By Brian Thornton @ http://voiceofthesheep.wordpress.com
The following is a response I gave to someone who had asked my opinion of Wayne Grudem’s position on prophecy as outlined by him in his work, Systematic Theology. My response addresses Grudem’s argument for the type of prophecy he believes existed in the first century and which he believes still exists even today, specifically: Chapter 53: GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT: (PART 2) SPECIFIC GIFTS - How should we understand and use specific spiritual gifts?
My comments here are limited to prophecy, though Grudem addresses other spiritual gifts in this chapter such as healings, tongues and miracles. I will post the first part of my response today, and probably the rest of it tomorrow. If you have access to it, I would encourage you to read Chapter 53 of Dr. Grudem’s Systematic Theology in order to get a full perspective of his position and my responses. Keep in mind that this response is limited to only what Grudem has written in this particular chapter (53). Here goes:
At the outset, let me say that I feel I am in no position to refute every single point that someone like Piper or Grudem would make concerning this issue [prophecy]. I have not studied it enough, nor do I have the intellect to put forth a systematic theology of my own on the scale of Grudem or Piper. What I believe I can do, though (and have an obligation to do), is analyze Grudem’s position on prophecy in light of what Scripture reveals and to evaluate Grudem’s use of that Scripture to make his point concerning what he believes about the reality of prophecy today. What follows are some notes I made as I read through Grudem’s chapter (several times) on spiritual gifts, specifically prophecy, and this is by no means an exhaustive look at my thoughts on this. I submit these thoughts humbly and with no divine or final authority. Please note that I also did not utilize MacArthur or any other commentator prior to drawing my conclusions, or in order to make the following points. These are my thoughts alone, and as such, the responsibility for them rests with me.
I guess the easiest way to do this is by using bullet points, so here goes.
Grudem starts off with his case appealing to 1 Cor. 12:28 and 12:8-10, but he primarily follows the flow of v.28, and then addresses words of wisdom/knowledge and distinguishing or spirits from v8. Here is v. 28 – “And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.”
Regarding Grudem’s case concerning what he puts forth as being prophecy today, here are my thoughts:
- Grudem says, “Much more commonly, the words prophet and prophecy were used of ordinary Christians who spoke not with absolute divine authority, but simply to report something that God had laid on their hearts or brought to their minds.”…the phrase much more commonly seems to denote several examples from Scripture that can be referenced to support this. He also says, “There are many indications in the New Testament that this ordinary gift of prophecy had authority less than that of the Bible, and even less than that of recognized Bible teaching in the early church”. The term many, such as much more commonly, seems to indicate a plethora of examples to support this position.
- First, I expected to see many indications of how prophecy was much more commonly something that God had simply laid on someone’s heart or mind, as opposed to direct, clear, revelatory information. Here is what Grudem appealed to in order to make his point:
- Acts 21:4 – “After looking up the disciples, we stayed there seven days; and they kept telling Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem.” Grudem says that if this prophecy had contained God’s very words, then Paul would never have disobeyed it. This presupposes that these disciples were telling Paul that the Holy Spirit was telling them to tell him NOT to go to Jerusalem, and the passage doesn’t give that indication at all. I agree with the NASB alternative meaning for the phrase through the Spirit, which would render the verse as because of impressions made by the Spirit. In other words, the Holy Spirit was revealing to these disciples that Paul was going to be captured and bound in Jerusalem, and as a result of that they urged him not to go there, because they didn’t want to see any harm come to Paul. The passage does not give any indication that they told Paul that the Holy Spirit said not to go…only that the Holy Spirit revealed to them what was awaiting Paul in Jerusalem. I think what we have here is the response by the people to the revelation that Paul would be arrested…not a prophecy that he should not go to Jerusalem.
- In fact, this prophecy echoed Paul’s own revelation from the Holy Spirit concerning this very thing in Acts 20:22-23 – “And now, behold, bound by the Spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me.”
- This is again confirmed (third time) by the prophecy of Agabus in Acts 21:27, which Grudem tries to use to show that prophecy then (and now) can contain errors and therefore exists as an imperfect impression or thought from God, rather than clear, direct, revelatory information. Here is the account of Agabus’ prophecy in Acts 21:10-11 – “As we were staying there for some days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, “This is what the Holy Spirit says: `In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’””
- Grudem attempts to show that this prophecy from Agabus was just a thought or impression upon Agabus, and not solid, direct, accurate information. Agabus is clear here as well when he begins with, “This is what the Holy Spirit says”.
- He attempts to show that Agabus gave an “erroneus” prophecy regarding Paul being bound and handed over to the Romans, and I find his argument here to be weak and unconvincing. His own acknowledgement of objections to this interpretation are more convincing than his own position at this point. It is clear that Agabus’ prophecy did in fact take place and was an accurate prophecy.
- Grudem seems to be stretching with his attempted justification here that Agabus’ prophecy was incorrect and therefore proof of prophecy being some kind of personal impression-type information from God, rather than clear and unambiguous. He attempts to go a long way to discredit Agaus’ prophecy, and just to prove his own view of what prophecy was and is today as being an imperfect, lower than teaching gift that can be full of errors and therefore not a direct word from God. I just don’t buy into Grudem’s argument here, nor into his interpretation of Scripture with respect to Agabus.
- We have another incident of a prophecy from Agabus in Acts 11:28 – “One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius.”
- Here we have another specific prophecy from Agabus that comes to pass as his prophecy concerning Paul came to pass.
- That is it…two passages (I added the one from Paul and the other one from Agabus). That is the extent of Grudem’s prophecy examples to show that prophecy was and is simply an impression on the mind or heart given to common Christians by God that could/can be erroneously interpreted.
- I find it interesting that all of Grudem’s examples he uses to prove that prophecy was/is subjective and not direct, clear information from God are prophecies that foretold of future events…ALL of which came to pass.
- I find it hard to see how these examples translate over to subjective, personal revelatory guidance-type impressions from God on the mind or heart of the believer.
No comments:
Post a Comment