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.

The Scandal Behind the Mark Driscoll Scandal

By now you know that Mark Driscoll has done it again. He has pulled one of the most ingenious PR stunts I have seen. From a business perspective, albeit, an unethical one, Mark's visit to the Strange Fire conference was nothing short of genius. For about 3 hours worth of work, Mark has likely added tens of thousands to his book sales, maybe even hundreds of thousands.

Here is a man who claims to know and love Christ. He claims that he engaged in this stunt out of a sincere and pure love for the truth. Mark tells us he only wants to be helpful. He wants to impart the TRUTH to those at the Strange Fire conference that may be struggling to understand how the Holy Spirit moves in modern times. Mark Driscoll is VERY concerned for the TRUTH.

So what does Mark Driscoll, a man VERY concerned about the TRUTH do? He implies that he is in the neighborhood, drives 40 miles up the 5, likely the nation's busiest highway, to take books onto the conference grounds of John MacArthur's Strange Fire event. Why? Well, because Mark Driscoll is concerned about the TRUTH.

What does Driscoll do? He enters the conference grounds and begins, without regard for protocol, without regard or respect for John MacArthur or Grace To You ministries, and proceeds to set up his own little unauthorized booth and distribute his book that he knows contains contrary views to the very conference he is attending.

When security figures out what is going on, they ask him to leave, politely, and to take his books with him. Driscoll, without protest tells GTY to keep his books as a gift and proceeds to his car. But before he can put GTY out of sight of his rear-view-mirror he tweets to nearly half a million people that GTY Security confiscated his books. Why? Well, Mark says he came to the conference because he cares about the TRUTH.

What are we to do with a calculating and deliberate liar like Mark Driscoll? Well, we do three things: first, we make sure the Church knows what he is...a liar. Second, we continue to confront Mark with his sin until he repents according to Matt. 18:15-18. Three, we pray for Mark's salvation. You see, Mark Driscoll deliberately lied to the Church and he deliberately, and in premeditated fashion, committed slander against John MacArthur and GTY Security. Now, I realize to the typical American, easy believism, cheap grace kind of Christianity, this is nothing. In the name of grace, and in the name of "we are all sinners and none of us are perfect" kind of nonsense, Mark's behavior will be downplayed as a mistake, an error in judgment, or even perfectly defensible if you can believe it. May I submit to you that this attitude is the scandal behind the scandal.

I remember a couple in Acts 5 that lied to the Church and to the Holy Spirit. God killed them both. It is a scandal of scandals not that Mark Driscoll would engage in such egregiously wicked behavior. The scandal is actually related to one of the main points of the Strange Fire conference to begin with: the Church's refusal to confront and deal with sin and error in a loving and biblical manner.

This is the "Thyatiran Scandal" of of Rev. 3:20: "But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols." It wasn't the sexual immorality that so angered God in the case of Thyatira. That wasn't it at all. It was that Church's tolerance of wickedness and her refusal to rebuke, correct, and criticize the immorality in her presence that had God telling her that He had THIS against her.

No decent elder board would allow Mark Driscoll to continue in leadership after this profane and disgraceful act. He has brought open and public shame to Christ, to the Church, and to Christianity. The Church, if she is to maintain an ounce of moral authority must address Driscoll's sin openly, lovingly, and sternly. She must do so for the sake of Christ, for the sake of Christianity, for the sake of Mark Driscoll, and for the sake of the good name of John MacArthur and GTY Ministries.

I ask you a simple question: if you are to judge a tree by its fruit and Mark Driscoll says he did what he did because he is concerned about TRUTH, what kind of tree is Driscoll?

Responding to Hays' Fallacious Poisoning the Well Argument

Some typically confused comments from Ed Dingess:Steve Hays is at it again with his at-a-distance pie-in-the-sky non-falsifiable theory that God continues to work miracles in a manner not at all materially different from how He has always worked miracles. Hays’ argument is really an argument from silence. What I mean by that is that Hays’ argument appeals to claims of miracles far, far away, in a distant land in order to defend his position.
 i) I've never said modern miracles only occur in Third World countries. Rather, I've objected to how MacArthurites dismiss reports from Third World Christians out of hand. ii) Notice, though, how Ed's argument is indistinguishable from how atheists attack Biblical miracles:  at-a-distance pie-in-the-sky non-falsifiable theory...claims of miracles far, far away, in a distant land
 Isn't that exactly how secular debunkers discount Biblical miracles? "You Christians appeal to conveniently unfalsifiable miracles from the distant past."  If someone claims to be a miracle worker, we simply demand some form of clear and acceptable proof. Had someone been able to supply such a certification, perhaps the contours of the debate would shift.
 Even when medical corroboration is provided, MacArthurites fold their arms say that's not "on the level of undeniable miracles in the NT." 

I offer just a brief response because that is really all that is required. First of all, note that Hays engages in the logical fallacy of poisoning the well by interjecting Hume and attempting to claim that cessationist borrow from Hume's skepticism. He also accuses my of using atheist tactics, which I think is a real howler. No one should be able to read what I have said or how I have argued and conclude that there is any hint of atheistic or Humean tactics or doctrine.

i) I never said that Hays only points to third world countries. What Hays needs to do, quite simply is offer some proof. If miracle workers exist, produce one. Give us a name and let us carefully examine him. That is the very best way to end this debate. If Hays is so confident that we are wrong and that this argument is not one of theory and abstractions, give us a real, flesh and blood miracle worker here in THIS country then or any country as far as that goes, and let us move the debate down the road. I am willing to admit that I could be wrong about this. But, you see, I just have not been given a single solitary reason at this point, to think I am. The burden of proof on those who claim miracle workers are real and still moving around in society is squarely on them.

ii) This challenge stands. I will not back off from it. It is nothing like how atheists attack the Bible because they begin with a God-less presupposition and without good reason (anti-supernatural viciously circular reasoning) they reject solid historical claims while accepting others. In other words, the atheist method is violently inconsistent. They pick and choose what they will accept from history based on their anti God bias. They allow their atheism to set the standard for what is historical and what is not.

It is true that we cannot show the miracle claims of Scripture to be empirically verifiable. But not everything that is true can be empirically verified. I feel no obligation whatever to accept such silly nonsense. The claim that everything should be empirically verifiable is not itself empirically verifiable. Do we really need to go down this road? Is this the same as modern miracles? Not at all. We do not place the claims of Scripture in the dock of human reason. But we can, we do, and we should place modern claims of men who say they speak for God in the dock and test them with both Scripture and human reason. Can we test these modern claims empirically? You better believe we can. Should we? We most certainly should. Were the miracles of Scripture empirically verifiable at the time? The most certainly were. The way in which Jesus and the early Christian leaders performed miracles left no doubt whatever that a miracle took place. The miraculous phenomena of the ushering in of the New Covenant message and gospel was undeniable and indisputable. Hays seems to equivocate and confuse methods for testing truth claims. He seems to want to apply empirical testing to ancient claims and historical testing to modern claims when he should be doing it the other way around. I know that Hays realizes this. I just don't understand why he argues the way he does. It really is pretty simple how those of us in this camp argue.

Once again, my hope is that some readers will take these comments and carefully examine them. That they will look at these modern claims differently or at least launch an objective investigation of the matter in search for the truth. I hope the result is a new and fresh appreciation for what it means to publicly stand in Christ's place, claiming to represent Him, and how what we say and do everywhere, to include on the internet, is a reflection on Him. When we claim to be a mirror of Christ and we slander one another, we tell others that slander is ok. We tell others that Christians slander each other when they cannot agree on these issues. I hope we grow to the place where we can passionately defend the truth and call a lie a lie without calling each other names or engaging in obvious fallacies designed to paint our detractors in the worse possible light.