The Cessation of Special Revelation: A Humble Argument for the Cessation of NT Prophecy and Tongues, Part 6
Posted by deangonzales on March 13, 2009
In the first several installments of this series, we sought to establish our major premise, namely, that all pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation has been completed and has, therefore, ceased (see Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5). If it can be demonstrated that the revelation of tongues and prophecy belongs to the same category as the revelation of Scripture and if we grant the cessation of Scripture revelation, then it doesn’t appear unnatural to conclude that tongues and prophecy have ceased.
Continuationists, like Wayne Grudem, concede the force of this argument. Grudem writes, “Now if New Testament congregational prophecy was like Old Testament prophecy and New Testament apostolic words in its authority, then this cessationist objection would be true.”[1] It is for this reason that Grudem and other continuationists are forced to argue for a distinction between the revelation of Scripture and that of NT tongues and prophecy. Since Wayne Grudem is a leading exponent for this position, we will examine his basic arguments for a distinction between canonical prophecy and NT congregational prophecy in this installment. Then, in the subsequent posts (Part 7, Part 8), we’ll attempt to offer a biblical refutation, demonstrating that NT congregational prophecy belongs to the same class of revelation as Scripture.
Grudem’s argument for a distinction between the canonical prophecy of Scripture and the NT congregational prophecy
Grudem defines the NT gift of prophecy as “telling something that God has spontaneously brought to mind,” which is communicated in the prophet’s own words.[3] Then he attempts to make a careful distinction between the canonical prophecy of Scripture and the NT congregational prophecy and tongues. The following illustration of Grudem’s distinction between these two levels of revelation should help you to conceptualize His view.
Not all continuationists are careful in making this distinction.[4] Grudem, however, argues that NT gift of prophecy was semi-revelational, potentially fallible, and only relatively authoritative. I will only focus on his three primary arguments, which we can summarize as follows:
1. The NT apostles alone are the counterparts to the OT prophets; only the NT apostles uttered infallible revelation.
In the NT there were people who spoke and wrote God’s very words and had them recorded in Scripture, but we may be surprised to find that Jesus no longer calls them “prophets” but uses a new term, “apostles.” The apostles are the NT counterpart to the OT prophets (see 1 Cor. 2:13; 2 Cor. 13:3; Gal. 1:8-9; 11-12; 1 Thess. 2:13; 4:8, 15; 2 Peter 3:2). According to Grudem, it is the NT apostles and not the NT prophets, who have authority to write the words of New Testament Scripture.[5]
2. The NT seems to contain examples of fallible prophecy uttered by NT believers or prophets (Acts 21:4, 10-11, cf. 33; 22:29).
In particular, Grudem focuses upon certain passages in the Book of Acts which, he alleges, provide us with clear examples of fallible prophecy. Allow me to quote his comments on two passages in particular:
In Acts 21:4, we read of the disciples at Tyre: ‘Through the Spirit they told Paul not to go on to Jerusalem.’ This seems to be a reference to prophecy directed towards Paul, but Paul disobeyed it! He never would have done this if this prophecy contained God’s very words and had authority equal to Scripture….
Then, in Acts 21:10-11, Agabus prophesied that the Jews at Jerusalem would bind Paul and ‘deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles,’ a prediction that was nearly correct but not quite: the Romans, not the Jews, bound Paul (v. 33; cf. 22:29), and the Jews, rather than delivering him voluntarily tried to kill him and he had to be rescued by force (v. 32).[6]
3. The fact that NT prophecy was subject to evaluation and criticism seems to imply fallibility and lesser authority (1Cor 14:29; 1Thes 5:19-21).
Paul tells the Thessalonians, “Do not despise prophesying, but test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5:20-21). According to Grudem, Paul’s admonition assumes that both he and the Thessalonians saw a distinction between canonical prophecy and NT congregational prophecy. The Thessalonians had “received” and “accepted” the Apostle Paul’s preaching as God’s Word (1 Thess. 2:13; cf. 4:15). But they seemed to have a lesser view of NT prophecy. Apparently, they were even tempted to look down on it. Furthermore, Paul’s injunction to “test” NT prophecy and his command to “hold fast what is good” implies that NT prophecies may contain some things that are good and some things that are not good. According to Grudem, Paul would never tell the Thessalonians to treat Scripture that way. Therefore, the revelation of NT prophecy must be inferior and less authoritative than Scripture-revelation.[7]
Grudem also marshals the text in 1 Corinthians 14:29, where Paul says, “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment” (NAS). Obviously, Paul is calling upon the Corinthian believers to carefully evaluate NT prophecy. And in light of this, Grudem remarks,
We cannot imagine that an Old Testament prophet like Isaiah would have said, ‘Listen to what I say and weigh what is said—sort the good from the bad, what you accept from what you should not accept!’ If prophecy had absolute divine authority, it would be a sin to do this. But here Paul commands that it be done, suggesting that New Testament prophecy did not have the authority of God’s very words.[8]
These are Grudem’s three primary arguments for a distinction between canonical prophecy and NT congregational prophecy. What shall we assess these arguments? Stay tuned, and we’ll develop an answer to that question in the following posts (Part 7, Part 8).
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
[1] Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1995), 1039.
[2] Grudem did his doctoral dissertation on this subject, and he edited it into popular form in a book entitled, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Crossway, 1988), and then incorporated his argument in his Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994). I’ll be drawing primarily from this latter publication.
[3] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1049-1057.
[4] As noted in Part 5, W. R. Jones calls NT prophecy “a supernatural utterance,” which has “no connection with human thought, reasoning, and intellect.” Yet, Jones goes on to say that NT prophecy is “not to take the place of the Written Word of God.” Cited by James Garrett, Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical & Evangelical, vol. 2 (Eerdmans, 1995), 215.
[5] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1050.
[6] Ibid., 1052.
[7] Ibid., 1054.
[8] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1054. Grudem also refers to Paul’s comments in verses 37 and 38 as proof that the NT prophets were on a lower level of authority than Paul as an apostle. But, as Richard Gaffin Jr. observes, “Nor does Paul’s peremptory command to the prophets in 1 Corinthians 14:37-38 establish their lower authority—any more than his sharp rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11-14 means that the latter did not teach with full, infallible authority when he properly exercised his apostolic office,” Are Miraculous Gifts For Today? Four Views (Zondervan, 1996), 50.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
cf. Dr. Grudem’s take on Acts 21:10-11 with Peter’s use of “you” to the “Men of Israel” in Acts 3:14-15 and the fine distinction he makes concerning Agabus’ accuracy seems superfluous.
Peter tells the Jews: “You delivered… you denied… you killed…”.
Wasn’t it a group of Roman soldiers, and not the men standing before Peter at that very moment, who literally drove the nails into Christ’s wrists and hung him on the cross? Yet Peter can say “…you killed the Prince of Life…”
We commonly use language this way. The intervening action of an agent does not preclude us of our responsibility (Rom 1:32b). Nor does it render Agabus’ prophecy any less authoritative (Deut. 18:21-22).
March 13th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Thanks, debtortograce. You’re already anticipating one of my arguments
March 16th, 2009 at 11:22 am
[...] our previous post, we noted that continuationist theologian Wayne Grudem argues for a distinction between OT [...]
March 17th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
[...] Part 6, we noted that continuationist theologian Wayne Grudem argues for a distinction between OT [...]
March 25th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Agabus said that the Romans (as the agent) would hand over Paul to the Jews. The reality was the other way around. The Jews, unwittingly, acted as the agent, to hand Paul over to the Romans. Agabus got the general result right (arrest) but the details wrong. It is an example of what Paul describes in 1 Cor. 13, seeing through a glass darkly.
If congregational prophesy is the same as canonical special revelation, where are all the written prophesies so common in the early church? Paul writes that prophesies were regularly given in the congregation. If Dr. Gonzales is correct and that’s the same as scripture, then why weren’t all those prophesies transcribed?
April 7th, 2009 at 8:56 am
[...] his basic arguments for a distinction between canonical prophecy and NT congregational prophecy (Part 6). Then we will attempt to offer a biblical refutation, demonstrating that NT congregational [...]
June 19th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I don’t find Gaffin convincing in his objection to Grudem’s argument from 1 Cor. 14:37-38. Doesn’t Paul appear to assume an authority in speaking to the Corinthian prophets that they do not possess? Did he do this with Peter in Galatians 2? Could we even imagine a scenario in which he could say to Peter, “If you think that you are a prophet, or spiritual, you should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord”?