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.
Posted by deangonzales on March 9, 2009
We began our study (Part 1) by noting the three common positions taken among evangelicals on the question of whether God is continuing to confer on the NT church the gifts of prophecy and tongues, namely, those who answer that question affirmatively (continuationists), those who answer negatively (cessationists), and those who cautiously say, “Maybe” (open but cautious). We side with the cessationists though we acknowledge good men in the other camps. In Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4, we sought to establish our major premise, namely, that all pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation has been completed and has, therefore, ceased. We believe that most evangelical adherents to the three positions above would affirm this premise. In fact, we ended our last segment with a citation from one of the most scholarly and articulate continuationists alive today, Dr. Wayne Grudem. Concerning the cessation of Scripture-quality revelation and the closing of the biblical canon, Grudem’s position is unambiguous:
The New Testament writings contain the final, authoritative, and sufficient interpretation of Christ’s work of redemption. The apostles and their close companions report Christ’s words and deeds and interpret them with absolute divine authority. When they have finished their writing, there is no more to be added with the same absolute divine authority. Thus, once the writings of the New Testament apostles and their authorized companions are completed, we have in written form the final record of everything that God wants us to know about the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, and its meaning for the lives of believers for all time. Since this is God’s greatest revelation for mankind, no more is to be expected once this is complete. In this way, then, Hebrews 1:1-2 shows us why no more writings can be added to the Bible after the time of the New Testament. The canon is now closed [emphasis mine].[1]
Grudem’s affirmation of the cessation of Scripture-revelation is important for two reasons:
In the first place, the quote from Dr. Grudem helps to clarify the point of debate.
The real issue for most evangelicals is not whether Scripture-quality revelation has ceased. Nearly all Bible-believing Christians would affirm that to be true. The question is whether the miraculous gifts of prophecy and tongues are forms of canonical special revelation. Dr. Grudem argues that the revelation of Scripture falls in a different category of revelation than that of NT tongues and prophecy. Therefore, Grudem can argue for the cessation of Scripture-revelation on the one hand and the continuation of prophecy and tongues on the other. Thus, the debate over tongues and prophecy really hinges upon the nature of these forms of revelation.
Secondly, Grudem’s affirmation of the cessation of Scripture should caution us against misrepresenting our continuationist brothers.
Sometimes cessationists portray all continuationists as if they have a low view of Scripture and disregard its authority. In some cases, there has been warrant for this concern. In the preface to his book entitled, The Spirit Bade Me Go, David du Plessis, former secretary of the World Conference of Pentecostal Churches, makes the following astounding claims:
It was my privilege to edit and prepare for publication in this form those revelations that I received from [the Spirit] while ministering in conferences…. Friends have been pleading with me to put into print the things I have said, or rather those things that the Holy Ghost has said through me. To attempt to write about these things would not be quite the same as quoting more directly the utterances made under the unction of the Spirit.[2]
Du Plessis clearly seems to place his utterances on a level with divine canonical revelation. This is why cessationists have generally been very wary about people who advocate the ongoing gift of prophecy. There are Pentecostal and Charismatic brothers, however, who have a high view of Scripture and treat the Bible as their supreme authority in faith and practice. Donald Gee, an Assembly of God theologian, exhibits a cautious view towards the gifts as well as a high view of Scripture when he writes,
[There are] grave problems raised by the habit of giving and receiving personal ‘messages’ of guidance through the gifts of the Spirit…. Many of our errors where spiritual gifts are concerned arise when we want the extraordinary and exceptional to be made the frequent and habitual. Let all who develop excessive desire for ‘messages’ through the gifts take warning from the wreckage of past generations as well as of contemporaries …. The Holy Scriptures are a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path.[3]
Therefore, those of us who disagree with our continuationist brothers must strive to be fair and gracious in the way we represent them. The Bible itself forbids us to “bear false witness against our neighbor” (Exod. 20:16; Deut. 5:20; cf. Exo. 23:6-7; Eph. 4:31; Jas. 4:11). For this reason, I have attempted to highlight the various shades of difference among continuationists in the following table:
As the table above illustrates, there are various shades or degrees of difference among continuationists. The more radical continuationists, like the Mormons or the Apostolic Christian Church of America, not only believe in ongoing manifestations of tongues and prophecy but also believe in ongoing canonical revelation. They would argue that there are still living Apostles today who are still receiving direct inspired revelation from God. The Mormon Church has even added certain books to the canon of Scripture.
Secondly, there are “inconsistent” Continuationists. These are Pentecostals or Charismatics who sometimes speak as if the canon is closed and sometimes as if God is still giving canonical revelation. For example, W. R. Jones calls NT prophecy “a supernatural utterance,” which has “no connection with human thought, reasoning, and intellect.” In other words, he seems to regard the very utterance as a form of divine revelation. Yet, Jones goes on to say that NT prophecy is “not to take the place of the Written Word of God.”[4] And often times, Pentecostals and Charismatics, like Jones, are inconsistent in maintaining a distinction between the canonical revelation of Scripture and the non-canonical revelation of tongues and prophecy.
But as the third column in our diagram illustrates, there are continuationists today who do seek to maintain a consistent distinction between the canonical revelation of Scripture and what they see as the non-canonical revelation of tongues and prophecy. In their view, Scripture is infallible and supremely authoritative. Modern tongues and prophecy are not infallible and are subordinate to Scripture in the life of the church and the believer.
Finally, there is the position of many evangelicals and some reformed Christians who are “open but cautious” about the question of tongues and prophecy, and yet they are firmly committed to the cessation of Scripture.
The point in recognizing these various distinctions is to avoid the sin of misrepresentation. I do not appreciate it when a charismatic brother portrays me as someone who denies the supernatural and depreciates the work of the Holy Spirit because that’s not true. I do believe in the supernatural, and I don’t make light of the Holy Spirit. At least I hope I don’t. I want to be fairly represented. May God help me to treat my continuationist brother as I would want him to treat me (Matt. 7:12)!
In the next several installments of this series, we’ll seek to develop our minor premise, namely, NT prophecy and tongues are forms of pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation. 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 we are forced 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.” 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 (Part 6). Then we will attempt to offer a biblical refutation, demonstrating that NT congregational prophecy belongs to the same class of revelation as Scripture (Part 7, Part 8).
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994), 64.
[2] Cited by Walter Chantry, Signs of the Apostles (Banner of Truth, 1979), 24-25.
[3] Spiritual Gifts in the Work of Ministry Today (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1963), 51-52.
[4] Quoted by James Garrett, Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical & Evangelical, vol. 2 (Eerdmans, 1995), 215.
[5] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1039.
[6] 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. I will be drawing primarily from this latter publication.
