a SATS prof
Member
The Baptist, Wayne Grudem, insists that it would not because the exclamations of NT prophets were not normative (Systematic Theology, 1039). Were Grudem correct, does that counter a major Cessationist argument?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Would the Continuation of the Gift ofProphecy Challenge Sola Scriptura?
- Thread starter a SATS prof
- Start date
It really depends on how one defines Prophecy. If its forthtelling then no, since that is what happens every time the Word of God is read and preached correctly.
Now if it is Foretelling absolutely, since the Canon of Scripture is closed. There is no new revelation to be given.
Grudem does not define if he is talking about Forthtelling or Foretelling so in that section, he seems to lump both kinds of Prophecy together and that makes it more difficult to discuss.
Now if it is Foretelling absolutely, since the Canon of Scripture is closed. There is no new revelation to be given.
Grudem does not define if he is talking about Forthtelling or Foretelling so in that section, he seems to lump both kinds of Prophecy together and that makes it more difficult to discuss.
No. Only if you're a Montanist. Most of the Charismatics and Pentecostals I know, who exercise ecstatic utterances, don't believe it is new revelation nor revelation on par with Scripture.
Grudem's arguments for cessationism are over done imho. He is in error at points.
Grudem is not a cessationist. He was summing up cessationist arguments that he then argues against.
Right you are. My apologies, I was thinking of someone else and got Grudem confused in my quick reply. I had meant Gaffin. I don't remember losing my memory...its around here somewhere...
a SATS prof
Member
---
Hello Blessed Wife:
Your name is so meaningful. My dear wife Jan died without warning in her sleep 5 yrs ago, I was blessed to have God share her with me. I am a former husband blessed.
As to Grudem, `he states on p. 1052 that NT prophets did not speak with authority equal to Scripture and on1054 he understands that the prophet's words were evaluated by the congregation (1 Cor 14:29-38) and on 1055, Grudem asserts that most Charismatics agree that modern prophetic words are not equal to Scripture. BUT on 1056, Grudem takes the position that a modern prophecy may be God caused and be one, lesser type of revelation.
Question for anyone: Why must any "fore telling" challenge the closed canon? IF, eg, a "prophet" in an a local church meeting "prophesies" that buying a new building to meet in would result in dire consequences, how is that denying that the canon is closed?
Last edited:
I am not one who would be comfortable in the "cessation" camp, but am all for Texas secession. 
Too often the closing of the cannon is used as some tree to hang hats upon, and the Scriptures do present that the gifts Paul discusses in Corinthian 13 would stop, but that such gifts would stop when that which is perfect comes.
Of course, there are those who consider the Bible as "that which is perfect" especially the KJV, and they would also need to acknowledge that such discussions as occurs in the "Bible versions" section of the BB would be unnecessary.
I do not hold that is the intent of Paul's comments, and so am not a cessation person.
That doesn't mean I go chasing after modern day "prophets," nor do I cast myself before charismatic utterances. That such occurrences are often fakers and charlatans does not discredit the truth of Scriptures any more than some other doctrinal matter is destroyed by the foolishness of humankind.
If the Lord brings to my heart and my mind some matter in which He desires to impress and imprint, then that is His business.
There is a sin that believers should be very careful in judgment. There is that rebuke given when one would attribute and condemn as something conjured by the enemy of believers but was actually the work and results done by the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 12).
Too often the closing of the cannon is used as some tree to hang hats upon, and the Scriptures do present that the gifts Paul discusses in Corinthian 13 would stop, but that such gifts would stop when that which is perfect comes.
Of course, there are those who consider the Bible as "that which is perfect" especially the KJV, and they would also need to acknowledge that such discussions as occurs in the "Bible versions" section of the BB would be unnecessary.
I do not hold that is the intent of Paul's comments, and so am not a cessation person.
That doesn't mean I go chasing after modern day "prophets," nor do I cast myself before charismatic utterances. That such occurrences are often fakers and charlatans does not discredit the truth of Scriptures any more than some other doctrinal matter is destroyed by the foolishness of humankind.
If the Lord brings to my heart and my mind some matter in which He desires to impress and imprint, then that is His business.
There is a sin that believers should be very careful in judgment. There is that rebuke given when one would attribute and condemn as something conjured by the enemy of believers but was actually the work and results done by the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 12).
And this helps, ????
Stating an opinion (even using a picture) is not proving a level of Scripture understanding as true or false.
a SATS prof
Member
You have to think about it. If a private revelation agrees with scripture it is superfluous. If it disagrees with scripture it is a lie. That seems both reasonable and logical to me. And God is nothing if not logical. (Λογος)
---
What if a private revelation concerns an issue not referenced in Scripture?
I would disagree that any "private revelation that agrees with Scripture" is superfluous.You have to think about it. If a private revelation agrees with scripture it is superfluous. If it disagrees with scripture it is a lie. That seems both reasonable and logical to me. And God is nothing if not logical. (Λογος)
Often a believer will have a private input from the Holy Spirit about a matter. This is a "private revelation" in which some actually seek when praying about what choice to make, or an answer to a need. There is nothing "anti" Scriptural, and certainly such was encouraged by the Lord when He said, "When you pray...." (Matthew 6)
Why pray if you don't expect an answer? (James)
Why does a preacher call on the assembly to pray if they expect that the Scriptures give the answers?
There are principles of Scriptures that should never be violated. Should an answer violate Scriptures the answer is not of God. (1 John)
There are situations in which even Paul gave opinion and it wasn't from the Lord. Do we take that opinion now as "from the Lord" or leave it as Paul would? (1 Corinthians)
If one is to take the stand that "private revelation" is unnecessary, then one logically must forgo talking to God at all and more especially in that most intimate of communications in which only the spirit within that is given by God makes acceptable communication. (Romans)
Please don't lie about what I said.
Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures . . .
What was it that God forgot to tell us?
a SATS prof
Member
Whether I should give my $400 to Compassion International or another Christian charity.
Whether I should name my boy Bill or Sam.
Whether I should answer your picture post.
Whether I should Marry Christ Joyce or Christian Mary.
Last edited:
In other words He forgot nothing.
Who you give your money to is a function of investigation, logic, and reason.
What you name your son is a decision between you and your wife. With your wife having the final say.
And whether or not you respond to my post is entirely up to you.
This is great fun! If the NT prophets and the modern 'prophets' do not have authority equal to Scripture, why is that? It can only be that they are sometimes wrong. By how much are they wrong? No one knows. At what point of accuracy does a prophecy become meaningless. Would 75% correct be acceptable?
Suppose someone in your church stood up and gave the following four word prophecy:
God loves this church. Now if its 75% correct then one word might be wrong. So it could mean
Satan loves this church or
God hates this church or
God loves another church or
God loves this town.
What possible benefit is there in such 'prophecy.' What is the point of them? What good do they do except to mislead the gullible? In Britain in 1999, a guy prophesied that 'Before the flowers have died on Princess Diana's grave, revival will come sweeping through Britain.' Yeah right! In Deuteronomy, the penalty for false prophecy was death. I think we should reinstate it.
Last edited:
Would you quote where I lied.
That is a serious accusation, and I need to see what you consider I lied about.
I err, not knowing the Scriptures?????
Perhaps you don't know Paul's writing as well as I assumed. When Paul states that he is giving what HE thinks and states that it is NOT from the Lord, then that puts Paul's statement as OPINION. YOU may not recognize it as such, but that doesn't change what it is, any more than Clinton could define what he did or didn't do by the word "is."
I don't know what God didn't tell you. If you don't listen to him, and rely upon all answers from the Scriptures, then who knows? Do you pray? Do you ever seek God's answer in prayer? Have you seen a soul saved that you prayed would come to know Christ as an answer to your prayer? Did you pray about the sickness and expect an answer?
These are rhetorical questions, certainly, but ultimately, it is not "superfluous" to expect God answers prayer and is not constrained to Scriptures in doing so.
Having posted all that, I do expect that you respond to a single question.
When and where in my post did I lie?
I quoted the lie.