--------------------
In our quest for the biblical explanation of the ceasing of the "supernatural" gifts, we turn to Justin Taylor.
In our quest for the biblical explanation of the ceasing of the "supernatural" gifts, we turn to Justin Taylor.
By the way, it has become a substantial irritation to us that cessationists will rarely, if ever, quote scripture. Mr. Taylor also fails to do so.
------------------
In his new commentary on 1 Corinthians, Tom Schreiner argues that Paul uses the word prophecy to reference “communicating revelation from God in a spontaneous utterance.”
He explains that Wayne Grudem “argues that New Testament prophecy is fallible, unlike Old Testament prophecy, so it may be mixed with error (errors may crop up in the transmission of what God revealed).”
Grudem believes New Testament prophecy may err for three reasons
The New Testament does not explicitly teach that the miraculous sign-gifts cease; rather, it is an inference made by cessationists. ("Sign gifts?" What are these? This phrase is imposed upon the narrative, and does not appear anywhere in Scripture.
We thank the author for admitting that the NT does not actually teach that the "sign gifts" cease. Yet most cessationists regard charismatics as heretics or worse. We would wonder, then, if there is some wiggle room in doctrinal acceptability that grants charismatics a seat at the table.)
Likewise, the New Testament does not explicitly teach that the nature of prophecy changes from one testament to another; again, it is an inference made by continuationists. (Actually, it is a clear observation from Scripture that prophecy has indeed changed. What has changed?
Similarly, it seems to me that continuationists bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that prophecy changes from one testament to the other. (So the author wants to argue about who has the burden of proof. Well, sir, both sides have this burden. Doctrine comes from the Bible. If cessationists think the "sign gifts" have ceased, they have a duty, independent of what others believe, to convincingly establish their doctrine from the Bible.
We believe they have not. You can read everything on this blog regarding the shortcomings of cessationism here.)
In his new commentary on 1 Corinthians, Tom Schreiner argues that Paul uses the word prophecy to reference “communicating revelation from God in a spontaneous utterance.”
He explains that Wayne Grudem “argues that New Testament prophecy is fallible, unlike Old Testament prophecy, so it may be mixed with error (errors may crop up in the transmission of what God revealed).”
Grudem believes New Testament prophecy may err for three reasons
- their prophecies are judged (1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:20–21);
- some prophecies are disobeyed (Acts 21:4); and
- Agabus’s prophecy was in error (Acts 21:11), in that the Jews did not bind Paul and hand him over to the Romans.
Grudem’s reading is intriguing but fails to convince
it is more plausible to say that New Testament prophecy like Old Testament prophecy is infallible . . .He offers three reasons for this conclusion:
First, the judging of prophecies does not indicate that prophets could err, for in the Old Testament the only way to determine whether someone was a true prophet was by assessing prophecies. (Schreiner hasn't documented the idea that OT prophecy is the same as NT prophecy. Nor does he document that "judge" must mean accept/reject.
1Co. 14:29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.
"Weigh" is diakrinó (διακρίνω): to distinguish, to judge, I separate, distinguish, discern one thing from another; I doubt, hesitate, waver. This is not simply an up/down decision regarding a prophecy. It is a dissection and separation of elements.)
If the prophecies were mistaken, the person was not a true prophet (see Deut. 18:21–22; 1 Sam. 3:19–20). (And the prophet was to be put to death. If the author does not think the death thing applies today, then something must have changed from the OT to the NT. On what basis, then, does the inerrancy criteria apply?)
Second, Agabus was not mistaken in Acts 21:11, since when Paul recounts the story of his arrest in Acts 28:17 he appeals to the very word Agabus used (paradidomi) to describe Paul being handed over to the Romans. (Ac. 21:33 tells us The commander came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains. That does not sound like the Jews voluntarily handed him over. More like, Paul was taken. So Agabus was wrong and right, and Paul's in-common descriptor does not lend weight either way.
In addition, just because Paul accepted the prophecy does not mean that Paul believed every detail was correct!
It is clear Agabus made an error in who would bind Paul. Agabus' prophecy:
Ac. 21:11 In this way the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.
What actually happened:
Ac. 21:33 The commander came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains.
It was the Romans who bound him, not the Jews.)
We have further evidence that Agabus spoke as a prophet of the Lord, like the Old Testament prophets.
He used prophetic symbolism in binding his own hands and feet, imitating the kind of prophetic symbolism we find in the Old Testament (e.g., Isa. 20:1–6; Jer. 13:1–11; Ezek. 4:1–5:17). In addition, the words of Ababus reflect a prophetic formula, “The Holy Spirit says” (Acts 21:11). The word tade (lit. “these things”) is used over and over in the Old Testament to introduce the word of the Lord (cf. also Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14).
Third, in Acts 21:4 the prophecy was Spirit-inspired and accurate (Paul would suffer), but the inference drawn from the prophecy (Paul should not go to Jerusalem) is mistaken.For these reasons, Schreiner concludes:
[T]he prophetic gift in the New Testament is of the same nature as the gift in the Old Testament.
God communicates, typically spontaneously, revelations by his prophets which are authoritative and completely true.Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 Corinthians, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic; London: Inter-Varsity Press, 2018), 259–61
The New Testament does not explicitly teach that the miraculous sign-gifts cease; rather, it is an inference made by cessationists. ("Sign gifts?" What are these? This phrase is imposed upon the narrative, and does not appear anywhere in Scripture.
We thank the author for admitting that the NT does not actually teach that the "sign gifts" cease. Yet most cessationists regard charismatics as heretics or worse. We would wonder, then, if there is some wiggle room in doctrinal acceptability that grants charismatics a seat at the table.)
Likewise, the New Testament does not explicitly teach that the nature of prophecy changes from one testament to another; again, it is an inference made by continuationists. (Actually, it is a clear observation from Scripture that prophecy has indeed changed. What has changed?
1) Prophecy was very narrowly bestowed in the OT, but it is widely distributed in the NT: God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. He. 2:4
2) Prophecy in the OT was mostly directed at nations and peoples, and often spoke of God's judgment, while the NT prophetic gift largely speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. 1Co. 14:3
3) Prophecy in the OT was a full articulation of what God said, but NT prophecy is incomplete. For we know in part and we prophesy in part... 1 Cor. 13:9
4) Prophecy in the OT flawless, but NT prophecy is partly obscured: Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face... 1Co. 13:12
5) We don't put false prophets to death, we ignore them: 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.
6) In the OT, the prophet was judged. In the NT, the prophecy is judged.)When discussing debates like this, we often neglect the question of the “burden of proof.” John Frame once commented on this with regard to the paedbaptist vs. credobaptist debate, pointing out that according to paedobaptists, “We can assume continuity with the Old Testament principle of administering the sign of the covenant to children, unless the New Testament evidence directs us otherwise.” As a Baptist, I agree with him—Baptists hold the burden of proof here. (I just happen to think the burden can be met.)
Similarly, it seems to me that continuationists bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that prophecy changes from one testament to the other. (So the author wants to argue about who has the burden of proof. Well, sir, both sides have this burden. Doctrine comes from the Bible. If cessationists think the "sign gifts" have ceased, they have a duty, independent of what others believe, to convincingly establish their doctrine from the Bible.
We believe they have not. You can read everything on this blog regarding the shortcomings of cessationism here.)
Grudem seeks to meet the burden, and Schreiner seeks to show why their case is not convincing.
No comments:
Post a Comment