Are There Two Levels of Prophecy? - by Scott Aniol

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------------

This is not a Bible teaching, it is a refutation of Wayne Grudem's opinion.

The author will repeatedly appeal to the closed canon, almost a dozen times, but will never explain why contemporary prophecy is at odds with it. So that the reader will understand, there is an unstated premise: Cessationists believe that all prophecy is the pure, inerrant, authoritative words of God, and it must be written down and added to Scripture. Thus the cessationist assumes that prophecy = Scripture. 

The author never tells us this premise.

In fact, it is a problematic assumption. This is because there is no requirement that prophetic expression be included in the Bible. We can find no Bible verse that suggests such a thing. It's just not there.

This is crucial: The Bible does not tell us that contemporary prophecy needs to be added to the Bible.

To the contrary, we see all sorts of prophecy, miracles, and other supernatural events that didn't make the cut, as it were. For example, some of the great exploits of King Solomon were not deemed worthy of inclusion in the Holy Writ. Readers are directed to the "annals of Solomon," something we do not have today:

1Kg. 11:41 As for the other events of Solomon’s reign — all he did and the wisdom he displayed — are they not written in the book of the annals of Solomon?

King Saul prophesied to the extent that the people wondered if he was included among the prophets. However, we don't have any of those prophecies:

1Sa. 10:10-11 When they arrived at Gibeah, a procession of prophets met him; the Spirit of God came upon him in power, and he joined in their prophesying. 11 When all those who had formerly known him saw him prophesying with the prophets, they asked each other, “What is this that has happened to the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?

We don't even have the prophecies from this procession of prophets.

Agabus was a N.T. prophet worthy of special note. It is interesting that only one of his prophecies was quoted, (and a summary of another), while any other prophecies he might have spoken were omitted:

Ac. 21:10 After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea.

Agabus' famine prophecy is only a summary, not the actual prophecy:

Ac. 11:27-28 During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world.

There are a number of prophets identified by name in the NT, yet we don't have any prophecies from them. Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen:

Ac. 13:1-2 In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

Notice there came forth a prophecy, but the narrative doesn't even mention who spoke it. 

We also do not have any prophecies from Judas or Silas, even though they said much:

Ac. 15:32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers.

And these twelve men prophesied, but we don't have any record of their prophecies:

Ac. 19:6-7 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

Philip's daughters prophesied, but that all we know:

Ac. 21:8-9 Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. 9 He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.

Even Jesus, as critically important are His words and deeds, was subject to editing by the Holy Spirit:

Jn. 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Why would the author insist that contemporary prophecy violates the canon when so much of the prophetic mentioned in the Bible did not? Why do cessationists assume prophecy must be added to the Bible? Conclusion: It's an unbiblical assumption.

Lastly, in 1749 words the author does manage to quote some Scripture, but nothing he quotes bolsters his case. For these reasons, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

------------------------------

The question of whether New Testament prophecy has ceased or continues is a significant debate within evangelical circles. At the heart of this issue lies the tension between the concept of a closed canon—wherein the New Testament serves as the final authoritative guide for faith and practice—and the possibility of ongoing prophetic revelation. (Why is there a tension between these the closed canon and ongoing prophetic revelation? We hope the author will explain. Hint: He will not.)

Moderate charismatics attempt to provide a framework for understanding how prophecy can continue without undermining the authority of Scripture by suggesting that prophecy today is of a different kind than in the Old Testament. (How does modern prophecy undermine the authority of Scripture? The author will not explain.)

For example, Wayne Grudem proposes two levels of prophecy—one apostolic and inerrant, the other non-apostolic and errant, which has become a foundation for those who argue for the continuation of prophecy in the church today. He argues,

Prophecy in ordinary New Testament churches was not equal to Scripture in authority but was simply a very human—and sometimes partially mistaken—report of something the Holy Spirit brought to some-one’s mind.1

The examination of Grudem’s argument below is based largely on Bruce Compton’s excellent article, The Continuation of New Testament Prophecy and a Closed Canon: Revisiting Wayne Grudem’s Two Levels of NT Prophecy.

Understanding Grudem’s Two Levels of Prophecy

Grudem’s thesis distinguishes between two types of prophecy in the New Testament: apostolic prophecy, which is inerrant and authoritative, and non-apostolic prophecy, which is fallible and does not carry the same divine authority. Grudem posits that apostolic prophecy, such as that of Paul and other apostles, was foundational to the early church and ceased with the completion of the New Testament canon. However, non-apostolic prophecy continues in the church today. This form of prophecy, according to Grudem, involves believers communicating impressions or thoughts brought to their minds by the Holy Spirit. These impressions, while potentially helpful, can be mistaken and do not bear the same weight as Scripture.

For Grudem, this distinction allows for the continuation of prophecy without challenging the closed canon. (Why would the continuation of prophecy impact the closed canon? The author will not explain.)

Since only apostolic prophecy was inerrant, the ongoing gift of prophecy in local congregations today does not threaten the final authority of Scripture. (Why would the gift of prophecy impact the final authority of Scripture? The author will not explain.)

Grudem’s view has found support among continuationists, who believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit, including prophecy, continue to operate in the church today.

A Critique of Grudem’s Framework

Grudem presents three primary arguments in defense of two levels of New Testament prophecy.

1. The Distinction Between Apostolic and Non-Apostolic Prophets (Ephesians 2:20)

Grudem’s first argument is based on Ephesians 2:20, where Paul refers to the church being “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” Grudem argues that this passage refers to a single group of individuals—apostles who were also prophets—who provided the revelatory foundation for the church. These “apostolic prophets” spoke with inerrant authority, while non-apostolic prophets operated on a lower level of fallible prophecy. This distinction, Grudem argues, allows for the continuation of non-apostolic prophecy without compromising the closed canon.2 (Why would non-apostolic prophecy impact the closed canon? The author will not explain.)

On the contrary, as Compton convincingly argues, the grammatical structure of the passage points to two distinct groups—apostles and prophets. Both groups were involved in laying the church’s foundation through authoritative, inerrant revelation. He notes that Grudem’s reliance on a particular Greek grammatical construction (the Granville Sharp construction3) to argue for a single group of apostle-prophets is problematic: “The problem with Grudem’s interpretation is that nowhere else in the New Testament does the plural Granville Sharp construction involving two nouns clearly fit the identical category and refer to a single group.” All other cases of this construction in the New Testament indicate that the two terms are either separate or that one is a subset of the other. They can’t be joined together. (While we appreciate the explanation of the Greek syntax, this really doesn't do anything other than refute one man's opinion about a Bible verse that may or may not come to bear on the overall scriptural basis for the continuation of prophecy. 

Let's hope the author gets beyond refuting Grudem and makes an affirmative case for his cessationism.)

In fact, the New Testament consistently distinguishes between apostles and prophets, and there is no compelling evidence to suggest that Ephesians 2:20 refers to a single group. Ephesians 3:5 distinguishes between the two when it states, “which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.” Paul does the same in 1 Corinthians 12:28: “And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.” Quite simply, no biblical evidence exists to distinguish “apostolic prophets” from “non-apostolic prophets.” (Whoa. The author jumps to a conclusion not contemplated by his refutation. There was no discussion about "apostolic prophets" versus "non-apostolic prophets." Rather, the issue at hand is the question of two levels of prophecy.

Does the author think that all prophecy was uttered by apostles? Or that all prophecy was on the level of apostolic revelation? What exactly is the author saying here?) 

Therefore, if both apostles and prophets provided the foundation for the church, their revelation must have been equally authoritative and inerrant. (We agree. But is Ephesians 2:20 referring only to NT prophets? Perhaps the OT prophets are included? And by the way, we know who the apostles were, and why they are a part of the foundation of the church. But who are the foundational prophets? Where are the foundational prophecies in the NT? Where's the Book of Agubus, since he seemed to be a prophet of particular importance?)

This undermines Grudem’s attempt to distinguish between two levels of prophecy. If New Testament prophets spoke with divine authority, then their prophecy cannot be ongoing, as this would imply that the canon is still open. (Why would authoritative prophecy impact the closed canon? The author will not explain.)

2. The Testing of Prophets (1 Corinthians 14:29)

Grudem’s second argument is that the New Testament commands believers to evaluate prophetic utterances to distinguish between what is true and what is false, implying that New Testament prophecy is fallible. He points to 1 Corinthians 14:29, where Paul instructs the church to “let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.” Grudem interprets this as an instruction to sift through prophetic words, accepting what is accurate and rejecting what is not, thus supporting the idea of non-inerrant prophecy.4

However, the practice of testing prophecies does not imply that true prophets can err. Rather, the command to test prophecies is aimed at discerning between true and false prophets. (Bare assertion. In fact, the quoted verse carries no such implication. Rather, the verse clearly teaches that the prophecy is to be weighed, not the prophet.

"Weighed" is diakrinó, From dia and krino; to separate thoroughly... 2. to learn by discrimination, to try, decide: Matthew 16:3... 1 Corinthians 14:29.

The weighing is the testing, discerning, and separating of the prophecy by "the others," which may be the entire congregation, or simply the other prophets who are present.

The author is wrong.)

In both the Old and New Testaments, testing a prophet was a means of verifying whether the individual was genuinely speaking from God. (There is no example of a prophet being tested in the NT.)

Once a prophet was established as true, their prophecies were understood to carry divine authority. Grudem’s view creates a contradictory situation where a true prophet could still deliver a mixture of truth and error, which is inconsistent with the biblical concept of prophecy. As Compton argues,

If conformity to divine truth is the criterion for judging a true prophet, then, by definition, a true prophet cannot prophesy that which is false and still be classified as a true prophet. Grudem cannot have it both ways. He cannot have the prophets in 1 Corinthians 14:29 be true prophets and, at the same time, argue that their prophecies can contain error such that the Corinthians needed to sift the good from the bad.

3. The Prophecy of Agabus (Acts 21:10–11)

Grudem’s third argument involves the prophecy of Agabus in Acts 21, where Agabus predicts that Paul will be bound by the Jews and handed over to the Gentiles in Jerusalem. Grudem claims that this prophecy contains inaccuracies, as it was the Roman authorities who physically bound Paul, not the Jews. He uses this example to argue that New Testament prophecy is fallible, even when the prophet claims to speak under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.5

However, the details of Agabus’s prophecy can easily be harmonized with the actual events. While the Romans did bind Paul, it was the actions of the Jews that led to Paul’s arrest. (No one would dispute that the actions of the Jews led to this. But this has nothing to do with the issue of who bound Paul.)

In fact, Paul himself describes what happens in terms consistent with Agabus’s prophecy: "I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans” (Acts 28:17). (Again, this does not speak to who bound Paul.)

Furthermore, Agabus introduces his prophecy with the phrase “Thus says the Holy Spirit,” a formula that typically indicates divine authority. If Agabus were truly speaking under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as the text suggests, then his prophecy cannot be classified as errant. (The author presumes his premise to reach this conclusion.)

The Canon and the Continuation of Prophecy

The bottom line is that rather than protecting the closed canon, Grudem’s view undermines the integrity of the canon by allowing for ongoing revelation, even if that revelation is fallible. (How is the integrity of the canon undermined by ongoing revelation? The author will not explain.)

If New Testament prophecy continues, and if prophets today receive direct revelation from God, this raises questions about the sufficiency of Scripture. (Why would direct revelation from God raise questions about the sufficiency of Scripture? The author will not explain.)

Even Grudem acknowledges, “If everyone with the gift of prophecy in the New Testament church did have . . . absolute divine authority, then we would expect this gift to die out as soon as the writings of the New Testament were completed and given to the churches.”6

The New Testament itself teaches that prophecy, as a revelatory gift, was foundational for the early church and that this foundation was completed with the writing of the New Testament (Eph 2:20, 3:5, 1 Cor 12:28). (Agreed.)

Grudem attempts to address this concern by arguing that non-apostolic prophecy lacks divine authority and therefore does not threaten the closed canon. (After many remarks about the closed canon, the author is running out of article. Will he explain this repeated objection? Hint: He will not.)

However, this creates a problematic distinction between revelation that is authoritative and revelation that is not. If a prophet is truly receiving a message from God, then that message must carry divine authority, regardless of whether the prophet communicates it perfectly. The idea that God would reveal something to a prophet but allow the prophet to communicate it inaccurately raises serious theological questions about the nature of divine revelation. (Why? Mr. Aniol, are you going to explain anything?)

As Compton convincingly argues, “Grudem has failed to make his case for New Testament prophecy that is errant and lacking in divine authority.” Compton demonstrates that “the evidence speaks unequivocally in support of the inerrancy and authority of New Testament prophecy.” Thus, Grudem and other evangelical continuationists can’t have it both ways: “If New Testament prophecy is ongoing, then the canon cannot be closed. Or, if the canon is closed, then there can be no continuing New Testament prophecy.”7 (Sigh. Why? Please explain. Why does prophecy come to bear on the canon?)

A Call for Cessationism

The miraculous gifts of the Spirit, including prophecy, ceased with the close of the apostolic era and the completion of the New Testament canon. There is no biblical basis for distinguishing between two levels of prophecy—all New Testament prophecy was authoritative and inerrant. As such, the continuation of prophecy would necessarily imply that the canon is still open, a position that contradicts the historical and theological understanding of Scripture as the final and complete revelation of God.

For evangelicals committed to the authority of Scripture, this issue is not merely academic. It has profound implications for how we understand the nature of God’s revelation, the role of the Holy Spirit in the church, and the sufficiency of the Bible for faith and practice. While there is room for respectful dialogue between cessationists and continuationists, the integrity of the canon and the nature of divine revelation are critical issues that must be carefully guarded.

Ultimately, the debate over New Testament prophecy and the closed canon is a reminder of the importance of Scripture as the final rule for faith. Any view that allows for ongoing prophetic revelation risks undermining the very foundation upon which the Christian faith is built


References

1 Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, rev. ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2000), 18.
2 Grudem, Gift of Prophecy, 329–46.
3 The Granville Sharp Rule says that when two singular, personal, and non-proper nouns of the same case are connected by the conjunction καί and governed by a single article, both nouns refer to the same person.
4 Grudem, Gift of Prophecy, 54–62.
5 Grudem, Gift of Prophecy, 77–83.
6 Grudem, Gift of Prophecy, 45–46.
7 Bruce Compton, “The Continuation of New Testament Prophecy and a Closed Canon: Revisiting Wayne Grudem’s Two Levels of NT Prophecy,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 22 (2017): 71.