Sam Storms on Fallible: Point Nine

Ninth, yet another reason why I believe the cessationist is wrong on this point is the failure to recognize different ways or senses in which God might “reveal” something to us. In Philippians 3:15 he tells the church that “if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you.” And in Ephesians 1:17 Paul prays that a “spirit of wisdom and revelation” would be granted to believers. “Once more,” notes Grudem, “it would not be possible to think that every time a believer gained new insight into his privileges as a Christian and reported it to a friend, the actual words of that speech would have been thought to be God’s very words. It would be the report of something God had ‘revealed’ to the Christian, but the report would only come in merely human words” (Grudem, Prophecy, 65). We see two other similar uses of the verb or noun form of “reveal/revelation” in Matthew 11:27 and Romans 1:18.

Storms’ appeal to Philippians 3:15 is simply befuddling. “Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; 16. However, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained.” Clearly Paul is not talking about the various forms and methods of revelation. He is talking about the godly attitude of pressing toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. He is talking about spiritual growth. This is the attitude we are to display. Moreover, if we display, or lack this spiritual discipline, God will reveal that to us. How does God do that? He reveals this to us through His word. To content that Paul had our subject in mind when he penned his letter to the Philippians is a complete exegetical failure.

Storms then points us to Eph. 1:17 as if this text provides some shelter for his flimsy view. But once more, we discover that Ephesians 1:17 has no bearing on our discussion. It is quite likely that Paul had in mind the Holy Spirit when he penned this letter, not the human spirit. The phrase ‘the spirit of wisdom and revelation’ could be a reference to the believer’s own spirit (RSV, NAB) to which God’s Spirit imparts understanding of divine realities. However, since the ‘revelation’ word-group always describes a disclosure given by God, Christ, or the Holy Spirit, or is the result of events brought about by them, it is more likely that our phrase is speaking of the Holy Spirit; hence the NIV rendering the Spirit of wisdom and revelation.^[1] 

The attached genitives, though parallel to Paul’s practice elsewhere when dealing with the human spirit (Rom 8:15; Gal 6:1; 2 Tim 1:7), involve content (“revelation”) that does not derive from the human spirit (contra Abbott, 28). Neither should the phrase be taken in parallel with the participial clause in the next verse to indicate human capacity, since there the passive voice implies a divine source. Rather, the referent here is the Holy Spirit (Best, 163; Hoehner, 257; cf. 1 Cor 2:12, 14; 12:8).^[2]

Hoehner also says, “However, this verse most likely is a reference to the Holy Spirit. [Hoehner, Harold. Ephesians, 257] I recognize that opinions on this text vary. It is for that very reason that Storms should know better than to point to it as supporting his thesis.

From this incredibly weak position, Storms points us to Matt. 11:27: “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” How does the Son reveal the Father to us? He opens our eyes to the truth of the canonical revelation, God’s word proclaimed, through the gracious work of the Holy Spirit on the human heart. This argument progresses from bad to worse. If Storms has not embarrassed himself enough, he points us to Romans 1:18. This is a text speaking to the force, clarity, and sufficiency of general revelation. It has nothing to say about the subject before us.

At a minimum, Storms has engaged in complete exegetical failure, introduced a couple of red herrings, and is guilty of some of the worse scripture twisting I have witnessed in this area. There is no reason to think that NT prophets or OT prophets received hunches that God was speaking to them similar to modern Pentecostal claims. The idea that biblical prophets ever struggled to know that it was really God speaking to them is foreign to Scripture. God’s prophets knew with certainty that God was moving them to speak and they knew with certainty precisely what God was commanding them to say. There were tingles running along the spine, no gut feeling, no hunches, and no second-guessing in the sense that we see in the Pentecostal churches. Such a perspective understanding is entirely anachronistic.

---

^[1] Peter Thomas O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), 131–132.

^[2] William J. Larkin, Ephesians: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), 20.

Sam Storms on Fallible Prophecy: Point 8

Eighth, in conjunction with the previous point, I should also mention that the prophetic warning of Agabus, though correct in speaking of the persecution Paul would endure should he go to Jerusalem, was wrong on two points: (a) it was the Romans who bound Paul, not the Jews (Acts 21:33; 22:29); and (b) far from the Jews delivering Paul into the hands of the Gentiles, he had to be forcibly rescued from them (Acts 21:31-36). Those who insist that the NT gift is no less infallible than its OT counterpart are faced with accounting for this mixture of truth and error. To this point I have only heard that we continuationsts are being "overly pedantic" or are guilty of "precisionism." Yet it appears that the strict standards applied under the OT are now conveniently stretched in the NT under the pressure of a passage that doesn't fit the cessationist theory. Might it not rather be that NT prophecy is occasionally fallible, and therefore to be carefully judged (1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:19-22)? Some have objected to this reading and insist that Paul’s report in Acts 28:17 of what took place in Acts 21 is essentially the same as prophesied by Agabus. But Paul’s point in 28:17 is simply that he was transferred from Roman custody in Jerusalem into Roman custody in Caesarea. In other words, Acts 28:17 is his description of his transfer “out of” Jerusalem into the Roman judicial system at Caesarea (as found in Acts 23:12-35), and is not a description of the events associated with the mob scene in Acts 21:27-36. Agabus cannot so easily let off the hook.

Was Agabus wrong in his prophecy? Did the Jews bind Paul in Jerusalem? Acts 21:30 says the Jews grabbed hold of Paul and dragged him out of the Temple. Then in Acts 22:30, the commander who stopped the Jews from killing Paul brought him before the Sanhedrin. As Roman citizen, the only recourse the Jews would have, would be to hand Paul over to the Roman courts. After Paul’s appearance before the Sanhedrin, about 40 Jews took an oath to eat nothing until they had killed Paul. Their plot was foiled and Paul’s long journey to Rome was underway.

There are prophecies from OT Scripture that were fulfilled in stages and some still are. One has to look no further than Joel 2 and Acts 2 to recognize that prophecy is fulfilled according to God’s timetable and that there may be gaps and means by which God accomplishes His work. Storms costs himself tremendous credibility on this point. When Storms says that Paul’s words in Acts 28:17 are not linked to Agabus’ prophecy in 21:11, it is an obvious case of special pleading. Storms wants unwarranted precision in the supposedly failed prophecy scenario and tremendous generality in this instance. Paul says that he was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. This is exceptionally close to Agabus’ prophecy. It is unlikely Paul was giving a detailed historical accounting of how he got to Rome. Rather, he was recounting the inception of what brought him there their city. It is simply amazing the lengths to which these men will go in order to support a view that is simply unsupportable.

This was a short reply because point 10 looks to be more complex at least in the sense that it raises some additional sub-points that will make it a longer reply. I thought it best not to attempt to join the two. In case you do not see me around on FB, I have left the farm. My FB days are over. In the end, it seems that it is one huge waste of my time. You can always request my email address and I am happy to correspond where time permits.

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.

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.

Steve Hays: Shell of a Man Or Just A Tool

If case you are wondering if I have stopped going to Triablogue, the answer is "sort of." You see, a couple of years ago I began to notice something in Steve Hays writings that made me a bit uncomfortable. I noticed that Steve seemed to revel in engaging in fearless speculation concerning matters for which we have no way to ascertain their truthfulness because there is no divine revelation for them. I cautioned Steve then that undisciplined speculation concerning matters of God and divine truth is a practice we should avoid because it is dangerous. It can lead to sin if it isn't sin in and of itself. Steve seemed appalled that I would attempt to correct him and responded with vitriol and a sarcastic rhetoric not fitting for Christian conversation.

Since that time, my number of disagreements with Steve Hays and the Triablogue bloggers have continued to increase. In addition, the use of unkind and quite frankly, ungodly tactics have continued to increase. Now, if you read the ROE at Triablogue, they almost dare people to disagree with them. They are very comfortable with debate, according to their ROE. But I have discovered that Steve Hays does not actually believe in, follow, or honor their ROE. It makes me wonder why they even have them.

The last straw for Hays has apparently been the "Strange Fire" discussions. Hays has hammered away at John MacArthur, Fred Butler, Frank Turk, Dan Phillips, and yours truly. But he has run into stiff rebuttals from every quarter. My experience with Mr. Hays has been that if he does not like your arguments, and if he cannot refute them, he resorts to ad homs, and his favorite, poisoning the well. The level of equivocation he engages in with false analogies is significant. In response to my arguments, rather than try to keep up and have good sound conversation with the aim being to get to the truth of the subject and maybe reach agreement, Hays has resorted to name calling. One of his bloggers referred to the tasteless tactics of one J.P. Holding who has devoted an entire web-page filled with hateful lies about me. (Great is your reward Jesus said!) In addition to that, the same blogger at Triablogue that is, put up a pic of me calling me an internet troll. How on earth can Christians view that sort of behavior and not speak up and call even their closest friends to repentance? Should men like Steve Hays not be called out publicly? Has God given us license to speak to each other differently in digital form than He has verbally or with ink? I don't think so.

The purpose of the Word of God is to transform our lives. The reason we want to know the truth is because Jesus said it will set us free. We discuss these things because we care about helping one another on our journey of transformation into the image of Christ, not because we want something to debate. Truth matters and it matters a lot. Steve Hays leaves me with the impression that it is all about argumentation. He couldn't be more wrong.

This post is talking about a man who defends a movement that defends the health and wealth gospel, believes there is something supernatural and miraculous about speaking gibberish, has people barking like dogs, roaring like lions, and hissing like serpents all the while calling those behaviors a work of God. He has never performed a miracle but argues that the Bible promises us we can do them if we just believe. He defends the idea that miracle workers still exist in the Church but he can't produce even one. He thinks the gifts of healing are still present but cannot offer one healer who can demonstrate this gift to us so that we may glorify God.

Do I still go to Triablogue? If you look at the picture above, it is the internet site that Steve Hays' crew have redirected my IP address to when I do try to go to Triablogue. So while Hays is on his blog, spewing out criticisms of the things I write, he thinks it fair, reasonable, and Christian to make sure I cannot get to his blog in order to defend my views and perhaps respond to misperceptions about what I actually believe. Personally, such a tactic is not really being a real man about it all and as for Christian behavior, it is only a shell. When you examine the tactics employed by Triablogue bloggers, I know of not a single session of elders who would approve. Of course all the sessions I am familiar with are godly sessions for the most part. And even the one session I am not so fond of would not tolerate such unkind and unloving, disrespectful behavior. I hope Hays will read this post objectively and pause long enough to ask himself some tough questions. It simply is shameful to attack someone repeatedly and set it up so that not only can they not respond, they can't even know they are being attacked. I find such behavior not only lacking in Christian virtue, I find it downright cowardly.