed. But of course, cessationists have the same kinds of risks with other pastoral abuses. In all matters of church process, there are biblical ways these things are dealt with. Prophecy is no exception.)
Kim Crutchfield(?), Charismatic author, an advocate of modern prophecy acknowledges this fact. He says, “Some churches and church leaders become abusive. Abusive church leaders use prophecy to castigate, vilify and place fear in a person’s heart. These are false prophecies, uttered as a tool of social control. They predict doom for those who leave a church. Such leaders do not allow people to question the prophet, judge the prophecy or call the message into question. This is a clear abuse of spiritual authority, Unscrupulous leaders often use prophecies and words from the Lord to manipulate their flock. It is a crass form of spiritual manipulation. It leaves people vulnerable to the whims and manipulations of would-be prophets.” I think that is absolutely true.
On a practical level, if you tell me that you’ve received a Word from God for my life, that’s definition more than you just telling me that you’re sharing a Word of advice or counsel that comes from your own opinion. So you can see the devastating effects this type of prophecy can have in the church. It can really become a burden on well-meaning people. (Indeed again. But of course, we are not dealing with biblical arguments here. We'd like to know the biblical case for the author's beliefs.)
But there’s an even bigger problem. Continuationists justify errant prophecy by suggesting a lower-class of New Testament prophets. The bigger problem than just the pastoral implications is that this is simply not a biblical way to define prophecy, either in the Old Testament, or in the New Testament. The notion of a lower tier of prophets who are frequently inaccurate in their prophetic declarations is completely absent from the New Testament record. (Well, except for Agabus. See discussion below.)
The New Testament nowhere suggests that prophets in the church were to be held to a lesser standard than their Old Testament counterparts. In fact, the evidence indicates exactly the opposite. New Testament prophets, no matter what church congregation they were part of, were held to the very same standard as those used…the very same standards as those used in the Old Testament.
So, for starters, the New Testament refers to both Old Testament and New Testament prophets using the exact same terminology. There is no distinction in the way the New Testament talks about Old Testament prophets, or New Testament prophets. We see this in the book of Acts where time after time references are made to Old Testament prophets and then references to New Testament prophets are interspersed throughout the book of Acts without any sort of distinction, comment or caveat being used.
Sam Waldron says this, “If New Testament prophecy in distinction from Old Testament prophecy was not infallible in its pronouncements, this would have constituted an absolutely fundamental contrast between the Old Testament institution and the New Testament institution. So suppose that a difference as important as this would be passed over without explicit comment is unthinkable.” So the New Testament never defines prophecy in a New Testament context as being anything different than what it was in an Old Testament context. (This is quite a claim. As we noted above, things have indeed changed.
In addition, there is no indication in the O.T. that the following should happen: ...two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 1Co. 14:29 -30. Clearly a new order has come.)
But there is more than just evidence from silence to support the fact that there’s only one kind of prophet described in Scripture. In Acts 2:18, for example, Peter quotes from Joel 2:28 to describe the type of prophecy that would characterize the New Testament age. Joel 2:28 is an Old Testament passage, it’s describing Old Testament quality prophecy. So by using that passage, Peter was declaring that New Testament prophecy would be of the same kind as the Old Testament prophecy that Joel had just described. (Well, no. Not at all. Peter's quote of Joel was earth shaking, because God clearly communicated He was changing things. A new move of God was playing out before their eyes. It was nothing like what had happened before. There had been no expression of the prophetic that was so widespread that ...even my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. Ac. 2:18
The prophets of the O.T. were few, specific, and very special. Now in the N.T. the gift of prophecy is widespread, common, and even the "lowest" have the Spirit poured out upon them.
He. 2:4 says, God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. That is, they were [and should be] widely found in the church.)
Not only that, but the New Testament describes prophets in the New Testament in a way that is equivalent to how the Old Testament describes prophets as well. So we have the same terminology and now we have the same descriptions. Dr. David Farnell(?) who teaches New Testament here at the Master’s Seminary, after a lengthy study of this issue in the New Testament says this, this is about the prophet Agabus in particular, we’ll talk more about Agabus in just a few minutes. But he’s showing how Agabus is described in the same way as Old Testament prophets were described. Agabus introduced his prophecy with the formula, “This is what the Holy Spirit says,” or “Thus says the Holy Spirit,” which closely parallels the Old Testament prophetic formula of “Thus says the Lord.” It’s the same introductory phrase, in fact, that the Lord Jesus used when He declared words of prophecy to the seven churches in the book of Revelation. And certainly, we would not accuse the Lord Jesus of using …of using fallible or errant prophecy. (Well, no. Ac. 15:28: It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements... Where is the "Thus says the Lord" here?)
Like many Old Testament prophets, Agabus presented his prophecies through symbolic actions. Again as a similarity. Like the Old Testament prophets, Agabus was empowered by the Holy Spirit and like the Old Testament prophets, Agabus’ prophecies were accurately fulfilled. Now on that last point, we’re going to go into a little bit more detail because Continuationists would argue that perhaps Agabus was not accurate in his prediction.
But Dr. Farnell summarizes the evidence and says, “Look, in summary, the early post-apostolic church judged the genuineness of New Testament prophets by Old Testament standards. Prophets in the New Testament era who were ecstatic, who made wrong applications of Scripture or who prophesied falsely were considered false prophets because such actions violated Old Testament stipulations regarding what characterized a genuine prophet of God.
The New Testament church during the apostolic age, their scriptures consisted of the Old Testament. So when they went to the Bible to decipher how to judge a true prophet from an false prophet, they derived the same principles from the Old Testament that we have articulated this afternoon.
The bottom line then is this, nothing in the New Testament suggests that there was a second tier of congregational prophets in the early church that was held to a lower standard of one hundred percent prophetic accuracy. The New Testament indicates the prophets and the church were measured by the very same criteria as Old Testament prophets: doctrinal orthodoxy, moral integrity, and predictive accuracy.
So there are two types of prophets in the Bible, true prophets and false prophets. But there is not this third middle ground that the contemporary Charismatic Movement wishes to hold to.
Now, someone will say, “Well there are some objections that Charismatics will raise to what you have just articulated.” So let’s take a moment to answer three of the most common Charismatic objections.
The first is an appeal to Romans 12:6, proponents of fallible prophecy, or prophecy that has mistakes and errors in it, will often point to Romans 12:6 which in the NAS reads as follows, “Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly. If prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith.” Based on this verse, Charismatics and Continuationists argue that the accuracy of one’s prophecy can vary depending on how much faith you have. So if you have 80 percent faith, then you can deliver a prophecy that is 80 percent accurate. (Of course this is preposterous. And we have never heard a charismatic phrase this this way.)
But that is actually a misunderstanding of the Greek in this verse. And, in fact, though I like the New American Standard, they have mistranslated this verse. The pronoun, the possessive pronoun “his” before the word “faith” is not in the Greek. In Greek it is the definite article THE. It should read, “According to the proportion of the faith.” Now a number of translations like the ESV and others do better they say, “In proportion, or in measure to our faith,” sort of a collective sense. But the Greek itself is explicit. It is THE faith.
What this means then is this is not saying that the accuracy of your prophecy fluctuates depending on how much faith you have. Rather it is saying that whatever a prophet speaks, it must perfectly accord with THE faith, those things that were previously revealed. Jude 3 and 4 talks about contending earnestly for the faith, once for all delivered to the saints. And Romans 12:6 should be understood in that same light. If someone prophesies, if someone claims to speak for God, their message must be measured against the faith…as it has been delivered in previous revelation. So this is simply affirming that Old Testament principle of doctrinal orthodoxy. You must be perfectly accurate theologically when you claim to speak for God.
Now there’s another objection that Charismatics often raise and that is an appeal to 1 Thessalonians chapter 5 verses 20 through 22. This verse reads, or these verses read as follows, “Do not despise prophetic utterances, but examine everything carefully. Hold fast to that which is good and abstain from every form of evil.” Based on this verse, continuationists ask, if New Testament prophecy was infallible like Old Testament prophecy, then why did Paul tell the Thessalonians to test it carefully, or to examine it carefully?
Well, we would respond with the following observations. First of all, I think it’s important to note that Paul’s statement “Do not despise prophetic utterances” was written at a time when everyone agrees that the gift of prophecy was still active. So when cessationists reject the false predictions being made by self-appointed modern prophets, they’re not disobeying Paul’s command, rather they’re taking the command to test things seriously. When we test modern prophets using the biblical standards, we are right then to reject those who do not pass the test. (In other words, the author offers his premise as evidence and bases his conclusion on his premise.)
Verse 22, Paul states that those prophecies which do not pass the test, and I think by implication those who declare such prophecies, that they are to be regarded as evil (No, as mentioned before, ignored or overcome.
The text, which the author does not quote, says, Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22 Avoid every kind of evil. 1Th. 5:21-22 It is clear that Paul is making a blanket statement. What the author infers is not relevant.)
and believers are to abstain from them. This indicates that there is a seriousness, a gravitas to that kind of rejection of error and cessationists seek to apply that in a meaningful way.
Now the fact that Paul instructed his readers to examine prophecy carefully, it does not mean that New Testament prophecy was fallible or full of errors. Rather it indicates that false prophets posed a real threat to the New Testament church. (Bare assertion.)
Consequently believers needed to test all supposed prophecies so as to distinguish between true prophets and false prophets. False prophets wreaked havoc in the Thessalonian church. As John MacArthur explains, the Thessalonians in particular needed to be wary of false prophets. Paul’s two epistles to them indicate that some within their congregation had already been misled, both with regard to Paul’s personal character, and with regard to the eschatological future of the church. Much of Paul’s instruction was in response to the erroneous teaching that was wreaking havoc within the Thessalonian church.
Finally, the idea that New Testament prophecy had to be examined or tested, that does not make it qualitatively different than Old Testament prophecy. (Bare assertion.)
In fact, the very reason that God gave those tests in Deuteronomy 13 and in Deuteronomy 18, was so that Old Testament saints could test prophecy too, just as New Testament believers were commanded to do it in 1 Thessalonians 5.
Now why did Old Testament prophecy need to be tested? Because just as in New Testament times, the threat of false prophets was in ever-present danger. I think it’s important to note as well that in Acts 17:11the Bereans were considered noble for examining the things that even the Apostle Paul was telling them. So even apostolic teaching should be tested by that which had been previously revealed.
So, Dr. MacArthur says this, putting all this together, we see that 1 Thessalonians 5 does not support the Charismatic case for fallible prophecy. Rather it leads to the opposite conclusion because it calls Christians to test any message, or messenger that claims to come from God. When we apply the test of Scripture to the supposed revelations of modern-day Charismatics, we quickly see their prophesying for what it really is, a dangerous counterfeit.
Now there’s one more objection that Charismatics raise, and perhaps this is the most common objection of all. Tom hinted at it this morning in his message. But let’s talk just a little bit about the prophet Agabus.
In Acts 11:28, Agabus is affirmed as a true prophet who accurately foretold the coming of a severe famine. But controversy surrounds Acts chapter 21 verses 10 and 11, according to continuationists, Agabus was a true prophet who got the predictive details of his prophecy wrong. In their minds then, he provides an example…in fact, really the only New Testament example of a prophet who failed to make an accurate prediction but was still considered a true prophet.
Here’s what Luke says in Acts 21:10 and 11. “As we were staying there for some days, a prophet named Agabus came from Jerusalem….from Judea. And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, ‘This is what the Holy Spirit says, in this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’” Now according to continuationists, the overall gist of Agabus’ prophecy is correct, but the details are wrong. In particular, according to continuationists, Agabus erred when he stated, number one, that the Jews would bind Paul and number two, that the Jews would deliver Paul into the hands of the Romans. So here Wayne Grudem says this, “This is a prophecy whose two elements of binding and giving over by the Jews are explicitly falsified by the subsequent narrative.” In another place, Grudem says, “The prediction was not far off, but it had inaccuracies and detail that would have called into question the validity of any Old Testament prophet.”
So how are we to think about Agabus? Are the details of his prophecy explicitly falsified? Did he err when he predicted that the Jews would bind Paul and hand him over to the Romans? I think the answer to this question is no. I don’t think Agabus got anything wrong in his prophecy. Let me give you five reasons why.
Number one, nothing in the text states that Agabus got his prophecy wrong. (Argument from silence.)
So the idea that this is explicitly falsified is in itself explicitly false. Neither Luke nor Paul, nor anyone else in Scripture, criticizes the accuracy of Agabus’ prediction or says that he erred. (This presumes that Luke or Paul required 100% accuracy. Perhaps they didn't criticize since they already accepted the possibility of error and thus weren't concerned!)
Thus at best, the continuationists’ conclusion about Agabus is based on an argument from silence. (Irony.)
Secondly, Luke’s description of what happened to Paul in Jerusalem farther down in Acts chapter 21 implies that the Jews bound him just as Agabus predicted. In fact, Luke doesn’t need to repeat those details because he’s already given us those details through the words of Agabus. But the details are implied as being perfectly fulfilled. (An implication imposed by the author's preconceptions.)
So the rest of Acts 21 explains the Jews laid hands on Paul. They seized him, they dragged him and they sought to kill him and they were beating him when the Roman soldiers finally arrived.
Later when Paul stands before Agrippa, he reiterates that the Jews seized him in the Temple and tried to kill him. The mob would have had to restrain Paul in some way in order to do all of this to him, since Paul did not subject himself to it willingly. As they forcibly removed him from the Temple, the would have used whatever means were necessary to seize him and to bind him. (The text does not say they bound him.
Ac. 21:30 The whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged him from the temple, and immediately the gates were shut.It was the Romans who bound him.
Ac. 21:33 The commander came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains. Then he asked who he was and what he had done.Agabus was not 100% accurate. He wasn't expected to be. He didn't need to be.)
So the implication in both Acts 21 and Acts 26 is that Paul was bound exactly as Agabus said he would be. In fact, the Greek word “to bind” can mean to arrest or to imprison, but it can also simply mean to tie someone up, or to wrap someone up with rags. So when Agabus says you’re going to be bound in this way, that’s exactly what happened.
Number three, Paul’s later testimony confirms that the Jews delivered him over, or handed him over to the Romans. Continuationists claim that Agabus also erred when he predicted that the Jews would deliver Paul over to the Romans, but that error is not demanded by the text. In fact, in Acts 21:32, Paul is being beaten when the Roman cohort arrives, the Jews upon seeing the soldiers stop assaulting Paul and the implication of the text is that when the Roman soldiers arrived, the angry mob dispersed and relinquished Paul into the hands of the Roman soldiers. (Actually, no. Ac. 21:33 The commander came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains. Then he asked who he was and what he had done.)
That, of course, accords perfectly with Agabus’ prediction. But there’s an even more explicit statement in Acts 28 where Paul has just arrived in Jerusalem. He’s under house arrest in Rome. Here’s what Luke says. “When we entered Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself with a soldier who was guarding him. After three days, Paul called together those who were the leading men of the Jews and when they came together, he began to say to them,” and this is Paul speaking, “Brethren, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered.” That word for delivered is the exact same word that Agabus used when he said that Paul would be delivered by the Jews into the hands of the Romans. Here he says, “I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.”
So you can see, there’s no reason to cast aspersion or doubt on the details of Agabus’ prophecy. Now here’s probably the most important reason why I think it’s very dangerous to accuse Agabus of getting the details wrong. Agabus is quoting the Holy Spirit. In Acts 21:11 Agabus begins his prophecy by saying, “Thus says the Holy Spirit.” Just like the Old Testament prophets would declare, “Thus says the Lord.” Nothing in the text indicates that he was wrong to do that, and, in fact, the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to record Agabus’ prophecy in exactly this way. (Argument from silence.)
So, those who accuse Agabus of error ought to be very careful. And I don’t say this flippantly but meaningfully, Agabus is quoting the Holy Spirit and I believe it is dangerous to then accuse the following words of being inaccurate. (Only because of the author's preconceptions. Maybe he's afraid that he would have to put to death false prophets?)
Now finally and probably least important in our list of five, but one that I appreciate because I teach church history, no one in church history ever accused Agabus of errant prophecy until the modern Charismatic Movement. (Argument from silence.)
And we don’t have time this morning for me to read to you from Augustine and Chrysostom and Gregory of Nanzianzus, and Ambrose and others who talk about Agabus. But when they do talk about Agabus, which isn’t very frequently, they acquaint him with the Old Testament prophets like Isaiah and Ezekiel and they never ever imply that his prophecy was wrong.
So, based on these five reasons, I feel confidence stating that there is no hint of fallible prophecy not only in church history but in a straight-forward reading of the biblical text, no hint of fallible prophecy in Agabus’ prediction. Which means if Agabus didn’t get the details wrong, then there is no New Testament example of a prophet who got the details wrong.
Now, what are the implications of what it is that we are discussing? We have just a few minutes left this afternoon, and I want to talk just a little bit about what it is that we’ve been discussing and what the implications of this are.
Terms of a review, the Bible articulates three criteria by which to evaluate a true prophet from a false prophet. Those criteria are, number one, doctrinal orthodoxy. Number two, moral integrity. And number three, predictive accuracy. A word that truly comes from God will be consistent with what has previously been revealed and will come from the life of someone who is consistent in their own walk with the Lord and if it includes details of prediction, or of hidden knowledge that is being revealed, those details will be perfectly accurate because the source of that prophecy is the God who knows everything and who cannot speak falsehood.
Self-proclaimed prophets who fail any of those three tests should consider the serious biblical warnings against falsely claiming to speak for God. So quote from the Strange Fire book, John MacArthur says, “Fallible prophets are false prophets. Or at best, misguided non-prophets who should immediately cease and desist from presumptively pretending to speak for God. When compared to the clear criteria set forth in the Word of God, nothing about modern prophecy measures up.”
Now, from a cessationists standpoint, and I appreciated Tom Pennington’s defense of cessationism this morning, we would say that the true gift of prophecy has ceased. According to Ephesians 2:20, the foundation of the church built on the foundation…the church being built on the foundation of the Apostles and the prophets, the foundational age, once that age passes, both Apostles and prophets, those gifts associated with those offices pass away as well. So the foundation age has passed and so we would contend that the gift of prophecy passed along with it. (Perhaps now he is going to present the affirmative biblical case for cessationism?)
With the canon of Scripture complete, there is no longer any need for us to receive new revelation from God. (Scripture reference?)
We have the prophetic word and it contains all that we need for life and godliness. (Then why are there pastors? Sermons? Articles like the author's? And the Body of Christ?)
And I appreciate the emphasis that’s been made in the keynote sessions and that will be made with Dr. Lawson’s upcoming message, and that emphasis is that the sufficiency of Scripture itself is at stake. Any concept of new revelation from God undermines the authority of Scripture and it also competes with the exclusivity of biblical revelation. And that is what makes the concept of modern prophecy, even if you redefine it as Spirit-led advice, the concept itself is dangerous.
So the idea that new revelation is still being given, undermines the doctrine of Scripture sufficiency. (Bare assertion.)
It also enables unscrupulous leaders to abuse their people supposedly in the name of God and I recognize that not everyone who claims to be a Charismatic prophet is guilty of abusing people, but it does happen and the problem comes by labeling error as prophecy. It shows us how dangerous the idea of modern prophecy really is. (A danger adequately checked by biblical instruction.)
Now I’d like to close our time by citing three well-known figures from history…two from church history, and one from biblical history. All three of these extended quotations are going to be included in the Strange Fire book, so you will have these tomorrow when you get the book. But I think they provide a fitting conclusion to our discussion about modern prophecy.
The first comes from a well-known British pastor of the early twentieth century, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Here’s what he said in his work on Ephesians chapter 4. He said, “Try to imagine our position if we did not possess these New Testament epistles but the Old Testament only. That was the position of the early church. Truth was imparted to it primarily by the teaching and preaching of the Apostles but that was supplemented by the teaching of the prophets to whom truth was given and also the ability to speak it with clarity and power in the demonstration and authority of the Spirit. But once these New Testament documents were written, the office of a prophet was no longer necessary. (Bare assertion!)
Again, we must note that often in the history of the church, trouble has arisen because people thought they were prophets in the New Testament sense and that they had received special revelations of truth.
The answer to that is that in view of the New Testament scriptures, there is no need of further truth. That is an absolute proposition. We have all truth in the New Testament and we have no need of any further revelations. All has been given, everything that is necessary for us is available. Therefore, if a man claims to have received a revelation of some fresh truth, we should suspect him immediately. The answer to all this is that the need for prophets ends once we have the canon of the New Testament. We no longer need direct revelations of truth, the truth is in the Bible. We must never separate the Spirit and the Word. The Spirit speaks to us through the Word so we should always doubt and query any supposed revelation that is not entirely consistent with the Word of God. Indeed the essence of wisdom is to reject all together the term revelation and speak only of illumination. The revelation has been given once and for all. And what we need and what by the grace of God we can have and do have is illumination by the Spirit to understand the Word. (Not a single biblical reference for these assertions...)
Now this next quote that I want to read to you comes from another well-known British pastor, a couple of generations before Lloyd-Jones, and that’s Charles Spurgeon. This quote is direct. So I want to hide behind the fact that this is Charles Spurgeon’s quote. Okay…good. He says this, “Honor the Spirit of God as you would honor Jesus Christ if He were present. If Jesus Christ were dwelling in your house, you would not ignore Him. You would not go about your businesses if He were not there. Do not ignore the presence of the Holy Spirit in your soul. To Him pay your constant adorations, reverence the august guest who has been pleased to make your body his sacred abode. Love Him, obey Him, worship Him. Take care never to impute the vain imaginings of your fancy to Him. I have seen the Spirit of God shamefully dishonored by persons—I hope they were insane—who have said they have had this and that revealed to them. There has not, for some years, passed over my head a single week in which I have not been pestered with the revelations of hypocrites or maniacs. Semi-lunatics are very fond of coming with messages from the Lord to me, and it may save them some trouble if I tell them once and for all that I will have none of their stupid messengers. Never dreamed that events are revealed to you by heaven, or you may come to be like those idiots who dare impute their blatant follies to the Holy Spirit. If you feel your tongue itch to talk nonsense, trace it to the devil, not to the Spirit of God. Whatever is to be revealed by the Spirit to any of us is in the Word of God already. He adds nothing to the Bible and never will. Let persons who have revelations of this, that and the other go to bed and wake up in their senses. I only wish they would follow the advice and no longer insult the Holy Spirit by laying their nonsense at His door.”
That was harsh but I would add this, I didn’t read that intending it to be funny, I read it intending it to be sobering because I think Spurgeon intended it to be received in a spirit of sobriety, recognizing just what an offense it is to claim to speak for God and then to speak words that don’t actually come from God.
Last place I’d like to read to you from is from Jeremiah, this is the Lord Himself speaking through the prophet Jeremiah. Jeremiah chapter 23:16 to 32, this, I believe, underscores just how serious God takes it when people claim to be prophets but the revelation they’ve supposedly received is from their own imaginations and not from Him.
“Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you. They make you worthless. They speak a vision of their own heart, not from the mouth of the Lord. I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran. I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in My council and had caused My people to hear My Words, then they would have turned them from their evil way and from the evil of their doings. I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy lies in My name saying, ‘I have dreamed, I have dreamed. How long will this be in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies? Indeed they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart.’ Behold, I am against the prophets, says the Lord, who used their tongues and say, ‘The Lord says,’ behold, I am against those who prophesy false dreams, says the Lord, and tell them and cause My people to err by their lies and by their recklessness. Yet I did not send them or command them, therefore they shall not prophet this people at all.”
(...)
(So the author never gets around to presenting the biblical case for the cessation of prophecy. In fact, he is regrettably reluctant to quote Scripture at all, except for some O.T. verses.
It remains for cessationists to offer to us verses that explain that prophecy has ceased. Period. This the author hasn't done.)
No comments:
Post a Comment