God Said…

 אַף כִּי־אָמַר אֱלֹהִים Did God really say? ʾap kî-ʾāmar ʾĕlōhîm? So goes the hiss of the serpent as the first seeds of doubt are planted in the mind of the first woman.

On the mountain bearing the name, Jabal an-Nour, in a cave called Hira, from what eventually became a book called the Qurán, an angel named Gabriel, brought a word for God to a man named Mohammad. Eventually, this event was the beginning of a series of events that resulted in what is today one of the largest religions in the world; Islam. Islam exists because a man claimed that God spoke to him on a mountain, in a cave, through an angel named Gabriel. Did God speak to Mohammad?

On Easter morning in 1935, in the Korean mountains, a young man was praying, when suddenly, Jesus appeared to him in a vision. In that vision, Jesus supposed informs the young lad, Sun Myung Moon that he is to finish the work that Jesus started 2,000 years earlier. From this experience was born the Unification Church, a.k.a. the Moonies.

One spring day, in 1820, a 14-year old boy went into a grove of trees to pray. This lad petitioned God for an understanding of which church was the true church. The young man reported that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him. The Father and Jesus Christ informed the lad that all of the religious denominations were preaching false doctrine. He was told to wait for further instructions. According to the Church of the Latter Day Saints, Joseph Smith’s revelation was the greatest revelation in the history of the Church since the Christ event. This experience produced the Mormon Church.

One man, on a very popular Christian network, tells his audience that God spoke to him and told him that Fidel Castro would die in the 90s. The same man said that God told him that Homosexuals in America would be destroyed by fire in 1995. This man also claimed that Jesus would appear physically in churches to show His people how close we are to the second coming. This man is none other than Benny Hinn.

I very recently heard someone claim that the Holy Spirit will oftentimes tell us the exact amount we should give, and to which causes. No so long ago, I had a dispute with Darrell Bock over at DTS regarding his position that God still speaks to us today by way of dreams and visions. Indeed, it is frightening that the idea that God is continuing to reveal things to us by way of personal, mystical encounters, has invaded even our most conservative evangelical and reformed churches, and it has done so with great haste and sensation. I can hear claims in our own conservative, Baptist church that parallel those of Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, Sun Myung Moon, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Hagin and many, many others.

It seems to me that there can be no doubt that the foundation of Christianity for many, if not most professing evangelicals has eroded to the point that it no longer exists. The foundation of God stands firm. “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.” (Eph. 2:19-22)

Recently it has been reported that John Piper publicly engaged in the Catholic practice of Lectio Divina. And if you visit Redeemer Presbyterian in NYC, Tim Keller’s church, you will find Lectio Divina is being taught there. Click here for Redeemer's teaching on lectio divina. It is no secret that Ronnie Floyd, president of the SBC has gone off the deep end a long time ago. He recently spoke at the heretic, Mike Bickle’s IHOP. Click here to read more I have been saying for years now that if Christianity is to be preserved in one’s life and in the local church, it will only be preserved insofar as Scripture is preserved. A proper understanding of the phenomenon of Scripture is essential for a healthy, vibrant Christian experience.

What is happening in the modern, American, evangelical churches? In order to get to the root-cause of this problem, we must return to the garden and our original parents. After God created Adam, he spoke to Him, saying, The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” (Gen. 2:16-17) God spoke to Adam. God’s speaking was clear. God’s speaking was authoritative. Adam knew without question that God had spoken. Adam trusted God’s Word. However, when the time was right, Satan entered the garden disguised as a serpent. While Satan would have obviously been out of place appearing in the garden, the serpent was not. It was an appropriate and clever disguise.

Eve willingly entertained a word from the serpent that contradicted God’s word. Eve was willing to consider the possibility that God’s word could be evaluated, tested, and scrutinized. Rather than accept God’s word for what it is, Eve listened to the tantalizing seduction of the serpent, Satan in the flesh so to speak, and ventured out into the realm of autonomous human reason. And when Eve reasoned using the serpent’s method, a method that cut God out of the process, she concluded that God’s word was not the final say in the matter. There were other possibilities. When man reasons apart from God, he will always, to varying degrees, conclude that God is wrong. So it was in the garden, and so it is today.

ὁ θεὸς…..ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ. Ho Theos...elalensen humin en huioi. "God has spoken to us in the Son." Semantically, the aorist is consummative. The writer is emphasizng the the fact that God has spoken one final time through the person of Jesus Christ. The revelation of Scripture is the final event of God speaking until we are united with Christ in eternity at his return. What this means is that all claims that God has spoken to someone else apart from Scripture are false. If we dare venture down any other path, we are left with the seriously flawed argument that we can test personal revelation by an appeal to biblical revelation. The fact is such an endeavor is impossible. Take Benny Hinn’s claim that Fidel Castro would die in the 90s. How would it be possible for anyone to have evaluated Hinn’s claim at the time? Suppose I claim that God spoke to me in a dream and told me to give $15,000 to a particular ministry. How could I or anyone else know for sure that God had spoken to me?

If a claim of God speaking can actually be tested by Scripture, then the event itself can be ruled superfluous. That is to say, a person claiming that God spoke to them in a dream not to cheat on their spouse is redundant and unnecessary. These modern claims then are untestable. Not only are they untestable, they are ambiguous. The way God spoke in the biblical revelation compared with how God supposed speaks to people today is radically different. When Mary was visited by the angel, it was beyond doubt. When Jonah was instructed to preach to Ninevah, there was no question that God had spoken. When Adam was forbidden to eat from the tree, it was crystal clear. There was no chance that these people could have mistaken God’s word for some internal impression. Today, people have things pop into their minds and claim that it is God telling them to do something. It is just that ridiculous. How do you know God told you anything when all it is is a thought that popped into your mind? The claim that God spoke is a very serious claim indeed. But modern, American evangelicals think God is the all-tolerant sweet grandpa who will let you get away with anything because he is such a loving God. This picture of God is the product of a sinful, hedonistic, nihilist society that suffers from the accute condition of self-fascination. No one wants to offend or be offended. Everyone is interested in being politically correct, even most of those who say they don’t. And as a result, we let everything slide. We tolerate any and every claim that walks onto the field. If we didn’t, the charismatic movement would have died long ago. If we didn’t tolerate everything, Ronnie Floyd would have been publicly rebuked and maybe even replaced by now.

When we abandon the actual revelation of the self-attesting Word of God, we open the door to an "anything goes atmosphere." It is only when we can point to a final, actual, knowable revelation that we can distinguish false claims of revelation from true revelation. Only then can we know what is true and avoid what is false. In reality, the contemporary refusal to regard any truth as sure and certain is the word kind of infidelity. [John MacArthur, The Truth War] When we see the Bible as uncertain and perhaps even wrong or highly questionable in some places, it makes other claims that God has spoken, much easier to posit. It is only when we hold to the doctrines of the sufficiency, necessity, perspicuity, and authority of Scripture that such claims melt away under the heat and light of divine truth.

Sam Storms on Fallible Prophecy: Points 6 and 7

Sixth, related to the above is 1 Corinthians 14:37-38, where Paul writes: “If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.” Paul is clearly claiming a divine authority for his words that he is just as obviously denying to the Corinthians. “According to Paul, the words of the prophets at Corinth were not and could not have been sufficiently authoritative to show Paul to be wrong” (Grudem, 68).

And yet Paul believed the prophecy at Corinth to be a good and helpful gift of God, for he immediately thereafter exhorts the Corinthians once again to “earnestly desire to prophesy” (v. 39)! Paul obviously believed that the spiritual gift of congregational prophecy that operated at a lower level of authority than did the apostolic, canonical, expression of it was still extremely valuable to the church.

First all, Paul is not directing his comments to the ideal of prophecy, or the content of prophecy. Nor is Paul directing his comments at the authority of prophetic words. In addition, Paul is not directing these comments at prophecy alone. His comments here are directed at everything he has just said. It is a solemn warning by the apostle that people that ignore his words are ignoring the commandment of the Lord. The closest thing we can say about how this command relates to prophecy is that it concerns the format and order for how it was to proceed in the ancient Corinthian Church. In addition, this command also applied to the use of the gift of languages or tongues in that Church. The truth is that this chapter is completely disregarded by nearly every Pentecostal church in existence. I can say without hesitation or exaggeration that I never witnessed a Pentecostal church or pastor that actually submitted to these plain teachings given to Corinth. Pentecostals and Charismatics claim that this does not apply to the supernatural “prayer language.” And in so doing, they reduce Paul’s commands to meaningless nonsense and logical absurdities. Storm and Grudem are simply wrong that Paul’s instructions place his command over the actual content of first-century prophetic utterances. It does nothing of the sort.

Seventh, although I don’t have space to provide an extensive exegetical explanation of Acts 21, I believe we see in this narrative a perfect example of how people (the disciples at Tyre) could prophesy by the Spirit and yet not do so infallibly or at a level equal to Scripture. Their misguided, but sincere, application of this revelation was to tell Paul ("through the Spirit," v. 4) not to go to Jerusalem, counsel which he directly disobeyed (cf. Acts 20:22).

There is nothing in the text to lead us to believe that these individuals were prophesying to Paul by the Lord, not to go to Jerusalem. If we look at Acts 20:23, Paul says the Holy Spirit is testifying to him in every city that bonds and afflictions await him. We see this played out in 21:4. These men knew by the Spirit, what was waiting for Paul in Jerusalem. They did not want this for Paul and tried to persuade him not to go near Jerusalem. However, just a few verses later, we see a different kind of event. We see Agabus prophesying that the Jews will certainly be responsible for his eventual captivity and the response of the brethren is the same as v. 4. They beg Paul not to go. Nowhere does God warn Paul directly not to go. After all, the Holy Spirit has told him all along what is going to happen to him. To understand this as the Holy Spirit commanding him not to go is simply wrong. There is no language in the text that demonstrates that Paul received any commands from the Lord that he disobeyed.

The Spirit’s role is best seen as informing them of those coming hardships for the apostle. Their very natural reaction was to urge him not to go. Their failure to deter him only heightens the emphasis on Paul’s firm conviction that God was leading him to Jerusalem and had a purpose for him there.^[1]

The fact is that the prophecy given by Agabus was realized. Everything the Spirit warned Paul about concerning his future actually came to pass. There was no false-prophecy as some like to claim. There was no disobedience on Paul’s part as others wish to claim. Paul was told that he was going into bonds and that great suffering awaited him. It happened just as God told Paul it would happen. If only modern Charismatics and Pentecostals experienced the same phenomena the ancient Church experienced, perhaps this conversation would be more stimulating. As it stands, what we see are men like Grudem and Storms stretching the text beyond its exegetical limits in order to read it through the modern, Charismatic grid. Thus far, Storms has failed to establish the validity of a single one of his points. He has three more opportunities to gain some traction.

---

^[1] John B. Polhill, Acts, vol. 26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 433.

Sam Storms on Infallible Prophecy: Point Number Five

Fifth, yet another statement in 1 Corinthians 14 confirms this understanding of NT prophecy. In v. 36 Paul asks, “Or was it from you that the word of God came?” He doesn’t say, “Did the word of God originate with (or “first go forth from”) you,” as some have suggested. Let’s not forget that the “word of God” didn’t originate with Paul either!

Rather, Paul’s statement is designed to prevent them from making up guidelines for public worship, based on an alleged prophetic word, contrary to what he has just stated. His point is that a Scripture quality, authoritative “word of God” has not, in fact, been forthcoming from the Corinthian prophets. Paul does not deny that they have truly prophesied, but he denies that their “words” were equal in authority to his own. Such “words” were in fact of a lesser authority.

In order to make sure we continue to focus on the subject, I want to remind you that the issue at stake here is the quality of NT prophecy. Sam Storms and other non-cessationists claim that it is of a lessor quality or authority than either OT prophecy or the teachings of the apostles that eventually became encapsulated in Scripture. Mr. Storms is working through ten points that he believes supports his argument. In reviewing his argument, I am searching for any implication in the text, properly interpreted of course, that lends support to Storms’ argument.

In his fifth point, Storms claims that 1 Cor. 14:36 lends support to his view that NT prophecy is of a lessor authority or quality than canonical Scripture. It reads as follows, ἢ ἀφʼ ὑμῶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν, ἢ εἰς ὑμᾶς μόνους κατήντησεν; The literal translation is; “Or from you the word of God went out, or to you only has it come?” Paul uses the spatial frame “from you” to draw extra attention to the tone of his argument.

Storms has opened up a real can or worms in this section. If Paul is referring to prophecy when he uses the phrase, ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, then Storms seems to have shot his own foot. This phrase is always used of the authoritative word of God. It appears 11 times in NA28 and in every single case there is nothing to distinguish it from itself. Everywhere it appears it appears as the authoritative communication from the one triune God.

So then, what was Paul actually getting at with this question? Was Paul actually dealing with the authoritative nature of NT prophecy? Can we really interact with this verse through such a contemporary lens? If we knew nothing about modern, contemporary claims of prophetic utterances, would we even be looking at the text from Storms’ perspective? I find it difficult to believe that we can honestly answer that question in the affirmative. It seems that Storms continues to interpret 1 Corinthians 14 through the lens of modern Charismatic experience.

Even if the Corinthian believers were not prophesying and were only preaching the Word of God and teaching it, could Paul have said the very same thing to them? I think we can easily answer in the affirmative. The Corinthian believers were not in sole possession of the Word of God. God’s word had gone out to the universal church, and the Corinthian believers did not have the corner on the market of divine truth. Like every other community, the Corinthian group must submit to apostolic authority.

“As TEV makes clear, the two halves of this verse balance one another; the Christian message neither began nor ended in Corinth. The implication is that the Corinthians have no right to decide independently of other Christian communities how Christians should believe.”^[1]

“The balance for the Corinthian Christians is that they are one of a number of churches that now stretch across the cities of the eastern Roman empire. They may live in one of the most important cities of the province, but they need to learn humility.”^[2]

“Witherington offers two useful observations on v. 36. First, he perceives the point of Paul’s rhetorical questions to lie in the scenario that “it appears the Corinthians are trying to make up their own rules, and perhaps thinking their own word is sufficient or authoritative or even the word of God for themselves.”^[3]

“Who do they think they are anyway? is the implication; has God given them a special word that allows them both to reject Paul’s instructions, on the one hand, and be so out of touch with the other churches, on the other?”[4]

There is no connection at all between 1 Cor. 14:36 with the present argument put forth by Storms. There is no reason to think that Paul is concerned to help the Corinthians understand that their local prophetic utterances are somehow less authoritative than Scripture. What Paul is concerned with is the autonomous desires of this community and their spiritual pride, which emerges throughout the letter. Storms’ fifth point does absolutely nothing to advance his case and lends not an ounce of support to his contention that there is a difference between the prophetic Word of God coming through prophets and the canonical Word of God encapsulated in Scripture.

---

^[1] Paul Ellingworth, Howard Hatton, and Paul Ellingworth, A Handbook on Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1995), 326.

^[2] Clinton E. Arnold, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Romans to Philemon., vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 174.

^[3] Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: a Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 1161.

[4] Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 710.

Authentic Fire: A Most Bizarre Movement Indeed

Michael Brown's latest book titled, “Authentic Fire,” claims to defend something genuinely spawned by the Holy Spirit. It claims to defend biblical truth. The book is Brown’s apologetic to John MacArthur’s book, “Strange Fire.” Before you waste your time thinking this is a review of Brown’s book, I want you to know it is not. This post is a criticism of the very notion that there is such a thing as authentic fire in the sense in which Brown and modern Charismatics define it. I limit my method to a review of the practices that fall into the category of authentic fire, and subject them to biblical scrutiny.

Speaking in Tongues

Video of Modern Tongue-Speaking

Pentecostal Service

Dancing in the Spirit

Tent Revival

Dancing Like David

Slain in the Spirit

Toronto Vineyard

The Unholy and Absurd

The Mystical Sensation of the Spirit

Nothing More Absurd

More Kuhlman

The Laughing Revival

Rodney Howard Brown and Ken Copeland (watch entire video)

Sickening and Shocking

Kathryn Kuhlman in Being Filled and Controlled By the Spirit

Kuhlman

Ladies and gentlemen, if observing these sad, shocking, and perverse videos are not enough to provoke you to anger at how Christian theism is mocked and displayed by these groups, no amount of reason, biblical or otherwise, is capable of convincing you that these groups are in possession of authentic fire (whatever that might be). I applaud Fred Butler and Mennoknight for their labors and excellent research on the subject. The notion that Matthew 3:11-12 has anything to do with bizarre mystical encounters like those experienced in modern day Pentecostal churches is without a shred of exegetical warrant. All on has to do to understand what John the Baptist meant by fire is read v. 12. The Coming One will baptize the repentant with the blessing of the Holy Spirit. But the unrepentant, those who are not receptive to the Coming One, will be baptized with the judgment of eternal fire.[1] The prophecy John references is Joel 2:28-32. This prophecy also contains the promise of reconciliation and of judgment, to be carried in the end under the new covenant. Review the videos in light of Scripture and plain human reason. If they cannot convince you, it is unlikely that anything will.

1. Clinton E. Arnold, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 25.

Why is Belief in Modern Miracles Fair Game, When Belief in Miracles is Not?

A lot has been said on this subject over the last couple of months. There are good folks on both sides of the issue of modern miracles. To be specific, the issue about which I speak has to do with the claim that the gifts of miracle workers and healings are continuing in the Christian church. As a cessationist, I have my own particular way of dealing with that argument and have blogged about it a few times. It is clear that the cessationist and continuationist argument will continue for years to come, provided the Lord tarries. In this blog, I am going to attempt to point out the fallacious reasoning for the continuationist argument employed specifically by Stave Hays over at Triablogue.

Repeatedly, Hays refuses to draw any line of demarcation between the special revelation of Scripture and the general affairs of everyday life. Steve has continually argued what is good for Moses is good for us. If Paul could heal the sick, then we should be able to as well. He has gone so far as to adopt the causative-faith argument of charismatics, asserting that James 5 teaches that any prayer of faith ought to be able to produce healing. To my knowledge, he has not qualified God’s will in the process and seems to be drifting more and more toward the Charismatic camp on the issue.

In addition to this, Hays has consistently accused cessationists of employing the argument’s of atheist merely on the ground that we contend that such claims ought to be subjected to rigorous examination and proof. I have said on more than one occasion that these people are publicly claiming to represent Christ, to represent the Church, and therefore they must be subjected to the highest scrutiny. Hays doesn’t seem to think much of it. In fact, he seems far more concerned with argumentation than he does with the transforming nature of truth and the detriment done to the gospel by these false teachers and money-grabbing charlatans. That is most regrettable.

What most people do not realize is that Hays’ argument has a very basic flaw embedded in it. It is one of those flaws that is so obvious that it can slip right past you without notice. Fred Butler, in a nice analogy on UFOs hit on it the other day here.

I want to point you to three common methods of arguing in order to show that Steve Hays has employed a method in this case that is highly questionable. The following statements preclude properly basic beliefs. Hence, every belief or truth claim I reference is one that is not properly basic.

My underlying presupposition: self-justifying truth claims exist. My first premise goes like this: Every truth claim that is not self-justifying is subject to justification. My second premise: truth claims that are not self-justifying and that cannot be justified should be abandoned. My third premise: not all truth claims are justified in the same way.

Three common ways that Christians justify beliefs. The first one I want to discuss is induction. Here we are more consistent than the non-Christian, because we acknowledge the unity of the particular with the general, a unity that only makes sense in the Christian worldview. “Empirical truths – about the consequences of smoking, of the causes of cancer, and all others of that sort – cannot satisfy the standard of deductive certainty.” [Copi, Logic, 444-5] Copi tells us that the most common type of inductive argument is that of analogy. And it seems clear to me that Hays and other continuationists have called on argument by analogy often. “To draw an analogy between two or more entities is to indicate one or more respects in which they are similar. Hays has done this in terms of comparing biblical miracles with modern miracles as well as in his accusations that cessationists are really skeptics. Steve has reasoned that Jesus and the apostles performed miracles. Scripture does not say that miracles will cease after the apostles, therefore we should expect miracle workers to continue. Hays has also made the uncharitable argument that atheists deny miracles, and cessationist denies miracles, therefore cessationists argue like atheists. Inductive arguments never achieve certainty in their conclusions. Induction is a scientific way, the empiricist’s way for justifying beliefs. Not all truth claims can be justified by the inductive approach. For example, belief in the laws of logic cannot be justified using induction.

A second common form of argument is called deduction. “A deductive argument is one whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion.” [Ibid, 164] In other words, a valid deductive argument is necessarily true if its premises are true. Deduction seeks certainty in its conclusion. Deduction is a rationalistic way for justifying one’s beliefs. However, not all truth claims can be justified using deductive reasoning. For example, you cannot justify empirical claims with deductive reasoning. In fact, the belief in the laws of logic cannot itself be justified using deductive reasoning.

You will recall a few paragraphs ago that I said that some beliefs are properly basic. I also refer to this type of belief as self-justifying. In other words, we do not need to, and in same cases we dare not, subject certain beliefs to the tests of justification. Perhaps belief in other minds would qualify as properly basic. You do not need to concern yourself with proving there are other minds because such a belief is self-evident (unless you are a highly educated philosopher who has learned how to be stupid in ways that the rest of us could never fathom). Every worldview has a chain of beliefs that is eventually anchored to something or perhaps nothing, depending on the worldview. A worldview anchored to air is one that, at bottom, provides no justification for it beliefs.

What kind of claim then is the claim that miracle workers are still present? What kind of claim is it to say that God is performing miracles today? Steve Hays and other continuationists seem to think it is an exegetical claim. They are wrong. It is not an exegetical claim. There is nothing in Scripture that provides the clear teaching that miracles will continue right up into the Parousia. Hence, this claim cannot be justified on purely exegetical grounds. However, on the flip side, the exegetical argument that God is not performing miracles today is about as weak. We cannot deny that God is performing miracles today on a purely exegetical basis. Belief in that claim cannot be justified on solely exegetical grounds. The claim is not an exegetical claim. It is an empirical claim.

How do we investigate empirical claims? Do we open our bibles to see if an empirical claim is true? First of all, we have to examine the source for the claim to determine if it meets the criteria of justification.

What are we observing? Are we actually observing miracles? We hear some reports, but what we need is something we can actually verify. Jesus healed in such a way that His miracles were self-verifying. He didn’t sneak off to someplace else, claim to perform a bunch of miracles and then come back with fancy stories about it all.

What is the difference between modern claims to miracles and biblical claims? It is simply this: the source. And the source makes all the difference in the world. Who is the source for the miracle claims of Scripture? Who is the source for the miracle claims in modern times? In the former case, the source is God Himself. In the latter case, it is fallen man.

Belief in modern claims of miracles is not self-justifying. All beliefs that are not self-justifying should be subjected to justification. All beliefs are not justified in the same way. Belief in modern miracles is empirical in nature. Empirical beliefs are subject to inductive justification. Hence, belief that a miracle has occurred should be empirically justified. Belief in the Bible as God’s word is neither, wholly empirical or entirely rationalistic. A basic Christian belief is that the Bible and all it contains is the self-justifying word of God. Hence, belief that all the contents of the word of God are true is a self-justifying belief. All biblical miracles are infallible records contained in the Bible and given by God Himself. Therefore, belief in Biblical claims of miracles is a self-justifying belief. Self-justifying beliefs are not subject to empirical or rational justification.

In summary then, it is easy to see the difference between cessationist beliefs concerning modern claims of the miraculous and the continuationists. The continuationist argument is guilty of applying the wrong criteria for justification of belief in modern claims of miracles. Such beliefs are empirical in nature and ethically speaking, must be subjected to inductive scrutiny. Not only is justification not unethical, as Hays seems to contend, it is morally necessary. On the other hand, the miracle claims of Scripture have a very different source and therefore are of a very different nature. These claims are made by a source that we dare not question. Scripture is self-justifying. Therefore, belief in the miracle claims of Scripture is a self-justifying belief. Plantinga tells us that any proposition is properly basic for an individual if and only if such proposition is incorrigible for the individual or self-evidence. For the Christian, Scripture is just that! Its testimony is elevated high above Hays’ fallacious argument by analogy, not to mention his sources for modern claims of the miraculous.

The Content of the Ancient Gift of Prophecy

προφῆται δὲ δύο ἢ τρεῖς λαλείτωσαν καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι διακρινέτωσαν·

One of the greatest challenges to interpreting Paul’s letter to the Corinthians today is the tremendous temptation to do so in light of modern Charismatic practices and interpretations. The interpreter must work hard to ignore the noise coming from that quarter so as to allow proper exegesis to run its course. Only then are we in a better place to understand the truth revealed in the text. Perhaps then we are in a better position to discuss the question of NT prophecy.

Neither UBS nor NA28 lists any textual variants in this short sentence. Other than the fact that Comfort tells us in a note on p46 that δὲ was a superlinear addition, we have barely any work to perform from a textual critical standpoint.

Translating this text is also very straightforward. “But let two or three prophets speak and the others examine.” The NAS leaves the conjunction untranslated. I include it for the simple reason that it is there and I have no reason to exclude it yet, nor will I as far as the point of this post is concerned.

The Corinthian Church was founded by Paul in Acts 18. The work there seemed to begin to advance when Paul moved his work the house of Titus Justus. In fact, even the leader of the synagogue, Crispus, believed along with his household. Corinth was a very wealthy city, strategically located on the Peloponnesian peninsula. It controlled two harbors and all trade moving to Asia as well as to Italy. Corinth was a city of the strong. Wealth and strength quite naturally tend to produce pride. For the Corinthian, status was a prominent fixation. This creates an atmosphere where the virtue of humility and the idea of serving others are more than a little challenging. The occasion for this letter was one of rejoinder. The Corinthians had asked several questions of Paul and this letter is the product of that event.

Paul begins the larger literary context within which our text is located in 1 Cor. 12:1 with the phrase, “Now concerning the spirituals.” This indicates as in other places, that the Corinthians had questions concerning the spiritual gifts. Paul’s objective is to provide some clarity around the purpose and function of those gifts. It is in this context that our subject emerges.

The very first question that no one seems to be asking or answering in this discussion of the spiritual gifts is this: are there any differences between Christian living post the canon and Christian living during this period of the Church before the revelation had been completed? In other words, is there any difference between us, and the ancient Corinthian Church? Better yet, is there any difference between NT Christian living during the transition period and those living outside that transition period? I fail to see how the answer to that question could be anything other than, absolutely! Once that fact is established, we can then understand that drawing parallels between modern Christianity and transitional Christianity can be overly simplistic and even downright naïve. In reality, there are three periods that must be taken into consideration when examining God’s activity in the Christian Church. The transition period which is the period when revelation was still in progress. The second period is that period when the revelation was completed but was still being circulated and collected. The third period is that period of time that represents not only the completion of the revelation, but also the completion of the collection and recognition of that revelation in one document. It is the divine document of divine documents, known as the Bible. The transition period was completed at some point in the late first century. The second period was completed as all the writings made their way throughout the communities culminating in the fixed canon. The third period continues to present day.

The text I am examining is one that is used by many Continuationists to justify their conclusion that NT prophets were different, not authoritative, and non-binding. I will dispute the principle behind this view below. For now, I want to get back to our short exegesis of the text. The Greek word λαλείτωσαν, from λαλέω is a present, active, imperative. This indicates that Paul is issuing a straightforward command. It only appears in this form in the GNT in this text. It is a very common word used to mean, speak or talk. The second word we are interested in is far more nuanced that this one. The word διακρινέτωσαν, from διακρίνω, is also a present, active, imperative. Once more, Paul is issuing a command to the Corinthians. The root of this word is κρινω, which is the word commonly translated, judge. According to ANLEX (Analytical Lexicon of the Greek NT), it means “(1) as evaluating the difference between things discern, distinguish, differentiate (MT 16.3); (2) as making a distinction between persons by evaluation make a difference, decide between, pass judgment on (AC 15.9); (3) as a legal technical term for arbitration judge a dispute, settle a difference (1C 6.5); (4) in the aorist tense, the middle sense is conveyed with the passive form; (a) as debating an issue dispute, contend, argue (AC 11.2); (b) as being undecided within oneself doubt, hesitate, waver (JA 1.6)” Louw-Nida says, to make a judgment on the basis of careful and detailed information—‘to judge carefully, to evaluate carefully.’ BDAG informs us, “to evaluate by paying careful attention to, evaluate, judge pass judgment on w. acc. ἑαυτόν on oneself.”

It is for this reason that scholars like Wayne Grudem, believe that OT prophets and prophecy was fundamentally different from NT prophecy. After all, who are we to pass judgment on the Word of God? In our apologetic and theology, we repeatedly argue that the Word of God is self-authenticating and fully authoritative. The kind of judgment we see in 1 Corinthians is therefore new. Such a view fails to properly nuance what we mean when we say we hold the Scripture to be self-authenticating and authoritative. There is a distinction to be made between judging something to be the Word of God and judging the Word of God. Were OT prophets subject to the same kind of judgment? Deut. 13 provides for the clear judgment of dreamers and prophets who arise, even giving signs that come true. The test of whether or not they are true prophets is whether or not they point back to what has already been revealed. So the kind of judgment we see in the NT is not new at all. It has always existed since we learned about prophets thousands of years ago. Paul is not telling the Corinthians to do anything any differently than God, through Moses, had already told the ancient Hebrews to do. In addition, Jesus warned His disciples in Matt. 7 that many false prophets would arise and would deceive many. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Hence Paul was giving the Corinthians nothing new. In fact, the word προσέχω means to be in a continuous state of readiness to learn of any future danger, need, or error, and to respond appropriately—‘to pay attention to, to keep on the lookout for, to be alert for, to be on one’s guard against.’ To introduce a new concept in this text, that had not already been given by Moses and reinforced again by Christ Himself is clearly the product of eisgesis. It is understanding this word and this text through the modern Charismatic experience and interpretation. It is thoroughly anachronistic.

I would continue with a straightforward exegesis of the passage but I think we have gone far enough to recognize that there is no new concept or idea of prophecy revealed in this text. Moses had already established this very practice hundreds of years before Paul pinned the command. In addition, Jesus had also repeatedly warned of false prophets and clearly expected that any prophet and their prophecy would come under scrutiny.

So then, if what I have argued above is true, then one wonders, what was the likely content of these prophecies? First of all, we are not speculating on a teaching of Scripture. Scripture does not reveal the content of these prophecies. But let us see if we can eliminate some things that others think it might have been. Could it have been what we hear from modern Pentecostals today? For example, a prophecy comes out that Titus is to marry Mary. Now, how on earth could something like that be judged to from God or from man? The short answer is that judgment of such prophecies is impossible. We simply cannot know for sure. Therefore, the most important thing we learn about this text is that all NT prophecy was judge-able. In fact, all NT prophecies by divine command had to be judge-able. This is because Paul commanded the Corinthians to judge them all. No prophecy could escape scrutiny. Any prophecy that could be rendered unjudge-able would necessarily be judged false because it places the Christian in a position of not being able to obey the divine command. Most modern prophecies are not really prophecies. There are three popular types that come to mind. First, there are those prophecies that state what we already know from Scripture. For instance, someone may prophesy that I am going to be tempted to sin but that God is with me. Okay, thank you for telling me what God has already told me. Second, there are those prophecies that are predictive. These are the ones that never seem to pan out unless they are educated guesses and not really prophetic utterances. For instance, the church may have acknowledged that a young man has the attributes of a leader and someone prophecies he will become a leader some day and some day he does. Amazing! The third kind of prophecy concerns things that really aren’t judge-able. These prophecies are personal and instructive. They tell people what career to pursue, what job to take, who to marry, where to live, etc. We can rule them out as legitimate because they do not fall into the category of biblical prophecy because all biblical prophecies are judge-able. The first group of prophecies can be dismissed as well because they are simply the Word of God regurgitated. They are not legitimate, at the moment divine revelations or Words of God. One way to judge a prophet was first and foremost that he had to be recognized by the leaders as a prophet. Apostolic recognition was one criteria for judging prophets and prophecies. The apostolic component seems to be significant.

Agabus prophesied that Paul would be taken prisoner and amazingly he was. Predictive prophecies can be judged based on their fulfillment. Some prophecies can be judged based on their connection with apostolic authority. During this time of transition, prophecy played a critical role in the unfolding of divine revelation that came to be encapsulated in Scripture. In addition, it is quite possible, and highly probable that some prophecies contained what would eventually become encapsulated in Scripture. For instance, while Paul was writing to the Galatians his anathema upon all who preach a different gospel, a prophet in Corinth could have been giving the same light to the Corinthians. Another prophet completely unfamiliar with Isa. 53 could have been given that revelation someplace else to give to that local church. To speculate that these prophets were off giving revelation to these believers that no one else ever came to have is a fruitless exercise. If it is true, it is irrelevant. God withheld it from us for a reason, that is, if it is true which I doubt. Personally, I see no reason to embrace that view and I see no way it can be anything more than baseless speculation. The fact that God has given us everything we need for life and godliness in Scripture would indicate to me that what God revealed to them, he also revealed to us. Otherwise, we are back to the question of the universal sufficiency of Scripture. This would mean that some NT Christians needed more than we have in the text while the rest of us do not. I find that view enormously unappealing and relatively indefensible.

The view that there is a new brand of prophet and prophecy in the NT is without exegetical support. The scrutiny originally given by Moses in Deut. 13 was reinforced by Christ in Matthew 7 and here by Paul. There is no good reason to think otherwise. The warnings against false prophets are abundant in the NT. That there was some criterion in place by which prophets and their prophecies were to be judged is evident. When Paul and Barnabas were separated for the ministry by the Holy Spirit, it was through prophecy in the presence and under the consent of apostolic authority. For the most part, modern prophecy is either restating what is obvious in Scripture, not subject to judgment for lack of a criterion, educated guesses, and mostly failed predictions.

The failure by Steve Hays, Wayne Grudem, Michael Brown, and others to recognize the transitional nature of the ancient Church and God’s dealings with men at that time has led to unnecessary confusion regarding the charismata. For example, Hays’ outrageous view that Jesus’ appearance to Paul should not be viewed as exceptional and instead, should be taken as normative, is just one example of the logical end of where this hermeneutic leads. With kind of interpretive method in hand, it is no wonder that Charismatics have been unable to contradict and refute error. My final point here is that this verse actually commands what the Strange Fire conference has set out to do: critically examine prophecy. It is a rare occurrence that you will find a Charismatic leader encouraging others to question their “Word from God!” In fact, most of them use their status as a way to discourage any questioning of their claims and prophecies. If you don’t believe me, just go to a Charismatic forum, pick a famous Charismatic leader, find a clearly unbiblical prophecy or sermon, and place him under scrutiny and see what happens. In other words, attempt to apply 1 Cor. 14:29 to the Charismatic prophets and watch what happens.