--------------------
The author manages to quote four Scriptures in 4400 words, but none of those Scriptures come to bear on the topic presented in the title. Yet he insists his interlocuters demonstrate their doctrines from the Bible, but he himself does not do this.
The author manages to quote four Scriptures in 4400 words, but none of those Scriptures come to bear on the topic presented in the title. Yet he insists his interlocuters demonstrate their doctrines from the Bible, but he himself does not do this.
The author is a cessationist, which means he believes the "supernatural" gifts of the Spirit ceased after the death of the last apostle and the completion of the Canon of Scripture. He does not discuss this at all. Instead he challenges two ideas:
- contemporary prophecy is imperfect
- weighing prophecy is discerning the elements of a prophecy
He thinks that all prophecy must be perfect, but does not discuss what happens if perfect prophecy is actually delivered. He also does not contemplate the idea that a prophet who passes the test of being weighed is actually a prophet.
He will then close with some assertions about the sufficiency of Scripture and how the closed canon excludes contemporary prophecy, but doesn't really tell us why.
This is a long and confusing article. We must consider it Bad Bible Teaching.
Evangelical Protestant faith has always affirmed, as a central tenet of its understanding of divine revelation, that the Word of God must have supreme authority in religion. Evangelicalism has historically held this view in close conjunction with the work of the Holy Spirit. The truth can be stated this way:
The living and true God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is supreme head of a living church, is not mute. He speaks — and He speaks clearly — by His Spirit and through His written word, the Bible.’1
Therefore, as the author of Hebrews aptly puts it, we must see to it that we do not disregard "Him who is speaking" (Heb. 12:25) 2
These statements are among the claims that define those who have traditionally identified themselves as evangelicals. They are my own affirmations as an evangelical theologian. They are, further, the affirmations of the contributors to this present volume of essays. (The author has gone to great pains to affirm the weight of history, tradition, theologians, and his own convictions. That is, "everyone agrees with me." But we require an explanation, from the Bible, or the truth of these convictions. Below he will make that demand of Jack Deere: "...he has still not produced a single incontrovertible biblical example...", but fails in this himself.)
Certain evangelicals, however, have begun to add an additional proposition. It is extremely important that we understand this additional proposition and the effect it is having on present evangelical thought and practice. A crisis is on the horizon, and those who are unaware may well be caught off guard.
This new proposition states that God also speaks to His people today apart from the Bible, though He never speaks in contradiction to it. As qualified as this statement seems to be, few evangelicals today would question whether it is true. After all, if nothing that God may say today apart from the Scriptures actually contradicts what He has already said in the Scriptures, what is the big deal? Simply put, the big deal is whether or not it is actually true that God speaks to His people apart from the Bible. Is this new affirmation itself a contradiction of the Scriptures? (Well, since the author never quotes any Scripture relevant to this point, we will never discover the Scriptural basis for his opinion.)
Has God, in fact, told His people in the Bible that they should hear His voice in both spoken and written words? (We think He has.)
Does not this new view threaten to set aside the historic doctrine of the sufficiency and finality of Scripture? (Why would this impact the sufficiency of Scripture? The author will never explain.)
Lest anyone be prematurely self-assured of having the right answers to these questions, consider the issue from another point of view. If we deny that God speaks today apart from the Scriptures, are we quenching His Spirit (1 Thess. 5:19)? (We hope the author will answer these questions.)
Lest anyone be prematurely self-assured of having the right answers to these questions, consider the issue from another point of view. If we deny that God speaks today apart from the Scriptures, are we quenching His Spirit (1 Thess. 5:19)? (We hope the author will answer these questions.)
Some, such as William DeArteaga, have said exactly that.3 Others state the matter in an even more serious way. Jack Deere, a former Dallas Theological Seminary professor, now conference speaker, author, and Presbyterian (PCUSA) pastor, has made the following assertions:
In order to fulfill God’s highest purposes for our lives we must be able to hear his voice both in the written word and in the word freshly spoken from heaven. . . Satan understands the strategic importance of Christians hearing God’s voice so he has launched various attacks against us in this area. One of his most successful attacks has been to develop a doctrine that teaches God no longer speaks to us except through the written word. Ultimately, this doctrine is demonic even [though] Christian theologians have been used to perfect it.4
Shocking words for sure, but arresting, aren’t they? We need a good deal of candor if we are to fully appreciate what is being said here. If DeArteaga, Deere, and others of similar mind are right, if the Bible does indeed teach the church to hear God’s voice both through its pages and apart from them in words "freshly spoken from heaven," then the contributors to this present volume and those who agree with them are at least guilty of quenching the Spirit, if not of outright refusal to hear the very voice of God. We, of all people, are especially in need of fanning into flame those gifts of the Spirit through which God would speak to His church today (cf. 2 Tim. 1:6). (We finally get to the author's premise.)
With this fuller appreciation for what is at stake, I will evaluate certain key arguments that have led others to affirm that God still speaks today apart from the Bible. In the past we might have turned to Pentecostal and charismatic teachers for such argumentation, since this affirmation has been a defining trait and modus operandi of their circles. But in recent years a whole new wave of evangelicalism has arisen among teachers from historically non-Pentecostal and noncharismatic circles. These teachers and authors have been at the forefront of the whole discussion regarding the hearing of God’s voice. Because of this new group of influential teachers, we will focus our particular attention on the arguments advanced by them, principally Wayne Grudem and Jack Deere. Though this may mean that I must entertain some views unique to Grudem and Deere, it is nevertheless my aim to take into account what is distinctive to all who affirm the doctrine that God speaks today apart from the Bible.5
DEFINING OUR TERMS
We need to ask ourselves, first, what does it mean to say that "God speaks today"? Keeping in mind the traditional meaning that "God speaks today through the Bible," the phrase has come to be used in two other senses. For some, the words "God speaks today" are simply a popular, if misleading, way of describing the fact that God guides and directs His people by His Spirit in the application of His written word through promptings, impressions, insights, and the like. (The author appears to accept these. But promptings, impressions, and insights are extra-biblical information.)
Most non-Pentecostals and noncharismatics have explained these (more or less) intuitive experiences in terms of the Spirit’s works of illumination, leading, and conviction. A few would even acknowledge that, among those who fit a given psycho-spiritual profile, these experiences might be accompanied by things seen or heard. All of these experiences are, however, carefully distinguished from the Spirit’s work of revelation.6 (The author explains it away by affixing titles to them: "impressions" aren't "revelation." However, the difference is arbitrary and pulled out of thin air. What objective basis should guide this categorization? Indeed, where in the Bible do we find this distinction?)
Hence, though the Spirit’s illumination and guidance may sometimes focus on phenomena such as promptings or impressions, those phenomena are not specifically interpreted as involving the biblical ministry-gifts of revelation, such as prophecy and tongues or their correlates (e.g., visions, dreams, auditions). (Summary assertion. The author is going to have to do better than simply express an undocumented position.)
Others, of course, use the words "God speaks today" to mean that He guides and directs His people by giving them words of direction through all the same media that the Bible portrays Him as using in the past (e.g., visions and auditions, prophets and angels). As Deere says, "God can and does give personal words of direction to believers today that cannot be found in the Bible. I do not believe that he gives direction that contradicts the Bible, but direction that cannot be found in the Bible."7 We find the evidence for this claim, Deere argues, in the various methods God has used in the past to speak to His people.
For example, during the age of the Old Testament, Deere observes, "God spoke to his children ... in an audible voice, in dreams and visions, through circumstances and fleeces, through inner impressions, through prophets, through angels and through Scripture. "8 Turning to the Gospels, Deere notes that ‘one of the basic keys to the ministry of Jesus was that he only did what he saw his Father doing and he only spoke the words that his Father gave him to speak."9 According to Deere, the same pattern can be seen in Acts: "Special guidance [was] given to the apostles and others by visions, angelic voices, the Holy Spirit, etc."10
Finally, in the New Testament epistles, Paul instructs the churches concerning their use of the revelatory gifts of "prophecy, tongues, words of wisdom, words of knowledge, and discernment of Spirits [sic]."11 Moreover, as Deere understands it, the author of Hebrews expresses his belief that angelic visitations were possible in his day when he reminded his readers that "some have entertained angels unawares" (13:2 KJV).12
By contrast, then, with the previous definition of the phrase "God speaks today," Deere concludes that "on a prima facie reading of the Scriptures, one would expect God to continue communicating to his children throughout the church age with the same variety of methods he has always used."13
WORDS SO BROADLY DEFINED
Let’s admit it: the idea that God continues to communicate with us using exactly the same methods that He has always used is not only provocative but has a certain attraction. Making it all the more interesting, Deere’s contention that the issue of whether God speaks today apart from the Bible is basically a matter of recognizing that God uses the same means to communicate today as He used in the past.14
As we ponder this claim, let us not make the mistake of saying that God has never spoken apart from Scripture, for indeed He has done just that. For example, though Moses had committed to writing the words God spoke to him, God continued to speak apart from those Scriptures through the prophets who came after Moses. Having elicited this acknowledgment from us, however, Deere wants us to take an additional step: he urges that, as God has done in the past, so we should expect Him to do in the present. (Therefore the author is burdened to biblically demonstrate the contrary. But he never does.)
As noble as Deere’s conclusion may sound, it is a seriously deficient theological view precisely because it does not respect the biblical link between the means through which God spoke and the content He conveyed through those means, namely, His very words. (We read this sentence several times and still don't know what it means.)
Others, of course, use the words "God speaks today" to mean that He guides and directs His people by giving them words of direction through all the same media that the Bible portrays Him as using in the past (e.g., visions and auditions, prophets and angels). As Deere says, "God can and does give personal words of direction to believers today that cannot be found in the Bible. I do not believe that he gives direction that contradicts the Bible, but direction that cannot be found in the Bible."7 We find the evidence for this claim, Deere argues, in the various methods God has used in the past to speak to His people.
For example, during the age of the Old Testament, Deere observes, "God spoke to his children ... in an audible voice, in dreams and visions, through circumstances and fleeces, through inner impressions, through prophets, through angels and through Scripture. "8 Turning to the Gospels, Deere notes that ‘one of the basic keys to the ministry of Jesus was that he only did what he saw his Father doing and he only spoke the words that his Father gave him to speak."9 According to Deere, the same pattern can be seen in Acts: "Special guidance [was] given to the apostles and others by visions, angelic voices, the Holy Spirit, etc."10
Finally, in the New Testament epistles, Paul instructs the churches concerning their use of the revelatory gifts of "prophecy, tongues, words of wisdom, words of knowledge, and discernment of Spirits [sic]."11 Moreover, as Deere understands it, the author of Hebrews expresses his belief that angelic visitations were possible in his day when he reminded his readers that "some have entertained angels unawares" (13:2 KJV).12
By contrast, then, with the previous definition of the phrase "God speaks today," Deere concludes that "on a prima facie reading of the Scriptures, one would expect God to continue communicating to his children throughout the church age with the same variety of methods he has always used."13
WORDS SO BROADLY DEFINED
Let’s admit it: the idea that God continues to communicate with us using exactly the same methods that He has always used is not only provocative but has a certain attraction. Making it all the more interesting, Deere’s contention that the issue of whether God speaks today apart from the Bible is basically a matter of recognizing that God uses the same means to communicate today as He used in the past.14
As we ponder this claim, let us not make the mistake of saying that God has never spoken apart from Scripture, for indeed He has done just that. For example, though Moses had committed to writing the words God spoke to him, God continued to speak apart from those Scriptures through the prophets who came after Moses. Having elicited this acknowledgment from us, however, Deere wants us to take an additional step: he urges that, as God has done in the past, so we should expect Him to do in the present. (Therefore the author is burdened to biblically demonstrate the contrary. But he never does.)
As noble as Deere’s conclusion may sound, it is a seriously deficient theological view precisely because it does not respect the biblical link between the means through which God spoke and the content He conveyed through those means, namely, His very words. (We read this sentence several times and still don't know what it means.)
In this light we must observe that, despite his intentions to the contrary, Deere actually depreciates the means through which God has communicated in the past. He insists that those means are always connected with "words of direction" from God ("(Always?" The author quoted Mr. Deere above, and we can find no hint from those quotes that God must always give words of direction when He speaks to us.)
without defining those words in other than personal and ministerial terms. (What does this mean?)
But, by defining these words so broadly, he leaves the impression that the words God spoke long ago are on a par with the words He speaks today. (The author infers what was not implied. He will now run with this inference as if it is a key weakness in Mr. Deer's position.)
That parity is actually crucial to Deere’s whole agenda. (Actually, the need to put prophetic words on par with the Bible is needed by cessationists like the author. We will show why later.)
The simple problem is this: It is not true. To see this fact, we need only reconsider Deere’s examples.
As the Old Testament portrays it, whenever God spoke apart from Scripture in the past, He never spoke, or had others speak, anything other than His very own words. (Tautology. Of course when God speaks He speaks His words.)
As the Old Testament portrays it, whenever God spoke apart from Scripture in the past, He never spoke, or had others speak, anything other than His very own words. (Tautology. Of course when God speaks He speaks His words.)
Just how radically true this was in Old Testament days is emphasized in Deuteronomy 18, arguably the fundamental biblical text on the role of the Old Testament prophet. Speaking of the prophets to and through whom He would speak after Moses, God Himself says, "I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. . . . Whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him" (vv. 18-19)15 (Hooray, our first Bible quote. But it supplies no support to the author's position.)
Therefore, during the Old Testament period, the words of direction that God spoke "apart from the Scriptures" (i.e., apart from, say, the writings of Moses) were His own words, always expressing accurately what He intended to communicate and invariably invested with absolute authority. (No one doubts that the words God speaks are His words. This is just dumb.)
What was true of God’s speech alongside the Scriptures during the Old Testament period was also true of his speech alongside the Old Testament Scriptures during the ministries of Jesus and the apostles. The words that the Father spoke to Jesus, and that Jesus spoke in turn to His hearers, were not less than the Father’s very own words. Deere is right to call our attention here especially to John’s gospel, which has a particular interest in the Father’s communication with and through His Son (see John 3:34; 7:16; 8:28; 12:49-50; 14:10, 24, 31).
Similarly, the words of direction that God communicated to and through the apostles were His very words. (1 Cor. 7:12, 25: To the rest I say this [I, not the Lord]: If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her... 25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.)
What was true of God’s speech alongside the Scriptures during the Old Testament period was also true of his speech alongside the Old Testament Scriptures during the ministries of Jesus and the apostles. The words that the Father spoke to Jesus, and that Jesus spoke in turn to His hearers, were not less than the Father’s very own words. Deere is right to call our attention here especially to John’s gospel, which has a particular interest in the Father’s communication with and through His Son (see John 3:34; 7:16; 8:28; 12:49-50; 14:10, 24, 31).
Similarly, the words of direction that God communicated to and through the apostles were His very words. (1 Cor. 7:12, 25: To the rest I say this [I, not the Lord]: If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her... 25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.)
This is the import of Jesus’ remarks to the apostles during His Farewell Discourse: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you (John 14:26). Again Jesus said to them:
When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. (16:13-14)
Thus, Paul, whom Christ added to His apostolate, says of himself and his fellow apostles, (Well, the inference is that only the apostles were so privileged. But John also writes, Jn. 14:23 Jesus replied, If anyone loves me... Anyone. Jesus took the specific to the general, so His statements no longer are restricted to the apostles.)
(1) the Holy Spirit made known to them the things freely given to us believers by God (1 Cor. 2:10, 12), and (2) they spoke of those things, "not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those [words] taught by the Spirit" (2:13) (Paul uses the pronoun "we." The author assumes it's only the apostles, but the passage doesn't tell us this. In fact, verse 11 [skipped by the author, interestingly] says,
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no-one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
Paul spoke broadly about "we," implying that knowing God's thoughts is more than the apostles. Especially since "we" have received the Spirit [vs. 12], who is required in order to understand the things of God [vs. 14].)
—words invariably accurate and fully authoritative.16 (The author reaches a conclusion about revelation based on his biases only.)
The same is evident in Acts: the words of direction that God communicated to and through the apostles and others were always His very own words. (The author is attempting to set up a Straw Man regarding the idea that ALL revelation is on the same level as Scripture. The biblical basis for such a position is not found.)
Deere and those who agree with him are fond of citing Acts 16:9-10 (Paul’s vision of the Macedonian call) as an example of the personal-ministerial and extrabiblical revelation that does not contradict God’s revelation in Scripture.17 Certainly the revelation in this passage is "personal-ministerial and extrabiblical," that is, apart from Scripture as it existed at that point. But, just as certainly, it is nothing less than one of those always accurate, invariably authoritative words from God. (He repeats his undocumented assumption.)
Consistent with this portrayal of the apostles in Acts, the New Testament prophets are, at least ostensibly, depicted in Acts as following in the footsteps of their Old Testament forebears — that is, they too receive words from God through the Spirit that are His very own words. There are only three occasions in the New Testament where the actual contents of a specific post-Pentecost prophecy are recorded: the two prophecies of Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11) and the prophecy of John in the book of Revelation.l8 We may leave aside the example of the book of Revelation, since no one discussing the issue before us questions that the visions in that book communicated God’s own words.
As for Agabus, Luke portrays this New Testament prophet as one who spoke whatever words the Holy Spirit had to say In fact, in Acts 21:10, 11, "Agabus’ use of dramatic symbol and quotation formula [tying his own hands and feet with Paul’s belt and introducing his oracle with the words ‘This is what the Holy Spirit says’] would have signaled to his audience that [his] prophecy was the same in kind as oracles delivered by OT prophets."19 Indeed, though some persist in questioning the accuracy of Agabus’s prophecy in Acts 21, "in every respect, Luke expected his readers to view Agabus in continuity with OT prophets."20 (Indeed, we believe that Agabus' prophecy about Paul is accurate in substance but not in detail. Let's actually quote the passages involved: First, Agabus' prophecy about what would happen to Paul:
This may be a minor point, but remember, we are talking about the need for 100% accuracy on every detail. Even the small ones. So, did the Jews hand him over to the Gentiles? No, they were going to kill him (vs. 31), and The Romans seized him to rescue him from the mob. Did the Jews bind him? No, because vs. 33 clearly says that once the commander saw him he ordered him to be bound.
Consistent with this portrayal of the apostles in Acts, the New Testament prophets are, at least ostensibly, depicted in Acts as following in the footsteps of their Old Testament forebears — that is, they too receive words from God through the Spirit that are His very own words. There are only three occasions in the New Testament where the actual contents of a specific post-Pentecost prophecy are recorded: the two prophecies of Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11) and the prophecy of John in the book of Revelation.l8 We may leave aside the example of the book of Revelation, since no one discussing the issue before us questions that the visions in that book communicated God’s own words.
As for Agabus, Luke portrays this New Testament prophet as one who spoke whatever words the Holy Spirit had to say In fact, in Acts 21:10, 11, "Agabus’ use of dramatic symbol and quotation formula [tying his own hands and feet with Paul’s belt and introducing his oracle with the words ‘This is what the Holy Spirit says’] would have signaled to his audience that [his] prophecy was the same in kind as oracles delivered by OT prophets."19 Indeed, though some persist in questioning the accuracy of Agabus’s prophecy in Acts 21, "in every respect, Luke expected his readers to view Agabus in continuity with OT prophets."20 (Indeed, we believe that Agabus' prophecy about Paul is accurate in substance but not in detail. Let's actually quote the passages involved: First, Agabus' prophecy about what would happen to Paul:
Ac. 21:10-11 After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, “The Holy Spirit says, `In this way the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles."Here's what actually happened to Paul:
Ac. 21:30-33 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. 31 While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar. 32 He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran down to the crowd. When the rioters saw the commander and his soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. 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.
More to the point, as the author noted, we have a paucity of actual NT prophecies recorded, despite the fact that there are numerous NT prophets mentioned by name:
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.”
Ac. 15:32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers.
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.
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.
If these prophets spoke true "authoritative" prophecies, then why aren't these prophecies recorded in the Bible? And why did Paul not obey Agabus' largely accurate prophecy? And lastly, if the only prophet quoted in the NT can get a detail wrong but still be regarded as a prophet, what does that say about the gift of prophecy?)
We cannot discuss them here, but other instances from Acts confirm that the words communicated to the apostles and others through many different media were invariably accurate, fully authoritative words from God (e.g., Acts 8:26, 29; 9:10-12; 10:9-19; 13:1-3; 18:9-10). As for the angelic visitations to which the author of Hebrews refers (Heb. 13:2), the only words the Bible ever represents God’s angels as speaking or otherwise communicating were God’s very own (Heb. 2:2; Gen. 18-19; Zech. 1:14-16; Rev. 1:1; 22:6).
My aim in all that I have considered so far is to demonstrate that — for all the interest Deere has in teaching us the biblical model of hearing God as practiced by Jesus, the apostles, and others — he fundamentally misrepresents the very model he has chosen. Deere creates the impression that the revelatory words God spoke in biblical times are on a par with the words He speaks today (The author extends his Straw Man.)
We cannot discuss them here, but other instances from Acts confirm that the words communicated to the apostles and others through many different media were invariably accurate, fully authoritative words from God (e.g., Acts 8:26, 29; 9:10-12; 10:9-19; 13:1-3; 18:9-10). As for the angelic visitations to which the author of Hebrews refers (Heb. 13:2), the only words the Bible ever represents God’s angels as speaking or otherwise communicating were God’s very own (Heb. 2:2; Gen. 18-19; Zech. 1:14-16; Rev. 1:1; 22:6).
My aim in all that I have considered so far is to demonstrate that — for all the interest Deere has in teaching us the biblical model of hearing God as practiced by Jesus, the apostles, and others — he fundamentally misrepresents the very model he has chosen. Deere creates the impression that the revelatory words God spoke in biblical times are on a par with the words He speaks today (The author extends his Straw Man.)
Even if he is right that the "words of direction" in the Bible are both personal and ministerial words, he has still not produced a single incontrovertible biblical example in which those words are anything other than God’s very own words. (This is an astonishing claim, considering the author has not done this himself.)
To the contrary, in every example that has come to my attention, God saw to it that whatever He intended to communicate was always accurately expressed and invariably invested with His authority (Thus with a flourish the author appeals to his own limited experience as evidence.)
This brings me to some important evidence I have not yet considered — namely, Paul’s instructions regarding the church’s use of the revelatory gifts.
NO LONGER SPEAKING AS BEFORE
Deere’s aim is to persuade that just as God used revelatory gifts to give words of direction to His children in biblical days, so He still does today But this is simply not the whole picture. For Deere, the words God speaks today through those gifts are simply not on a par with the inerrant, fully authoritative words that He spoke in the past.21 (Ah, so we've come to the crux of the matter. After setting us up with the faulty idea that all revelation is authoritative, he now sets out to try to prove that contemporary prophecy fails this requirement.)
NO LONGER SPEAKING AS BEFORE
Deere’s aim is to persuade that just as God used revelatory gifts to give words of direction to His children in biblical days, so He still does today But this is simply not the whole picture. For Deere, the words God speaks today through those gifts are simply not on a par with the inerrant, fully authoritative words that He spoke in the past.21 (Ah, so we've come to the crux of the matter. After setting us up with the faulty idea that all revelation is authoritative, he now sets out to try to prove that contemporary prophecy fails this requirement.)
To find the basis of Deere’s affirmations here, we must turn to Professor Wayne Grudem’s influential writings on New Testament prophecy22
Grudem’s position can be summarized this way: In the New Testament gift of prophecy (and its correlates — visions, dreams, auditions, words of knowledge, and wisdom) the church should find a source of practical, though fallible, guidance. To adequately consider this proposition, we must notice that Grudem says very plainly that God now speaks as He has never previously spoken. Though the means through which God speaks are purportedly the same, the words He speaks are different from everything He has said before — to the Old Testament saints, to Jesus, to the apostles. In short, the words God speaks have been redefined, for they are no longer His very words, inerrant and authoritative. (This is what we mean. In the author's mind, the gift of prophecy must be authoritative, on the same level as Scripture itself.
Grudem’s position can be summarized this way: In the New Testament gift of prophecy (and its correlates — visions, dreams, auditions, words of knowledge, and wisdom) the church should find a source of practical, though fallible, guidance. To adequately consider this proposition, we must notice that Grudem says very plainly that God now speaks as He has never previously spoken. Though the means through which God speaks are purportedly the same, the words He speaks are different from everything He has said before — to the Old Testament saints, to Jesus, to the apostles. In short, the words God speaks have been redefined, for they are no longer His very words, inerrant and authoritative. (This is what we mean. In the author's mind, the gift of prophecy must be authoritative, on the same level as Scripture itself.
Apparently he has persuaded himself of the truth of this, so he now abandons this line of thought, moving on to suggest that weighing prophecy means making a determination of "false prophet/true prophet." Thus if there's one element of inaccuracy in a prophecy it dooms the prophet forever.
The author supplies no biblical documentation of this.)
If the Bible actually says that this is the case, then so be it. But we need to consider Grudem’s evidence from the Bible. (Ah, the Bible. Let's see how the author does in quoting the Bible.)
If the Bible actually says that this is the case, then so be it. But we need to consider Grudem’s evidence from the Bible. (Ah, the Bible. Let's see how the author does in quoting the Bible.)
Aside from his treatment of Agabus the prophet, Grudem’s chief support for prophecy as a source of fallible practical guidance comes from two texts: 1 Corinthians 14:29 and I Thessalonians 5:20-22.
In 1 Corinthians 14:29, Paul writes, "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment." The issue relevant to our concerns is the unidentified object on which "the others pass judgment." Is it the true and false elements in each oracle,23 or is it the true and false oracles (of true and false prophets, respectively) among the many oracles the church heard? (The author leaves no room for a prophet getting things incorrect, yet still retaining status as a prophet.)
In 1 Corinthians 14:29, Paul writes, "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment." The issue relevant to our concerns is the unidentified object on which "the others pass judgment." Is it the true and false elements in each oracle,23 or is it the true and false oracles (of true and false prophets, respectively) among the many oracles the church heard? (The author leaves no room for a prophet getting things incorrect, yet still retaining status as a prophet.)
As others have done, Grudem takes the former view, primarily because the Greek verb (diakrino) translated "pass judgment" involves a sorting or sifting activity24 (So it's a common view that judging prophecy is an examination of the various elements to see what's true and what's false or mistaken. The author will take a different view, which is all well and good, but we're simply in the realm of opinions now.)
In favor of the latter view, note that Paul refers to "prophets" (plural) speaking their revelations in 14:29-30, not to mention "prophecies" (plural) in 1 Thessalonians 5:20. In other words, the apostle presupposes that the churches would be hearing multiple prophecies from multiple prophets. In this light, Grudem’s interpretation is clearly not in keeping with Paul’s exact words. The apostle does not instruct the churches to sort out the true and false elements in any particular prophecy. Rather, he instructs them to sort out the true and false prophecies among the many they would hear.25 (So this is the contrasting view. But the author will extend it to assert that any false or mistaken prophecy means the prophet is false.)
When we compare this view of 1 Corinthians 14:29 with the use of the verb diakrino within and outside the New Testament, we find that it is perfectly consistent with that usage: The verb is applied to sifting wheat from chaff (Philo), distinguishing the clean from the unclean (Josephus), separating the guilty from others (Josephus), discerning good from evil (Testament of Asher), sorting true from false (Philo), distinguishing Jews from Gentiles (Acts 15:9; cf. 11:2), distinguishing certain people from others (1 Cor. 4:7), and forming a right (instead of a wrong) judgment of oneself (11:31)26 This evidence falsifies Grudem’s claim that the New Testament prefers - and Paul would have preferred — the verb krino over diakrino "when speaking of judgments where there are only two possibilities, such as ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’, ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, or ‘true’ or ‘false’."27 But we look in vain for any examples where diakrino implies judgments involving more than two possibilities. (Hmm. True versus false does not require more than two possibilities. If there are some elements of a prophecy that are true and some that are not true, we are still in the realm of two possibilities. So, what is the author talking about?)
To round out our discussion of diakrino, notice its use in 1 Corinthians 6:5: "Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren?"28 Contrary to Grudem’s argument, in the context immediately following 6:5, Paul shows his awareness of only two possible outcomes (We are still puzzled. Where did Grudem suggest there must be more than two possible outcomes?)
When we compare this view of 1 Corinthians 14:29 with the use of the verb diakrino within and outside the New Testament, we find that it is perfectly consistent with that usage: The verb is applied to sifting wheat from chaff (Philo), distinguishing the clean from the unclean (Josephus), separating the guilty from others (Josephus), discerning good from evil (Testament of Asher), sorting true from false (Philo), distinguishing Jews from Gentiles (Acts 15:9; cf. 11:2), distinguishing certain people from others (1 Cor. 4:7), and forming a right (instead of a wrong) judgment of oneself (11:31)26 This evidence falsifies Grudem’s claim that the New Testament prefers - and Paul would have preferred — the verb krino over diakrino "when speaking of judgments where there are only two possibilities, such as ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’, ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, or ‘true’ or ‘false’."27 But we look in vain for any examples where diakrino implies judgments involving more than two possibilities. (Hmm. True versus false does not require more than two possibilities. If there are some elements of a prophecy that are true and some that are not true, we are still in the realm of two possibilities. So, what is the author talking about?)
To round out our discussion of diakrino, notice its use in 1 Corinthians 6:5: "Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren?"28 Contrary to Grudem’s argument, in the context immediately following 6:5, Paul shows his awareness of only two possible outcomes (We are still puzzled. Where did Grudem suggest there must be more than two possible outcomes?)
when a believer has a grievance against his neighbor: one will be wronged or defrauded (v. 7), the other guilty of wrongdoing or defrauding (v. 8). The pertinent point, however, is that the wise man’s duty, as implied by diakrino, is to sort out the wrongdoer from his victim on the basis of the evidence. By analogy in 1 Corinthians 14:29, the duty of "the others" is to sort out the true prophet from the false prophet on the basis of their oracles (see, e.g., 1 Cor. 12:3; 14:37; cf. Eph. 4:14-15 with 4:4-6,11).
My conclusions are virtually the same when I consider 1 Thessalonians 5:20-22. In 5:20 Paul warns the Thessalonians not to despise prophecies. Clearly the Thessalonians’ esteem for prophecy was not what it should have been. But why? As 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3, 15 suggests, they had overreacted to an influx of false prophecies that were confusing them and threatening to lead them astray29 Consequently, in 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22, Paul corrects the Thessalonians’ overreaction by directing them to test everything and, having done so, to adhere to what is good and to avoid what is evil. Paul’s exact wording in 5:20 ("prophecies" [plural]), coupled with the testing for good and evil in verses 21-22, implies that he was expecting the church to test multiple prophecies among which they would find false prophecies as well as true ones.30 Thus, the instructions to the Thessalonians mirror Paul’s command in 1 Corinthians 14:29: The testing of prophecies presupposes that the prophecies heard in the churches might well have included both true and false prophecies (from both true and false prophets, respectively) among them. (Hmm. The author tries to slip one past us. "Test" is dokimazo, a completely different Greek word. It means 1. to test, examine, prove, scrutinize (to see whether a thing be genuine or not), as metals... Metal contains impurities. A blacksmith does not discard a chunk of pure metal, he works with the good and separates out the bad.
My conclusions are virtually the same when I consider 1 Thessalonians 5:20-22. In 5:20 Paul warns the Thessalonians not to despise prophecies. Clearly the Thessalonians’ esteem for prophecy was not what it should have been. But why? As 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3, 15 suggests, they had overreacted to an influx of false prophecies that were confusing them and threatening to lead them astray29 Consequently, in 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22, Paul corrects the Thessalonians’ overreaction by directing them to test everything and, having done so, to adhere to what is good and to avoid what is evil. Paul’s exact wording in 5:20 ("prophecies" [plural]), coupled with the testing for good and evil in verses 21-22, implies that he was expecting the church to test multiple prophecies among which they would find false prophecies as well as true ones.30 Thus, the instructions to the Thessalonians mirror Paul’s command in 1 Corinthians 14:29: The testing of prophecies presupposes that the prophecies heard in the churches might well have included both true and false prophecies (from both true and false prophets, respectively) among them. (Hmm. The author tries to slip one past us. "Test" is dokimazo, a completely different Greek word. It means 1. to test, examine, prove, scrutinize (to see whether a thing be genuine or not), as metals... Metal contains impurities. A blacksmith does not discard a chunk of pure metal, he works with the good and separates out the bad.
The author is now deceiving us.)
In light of these factors, we have to say that Grudem fundamentally misunderstands Paul’s directives in 1 Corinthians 14:29 and 1 Thessalonians 5:20-22. The accuracy of the interpretation presented here, however, is confirmed by its consistency with the broader teaching of the Bible. According to that teaching, the church, like Israel, judged prophecies in order to separate the true prophets from the false (Deut. 13:1-5; 1 Kings 13; Matt. 7:15-20 with 12:32-37 and 24:23-26; 1 John 4:1-6; cf. Rom. 16:17-19). In carrying out this responsibility, the church exercised discernment based on the explicit, absolute standards of good and evil (1 Thess. 5:21-22), truth and error (1 John 4:1-6), and thus determined the source of the prophecies they heard, whether they were from the Holy Spirit or from some other source.31 (The author will never tell us about the remedy for false prophets, that is, to put them to death.)
We may say, therefore, that for Paul and the rest of the New Testament authors, the judging of New Testament prophecies was a process of evaluating the prophets’ oracles in order to pass judgment on the prophets themselves (There is no NT verse that tells us to judge a prophet.)
In light of these factors, we have to say that Grudem fundamentally misunderstands Paul’s directives in 1 Corinthians 14:29 and 1 Thessalonians 5:20-22. The accuracy of the interpretation presented here, however, is confirmed by its consistency with the broader teaching of the Bible. According to that teaching, the church, like Israel, judged prophecies in order to separate the true prophets from the false (Deut. 13:1-5; 1 Kings 13; Matt. 7:15-20 with 12:32-37 and 24:23-26; 1 John 4:1-6; cf. Rom. 16:17-19). In carrying out this responsibility, the church exercised discernment based on the explicit, absolute standards of good and evil (1 Thess. 5:21-22), truth and error (1 John 4:1-6), and thus determined the source of the prophecies they heard, whether they were from the Holy Spirit or from some other source.31 (The author will never tell us about the remedy for false prophets, that is, to put them to death.)
We may say, therefore, that for Paul and the rest of the New Testament authors, the judging of New Testament prophecies was a process of evaluating the prophets’ oracles in order to pass judgment on the prophets themselves (There is no NT verse that tells us to judge a prophet.)
and thus discern the source of their oracles. This interpretation, we submit, is alone able to account for the admonitions that Christ and His apostles gave to the church regarding false prophecies and false prophets. The church was told in no uncertain terms not to tolerate prophets whose words were false or evil and were thus a threat to lead them astray (Matt. 7:15-20 with 12:32-37 and 24:23-26; 1 John 4:1-6; 1 Thess. 5:22; 2 Thess. 2:3, 15; Rev. 2:20-23; cf. Rom. 16:17-19).
CONCLUSION
Some present-day evangelicals, Jack Deere and Wayne Grudem among them, believe and teach that God speaks today apart from the Bible. (It's interesting that the author has never discussed whether or not God actually does speak apart from Scripture in our day.)
CONCLUSION
Some present-day evangelicals, Jack Deere and Wayne Grudem among them, believe and teach that God speaks today apart from the Bible. (It's interesting that the author has never discussed whether or not God actually does speak apart from Scripture in our day.)
According to these teachers, God gives words of personal or ministry direction to His people using all the same means that He used in the past. Yet, when we consider the evidence for these views, we find that their resemblance to what the Bible actually depicts is more apparent than real. Whatever else Deere is teaching, he is not teaching the model of hearing God’s voice as practiced in the Bible itself. Similarly, Grudem has transformed Paul into an eccentric who is patently out of step with other New Testament authors, indeed with all other biblical authors, when it comes to the crucial matter of judging prophecies.
In my judgment,32 what these teachers and their disciples fail to appreciate is that, in the Bible, God’s activity of speaking apart from the Scriptures occurred at a time when those documents were still being written. Interestingly, during that long history of Scripture writing, God’s people did live by a "Scripture plus" principle of authority, and, in keeping with that principle, God employed various means to speak His extrascriptural words to them. But today the church is faced with a new situation: now, with centuries of Christian orthodoxy, we confess that the writing of Scripture is finished, that the canon is actually closed. (Most every Christian assents to this doctrine.)
But why does the church affirm that the canon is closed? The only demonstrable basis for this affirmation is that God’s giving of revelation, spoken and written, is always historically joined to and qualified by God’s work of redemption.33 Now that God has accomplished salvation once-for-all, in Christ, He has also spoken His word, once-for-all, in Christ and in those whom Christ authorized and empowered by His Spirit (Heb. 1:1-2; 2:3, 4; Matt. 16:15-19; John 14:26; Eph. 2:19, 20). With the completion of salvation in Christ comes the cessation of revelation. (??? The author offers a bare conclusion. What is the biblical source of this idea?
In my judgment,32 what these teachers and their disciples fail to appreciate is that, in the Bible, God’s activity of speaking apart from the Scriptures occurred at a time when those documents were still being written. Interestingly, during that long history of Scripture writing, God’s people did live by a "Scripture plus" principle of authority, and, in keeping with that principle, God employed various means to speak His extrascriptural words to them. But today the church is faced with a new situation: now, with centuries of Christian orthodoxy, we confess that the writing of Scripture is finished, that the canon is actually closed. (Most every Christian assents to this doctrine.)
But why does the church affirm that the canon is closed? The only demonstrable basis for this affirmation is that God’s giving of revelation, spoken and written, is always historically joined to and qualified by God’s work of redemption.33 Now that God has accomplished salvation once-for-all, in Christ, He has also spoken His word, once-for-all, in Christ and in those whom Christ authorized and empowered by His Spirit (Heb. 1:1-2; 2:3, 4; Matt. 16:15-19; John 14:26; Eph. 2:19, 20). With the completion of salvation in Christ comes the cessation of revelation. (??? The author offers a bare conclusion. What is the biblical source of this idea?
As mentioned, the author views all revelation as authoritative, which means that contemporary prophecy would need to be included in Scripture. But the closed canon means that contemporary prophecy is false.
None of these ideas are found in the Bible.)
Consequently, the church now lives by a "Scripture only" principle of authority To tamper with this principle invites a host of theological and pastoral problems. The proof of this observation can be seen in the effect of these "prophecies" upon many who are being led far afield from the sufficiency of the gospel itself. Its finality and complete sufficiency is, in reality, subtly assaulted by these claims to modern prophecies. (The author, like most cessationists, reinterpret the term "sufficient" to mean "all there is and no more," when the word actually means "enough." Scripture can be enough without being all there is.)
Finally, the Bible gives us no reason to expect that God will speak to His children today apart from the Scriptures.34
Finally, the Bible gives us no reason to expect that God will speak to His children today apart from the Scriptures.34
(Re. 2:7 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.He. 4:7 “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”He. 12:25 See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks.1Co. 12:7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good... 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy...1Co. 14:1 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.)
Those who teach otherwise need to explain to God’s children how these words "freshly spoken from heaven" can be so necessary and strategic to God’s highest purposes for their lives when their Father does nothing to ensure that they will ever actually hear those words. Indeed, they must explain why this is not quenching the Spirit. Moreover, the promise of such guidance inevitably diverts attention from the Scriptures, particularly in the practical and pressing concerns of life. Let us never underestimate just how serious this diversion really is. In the Bible the church hears God’s true voice; in the Scriptures, we know that He is speaking His very words to us. Advocates of words "freshly spoken from heaven" should beware: By diverting attention from the Scriptures, they quench the Spirit who is speaking therein.
NOTES
Throughout this chapter, the terms the Bible, the Scriptures, and Scripture will refer to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, excluding those books commonly called the Apocrypha.
The New American Standard Bible rightly brings out the ongoing nature of God’s action of speaking by translating the present participle (ton lalounta) in Heb. 12:25 as "Him who is speaking." The accuracy of this insight is confirmed by the fact that His speaking is contrasted with God’s past warnings in the same verse.
William DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit: Examining the Centuries of Opposition to the Moving of the Holy Spirit (Altamonte Springs, Fla.: Creation House, 1992).
Mark Thompson, "Spiritual Warfare: What Happens When I Contradict Myself," The Briefing no. 45/46 (24 April 1990): 11. This quotation, originally taken from a 1990 conference talk by Jack Deere, is cited without denial, qualification, or retraction by Deere in his essay "Vineyard Position Paper #2: The Vineyard’s Response to The Briefing" (Anaheim, Calif.: Association of Vineyard Churches, 1992), 22-23.
For an informative, detailed, and (virtually) nonevaluative survey of charismatic views of prophecy, see Mark J. Cartledge, "Charismatic Prophecy: A Definition and Description," Journal of Pentecostal Theology 5 (1994): 79-1 20.
Illustrative of this viewpoint are the following words from John Murray ("The Guidance of the Holy Spirit," in Collected Writings of John Murray, Volume 1: The Claims of Truth [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 19761):
We must rely upon the Holy Spirit to direct and guide us in the understanding and application of God’s will as revealed in Scripture, and we must be constantly conscious of our need of the Holy Spirit to apply the Word effectively to us in each situation. The function of the Holy Spirit in such matters is that of illumination as to what the will of the Lord is, and of imparting to us the willingness and strength to do that will. . . As we are the subjects of this illumination and are responsive to it, and as the Holy Spirit is operative in us to the doing of God’s will, we shall have feelings, impressions, convictions, urges, inhibitions, impulses, burdens, resolutions. Illumination and direction by the Spirit through the Word of God will focus themselves in our consciousness in these ways. . . It is here, however, that careful distinction is necessary The moment we desire or expect or think that a state of our consciousness is the effect of a direct intimation to us of the Holy Spirit’s will, or consists in such an intimation and is therefore in the category of special direction from him, then we have given way to the notion of special, direct, detached communication from the Holy Spirit. And this, in respect of its nature, belongs to the same category as belief in special revelation. The only way whereby we can avoid this error is to maintain that the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit is through the means which he has provided, and that his work is to enable us rightly to interpret and apply the Scripture in the various situations of life, and to enable us to, interpret all the factors which enter into each situation in the light of Scripture. (pp. 188-89)
Deere, "Vineyard Position Paper #2," 15. The similarity between Deere’s teaching and that of Pentecostal theologian J. Rodman Williams (Renewal Theology [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988-921, 1:43-44 and 2:382) is worth noting.
Deere, "Vineyard Position Paper #2," 23.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid. Deere’s description of hearing God’s voice is profoundly similar to the (more or less) typical charismatic description. See Cartledge, "Charismatic Prophecy," 82-99.
See not only Deere’s "Vineyard Position Paper #2," 22-24, but also his Surprised by the Power of the Spirit: A Former Dallas Seminary Professor Discovers That God Speaks and Heals Today (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 213-15.
In Numbers 12:6-8 and Deuteronomy 13:1-5, God links the activity of the prophet with the dreams and visions of the seer. Notice that, even when God employed different media to speak with the prophets after Moses, that distinction did not change the nature of what they spoke: they, like Moses, spoke the very words of God.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 60-61.
I first heard Deere cite this passage in a paper presentation at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society November 1991. See also his "Appendix 7: The Sufficiency of Scripture and Distortion of What Scripture Teaches About Itself," in The Kingdom and the Power: Are Healing and the Spiritual Gifts Used by Jesus and the Early Church Meant for the Church Today? ed. Gary S. Greig and Kevin N. Springer (Ventura, Calif.: Regal, 1993), 440.
Richard B. Gaffin, "A Friend’s Response to Wayne Grudem" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, 21 November 1992), 2.
John W Hilber, "Diversity of OT Prophetic Phenomena and NT Prophecy," Westminster Theological Journal 56 (1994): 255. Also, the introductory phrase Agabus uses (tade legei) is identical to the phrase John uses to introduce his direct quotation of Christ’s messages to the seven churches of Asia Minor in Revelation 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14 (Robert L. Thomas, "Prophecy Rediscovered? A Review of the Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today" Bibliotheca Sacra 149 119921:91). Moreover, the words are equivalent to the phrase "what the Spirit says to the churches," which closes each of Christ’s messages (Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). Furthermore, as Hilber (p. 255 n. 47) points out, Grudem fails to take into account that Agabus’s introductory words are the quotation formula in the Greek Old Testament for "Thus says the Lord." Clearly, this is the most relevant background for our interpretation of Acts 21:11. In fact, Hilber (ibid.) points out that Agabus’s "substitution of ‘Holy Spirit’ for ‘Yahweh’ [the LORD] is consistent with the theological tendency in Acts to attribute divine work to the Holy Spirit."
Hilber, "Diversity of OT Prophetic Phenomena," 256. Hilber notes that Grudem concedes the accuracy of Agabus’s prophecy in Acts 11:28. On the accuracy, if imprecision, of Agabus in Acts 21, see Hilber (pp. 250 n. 31, 255-56) and the literature he cites, as well as David B. McWilliams, "Something New Under the Sun?" Westminster Theological Journal 54 (1992): 325-26.
Deere has intimated his agreement with Grudem’s position on New Testament prophecy, which denies the infallibility of present-day prophetic utterances (see n. 22 below). Nevertheless, in his published comments on God’s "fresh words from heaven," Deere has not explicitly ruled out the possibility that those words may be God’s own words unmixed with words from other sources. All he has said is that they do not contradict the Bible. The latter affirmation does not preclude the infallibility of these "fresh" words of direction, provided Deere believes that God reveals His will on two tracks, one public and one private. On this latter point, see the conclusion to this chapter.
See Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1988); and Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1049-61. Though not explicitly stated in his writings to date, Deere’s indebtedness to and general agreement with Grudem are discernible and otherwise well known among those who have heard him comment on the subject of New Testament prophecy In a planned forthcoming book, tentatively entitled Surprised by the Voice of God, Deere’s own thoughts on the New Testament revelatory gifts will be published. For the present essay, the broad outline of his teaching and its compatibility with Grudem’s views have been gleaned from "Vineyard Position Paper #2," 14-15, 22-24; and from Surprised by the Power of the Spirit, chap. 10 ("Why God Gives Miraculous Gifts") and Epilogue ("Hearing God Speak Today").
Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, 74-79; cf. 104-5.
Ibid., 76-79. Of I Corinthians 14:29, M. M. B. Turner ("Spiritual Gifts Then and Now," Vox Evangelica 15 119851) has written, "The presupposition is that any one New Testament prophetic oracle is expected to be mixed in quality, and the wheat must be separated from the chaff" (p. 16).
For a similar conclusion, see Hilber, "Diversity of OT Prophetic Phenomena," 256-58.
Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, 76.
Ibid., 77.
Ibid.
According to 2 Thessalonians 2:2, a false prophet or an oracle of a false prophet ("spirit" NASB; "prophecy" NIV; Gk. pneuma) had disturbed and was threatening to deceive the Thessalonians. Contrary to Grudem’s analysis (The Gift of Prophecy, 104-5), we have no indication that they had overreacted to Paul’s teaching that true prophecies were less authoritative than Scripture.
Contrary to Grudem’s inference (The Gift of Prophecy, 104-5), Paul’s words do not imply that there were many things that were not good in the true prophecies the Thessalonians were hearing.
In line with this picture we find Paul citing standards by which the congregations should judge prophecies (1 Cor. 12:3; 14:37; 1 Thess. 5:21-22; 2 Thess. 2:15; and perhaps Eph. 4:4-15 with 4:4-6, 11). These standards are in stark contrast to Grudem’s graded scale of value and truth in New Testament prophecies. See Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, 76-77. Strikingly, Pentecostal theologian Williams (Renewal Theology, 2:382 n. 164, 2:386 n. 187) emphatically rejects Grudem’s interpretation of New Testament prophetic oracles as a mixture of true and false and of the judging activity applied thereto.
For a more complete exposition of the concerns broached in this conclusion, see Gaffin, "A Friend's Response to Wayne Grudem," 6-12. See also Richard B. Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost: New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit (Phillipsburg, NJ.: Presb. & Ref., 1979), 97-99, and his "The New Testament as Canon," in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic: A Tradition, A Challenge, A Debate, ed. H. M. Conn (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 172-81.
See Herman N. Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures, 2d rev. ed., trans. H. De Jongste and rev. R. B. Gaffin, Jr. (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presb. & Ref., 1988), passim, esp. p. 31. Of special note, though Deere teaches that the canon is closed, he fails to grasp the relationship between revelation and redemption and can therefore provide no rationale or basis for his teaching.
It remains for those who differ with this conclusion to produce the evidence that shifts the burden of proof from themselves to others.
Author
R. Fowler While (B.A., M.A., Vanderbilt Univ.; Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Westminster Theological Seminary) is associate professor of New Testament and Biblical Languages at Knox Theological Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Formerly he was a lecturer at Westminster Theological Seminary for several years and is the author of Victory and House Building in Revelation 20:1-21:8: A Thematic Study. He also has served as a freelance editor for Baker Book House and other publishers.
NOTES
Throughout this chapter, the terms the Bible, the Scriptures, and Scripture will refer to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, excluding those books commonly called the Apocrypha.
The New American Standard Bible rightly brings out the ongoing nature of God’s action of speaking by translating the present participle (ton lalounta) in Heb. 12:25 as "Him who is speaking." The accuracy of this insight is confirmed by the fact that His speaking is contrasted with God’s past warnings in the same verse.
William DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit: Examining the Centuries of Opposition to the Moving of the Holy Spirit (Altamonte Springs, Fla.: Creation House, 1992).
Mark Thompson, "Spiritual Warfare: What Happens When I Contradict Myself," The Briefing no. 45/46 (24 April 1990): 11. This quotation, originally taken from a 1990 conference talk by Jack Deere, is cited without denial, qualification, or retraction by Deere in his essay "Vineyard Position Paper #2: The Vineyard’s Response to The Briefing" (Anaheim, Calif.: Association of Vineyard Churches, 1992), 22-23.
For an informative, detailed, and (virtually) nonevaluative survey of charismatic views of prophecy, see Mark J. Cartledge, "Charismatic Prophecy: A Definition and Description," Journal of Pentecostal Theology 5 (1994): 79-1 20.
Illustrative of this viewpoint are the following words from John Murray ("The Guidance of the Holy Spirit," in Collected Writings of John Murray, Volume 1: The Claims of Truth [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 19761):
We must rely upon the Holy Spirit to direct and guide us in the understanding and application of God’s will as revealed in Scripture, and we must be constantly conscious of our need of the Holy Spirit to apply the Word effectively to us in each situation. The function of the Holy Spirit in such matters is that of illumination as to what the will of the Lord is, and of imparting to us the willingness and strength to do that will. . . As we are the subjects of this illumination and are responsive to it, and as the Holy Spirit is operative in us to the doing of God’s will, we shall have feelings, impressions, convictions, urges, inhibitions, impulses, burdens, resolutions. Illumination and direction by the Spirit through the Word of God will focus themselves in our consciousness in these ways. . . It is here, however, that careful distinction is necessary The moment we desire or expect or think that a state of our consciousness is the effect of a direct intimation to us of the Holy Spirit’s will, or consists in such an intimation and is therefore in the category of special direction from him, then we have given way to the notion of special, direct, detached communication from the Holy Spirit. And this, in respect of its nature, belongs to the same category as belief in special revelation. The only way whereby we can avoid this error is to maintain that the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit is through the means which he has provided, and that his work is to enable us rightly to interpret and apply the Scripture in the various situations of life, and to enable us to, interpret all the factors which enter into each situation in the light of Scripture. (pp. 188-89)
Deere, "Vineyard Position Paper #2," 15. The similarity between Deere’s teaching and that of Pentecostal theologian J. Rodman Williams (Renewal Theology [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988-921, 1:43-44 and 2:382) is worth noting.
Deere, "Vineyard Position Paper #2," 23.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid. Deere’s description of hearing God’s voice is profoundly similar to the (more or less) typical charismatic description. See Cartledge, "Charismatic Prophecy," 82-99.
See not only Deere’s "Vineyard Position Paper #2," 22-24, but also his Surprised by the Power of the Spirit: A Former Dallas Seminary Professor Discovers That God Speaks and Heals Today (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 213-15.
In Numbers 12:6-8 and Deuteronomy 13:1-5, God links the activity of the prophet with the dreams and visions of the seer. Notice that, even when God employed different media to speak with the prophets after Moses, that distinction did not change the nature of what they spoke: they, like Moses, spoke the very words of God.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 60-61.
I first heard Deere cite this passage in a paper presentation at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society November 1991. See also his "Appendix 7: The Sufficiency of Scripture and Distortion of What Scripture Teaches About Itself," in The Kingdom and the Power: Are Healing and the Spiritual Gifts Used by Jesus and the Early Church Meant for the Church Today? ed. Gary S. Greig and Kevin N. Springer (Ventura, Calif.: Regal, 1993), 440.
Richard B. Gaffin, "A Friend’s Response to Wayne Grudem" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, 21 November 1992), 2.
John W Hilber, "Diversity of OT Prophetic Phenomena and NT Prophecy," Westminster Theological Journal 56 (1994): 255. Also, the introductory phrase Agabus uses (tade legei) is identical to the phrase John uses to introduce his direct quotation of Christ’s messages to the seven churches of Asia Minor in Revelation 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14 (Robert L. Thomas, "Prophecy Rediscovered? A Review of the Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today" Bibliotheca Sacra 149 119921:91). Moreover, the words are equivalent to the phrase "what the Spirit says to the churches," which closes each of Christ’s messages (Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). Furthermore, as Hilber (p. 255 n. 47) points out, Grudem fails to take into account that Agabus’s introductory words are the quotation formula in the Greek Old Testament for "Thus says the Lord." Clearly, this is the most relevant background for our interpretation of Acts 21:11. In fact, Hilber (ibid.) points out that Agabus’s "substitution of ‘Holy Spirit’ for ‘Yahweh’ [the LORD] is consistent with the theological tendency in Acts to attribute divine work to the Holy Spirit."
Hilber, "Diversity of OT Prophetic Phenomena," 256. Hilber notes that Grudem concedes the accuracy of Agabus’s prophecy in Acts 11:28. On the accuracy, if imprecision, of Agabus in Acts 21, see Hilber (pp. 250 n. 31, 255-56) and the literature he cites, as well as David B. McWilliams, "Something New Under the Sun?" Westminster Theological Journal 54 (1992): 325-26.
Deere has intimated his agreement with Grudem’s position on New Testament prophecy, which denies the infallibility of present-day prophetic utterances (see n. 22 below). Nevertheless, in his published comments on God’s "fresh words from heaven," Deere has not explicitly ruled out the possibility that those words may be God’s own words unmixed with words from other sources. All he has said is that they do not contradict the Bible. The latter affirmation does not preclude the infallibility of these "fresh" words of direction, provided Deere believes that God reveals His will on two tracks, one public and one private. On this latter point, see the conclusion to this chapter.
See Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1988); and Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1049-61. Though not explicitly stated in his writings to date, Deere’s indebtedness to and general agreement with Grudem are discernible and otherwise well known among those who have heard him comment on the subject of New Testament prophecy In a planned forthcoming book, tentatively entitled Surprised by the Voice of God, Deere’s own thoughts on the New Testament revelatory gifts will be published. For the present essay, the broad outline of his teaching and its compatibility with Grudem’s views have been gleaned from "Vineyard Position Paper #2," 14-15, 22-24; and from Surprised by the Power of the Spirit, chap. 10 ("Why God Gives Miraculous Gifts") and Epilogue ("Hearing God Speak Today").
Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, 74-79; cf. 104-5.
Ibid., 76-79. Of I Corinthians 14:29, M. M. B. Turner ("Spiritual Gifts Then and Now," Vox Evangelica 15 119851) has written, "The presupposition is that any one New Testament prophetic oracle is expected to be mixed in quality, and the wheat must be separated from the chaff" (p. 16).
For a similar conclusion, see Hilber, "Diversity of OT Prophetic Phenomena," 256-58.
Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, 76.
Ibid., 77.
Ibid.
According to 2 Thessalonians 2:2, a false prophet or an oracle of a false prophet ("spirit" NASB; "prophecy" NIV; Gk. pneuma) had disturbed and was threatening to deceive the Thessalonians. Contrary to Grudem’s analysis (The Gift of Prophecy, 104-5), we have no indication that they had overreacted to Paul’s teaching that true prophecies were less authoritative than Scripture.
Contrary to Grudem’s inference (The Gift of Prophecy, 104-5), Paul’s words do not imply that there were many things that were not good in the true prophecies the Thessalonians were hearing.
In line with this picture we find Paul citing standards by which the congregations should judge prophecies (1 Cor. 12:3; 14:37; 1 Thess. 5:21-22; 2 Thess. 2:15; and perhaps Eph. 4:4-15 with 4:4-6, 11). These standards are in stark contrast to Grudem’s graded scale of value and truth in New Testament prophecies. See Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, 76-77. Strikingly, Pentecostal theologian Williams (Renewal Theology, 2:382 n. 164, 2:386 n. 187) emphatically rejects Grudem’s interpretation of New Testament prophetic oracles as a mixture of true and false and of the judging activity applied thereto.
For a more complete exposition of the concerns broached in this conclusion, see Gaffin, "A Friend's Response to Wayne Grudem," 6-12. See also Richard B. Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost: New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit (Phillipsburg, NJ.: Presb. & Ref., 1979), 97-99, and his "The New Testament as Canon," in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic: A Tradition, A Challenge, A Debate, ed. H. M. Conn (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 172-81.
See Herman N. Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures, 2d rev. ed., trans. H. De Jongste and rev. R. B. Gaffin, Jr. (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presb. & Ref., 1988), passim, esp. p. 31. Of special note, though Deere teaches that the canon is closed, he fails to grasp the relationship between revelation and redemption and can therefore provide no rationale or basis for his teaching.
It remains for those who differ with this conclusion to produce the evidence that shifts the burden of proof from themselves to others.
Author
R. Fowler While (B.A., M.A., Vanderbilt Univ.; Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Westminster Theological Seminary) is associate professor of New Testament and Biblical Languages at Knox Theological Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Formerly he was a lecturer at Westminster Theological Seminary for several years and is the author of Victory and House Building in Revelation 20:1-21:8: A Thematic Study. He also has served as a freelance editor for Baker Book House and other publishers.
No comments:
Post a Comment