- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (8/29)
- Next Post »The Catalyst Box
Prophecy Today
- 08/29/08
- 66
"This book deals with a question that no twenty-first-century Christian can afford to ignore: does God-given prophecy continue in today's church, or doesn't it? And, if it does, can those who announce such prophecies sometimes get things wrong?" So says Stuart Olyott in his Foreword to Prophecy Today. In this brief book, Jim Thompson lays out his argument against contemporary prophecy. He does so in three chapters, presenting a logical argument that is both simple to understand and easy to follow.
He begins by turning to the Old Testament and to the gospels, laying out the distinguishing characteristics of prophecy in Israel. He focuses on the messenger formula so prominent in this kind of prophecy in which the prophet makes it clear that he is speaking not his own words and not a mixture of God's words and his own words, but words that are wholly and entirely God's. "Thus says the Lord," is the call for men to pause and to listen to the very words of God. He shows that this formula continued through the gospels and that even there men understood that prophets spoke entirely for God. Though there were many different kinds of prophets, many kinds of prophecy, many kinds of behavior among prophets, what remained the same was their insistence that they spoke infallibly for God.
In the second chapter, Thompson builds on this foundation as he turns to the New Testament, asking and answering two questions: Is there evidence in the New Testament church for a lower view of prophecy that would accept some margin for error?; and Is there evidence for continuity in the nature of prophecy between the Old and New Testaments? As the reader might expect, he looks to the New Testament and concludes that New Testament Christians understood prophecy in the same way as their Old Testament forebears. He argues directly against Wayne Grudem and his understanding of the nature of fallible prophecy where God communicates a message that men may muddy and then transmit with errors. He teaches that there is a clear continuity in the prophetic calling.
In the book's final chapter, he looks to prophecy in our day, turning to several passages of Scripture and concluding that after the closing of the biblical canon, prophecy, being no longer necessary, ceased . All that God demands and expects that we know about Him is contained in the Scripture; any new form of special revelation serves to detract from the Bible. Here Thompson provides a long list of Christians from days past who have agreed that the age of prophecy has passed and that we should no longer expect this kind of fresh revelation; here he looks at and responds to arguments held as proof that prophecy continues today.
Prophecy Today is a short book and one that is effective, at least in part, for just that reason. Though it deals with a difficult issue, it does so with grace and in a way that anyone can enjoy. Thompson lays out the cessationist argument, at least as it pertains to prophecy, and does so with skill. Those wrestling with the issue and those seeking to understand the contrary view will find this a valuable little book.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (66)
Both continuationist and cessationist positions can be “validated” by experience (either positive or negative experiences). Continuationists have not been the only ones to appeal to experience in this discussion. We do not need prophecy. We don’t need miracles. We have what we need in Christ and the miracle of his regeneration. Cessationist churches have done mighty works by God’s hand and so have continuationist churches. I would argue that continuationism is more faithful to a face-value reading of Scripture (I am not diminishing exegesis, I say the same thing to Arminians when they read Rom. 9) and I’ve had many Christ-honoring, Scripturally-sound miraculous experiences that personally validate my view that God has continued in giving all the gifts of the Spirit. One thing that I think can be agreed on is that Christ and His work on the cross is to be the center and Scripture is the absolute highest authority. If those two things are meticulously obsessed over and passionately pursued then neither the cessationist nor the continuationist will have much to be ashamed of when we stand before Christ.
1 Cor. 2:2,Clint
Just my little addition to the conversation…
For the record, I am a cessationist who is a former Charismatic.
This discussion is not helped by either side insisting that the other believes what they do because of their “preconceived ideas”. Take my case, my preconceived position was continualism. I don’t believe that any longer having being convinced via Scripture. I know of people who would say the opposite and that’s fine, just be sure you’ve been convinced by Scripture. If we stick with that, then at least we have something to stand on. Better weak exegesis than no exegesis.
While previous commitments may sometimes play a part, they by no means always do. Lets just acknowledge that and carry on.
For my part I admit that the Christian life would/could be easier if God was just running around telling his people what to do all the time. I just don’t see Scripture warranting that despite years of teaching to the contrary.
This isn’t intended to be an arguement, just a call to lay off the “well I know a guy who…” stories and the silly accusations.
Oh and…comments like “It’s true, really, you need to believe it.” aren’t helpful either. If it’s really true, it can be demonstrated from Scripture, if it isn’t, it can’t.
Daryl,
You are not detached from your experiences either otherwise you would not have mentioned your former continuationist stance. I am curious, how you can come to the conclusion FROM SCRIPTURE that miraculous gifts have ceased. Please demonstrate that in a direct way. I have a difficult time believing that if we put a brand new “third world country” believer who knows nothing of “cessationism” or “continuationism” in a room by himself to read the whole New Testament…that he would come to the conclusion that miracles died out with the apostles. Western “superior reason” will lead us to that conclusion, but not the Bible.
And God is Sovereign and King of the Universe…he never runs around telling people what to do all the time. If that is your view of prophetic utterance, then I can understand why you left your former view of the charismata. The root of charismata is charis—meaning “grace.” His gifts are always by His grace and flow from what His Son did on the cross. I’m sorry that you experienced the wacky, (I graduated from a charismatic bible school that flirts with false teachers, so I know wacky). But, you are in no position Scripturally to assert that “God doesn’t do that anymore” just as an atheist can’t defend the negative assertion that there is no God.
1 Cor. 2:2,Clint
Clint,
You are right, I am not detached from my experience. But my points still stand. Saying “You are not in a position…” and the bit about a “third world Christian” coming to your conclusions doesn’t validate your conclusions, it only presents a thesis.
I wasn’t trying to convince you of my point, merely pointing out that arguements from either side need to be made from Scripture. You at least demonstrated my point. Your post has not impacted my position, nor should it. You’ve given no arguement.
I’ll add this little bit…Schripture is clear that the prophetic gifts will cease (1 Cor 13). The debate is “when”. I grant that there are legitimate arguments for why “the perfect” refers to the canon of Scripture OR to the end of the age. I find the arguments that it refers to the canon much more convincing.As well, Scripture is plain as to what prophecy and tongues are and what standard they should be held to. It is clear to me that what passes as those 2 things today is not what the Bible describes. So the bit of an argument that I’m offering here is this:
1. Yes, Scripture is plain that they will cease, I think the cessationist view of WHEN they will cease is correct.
2. Scripture’s description of those gifts is clear, and what we see today isn’t it.
The thing is, Clint, your argument that I can’t say “God doesn’t do that anymore” assumes that he hasn’t told us that. If he hadn’t, you’d have a point. I think he has.It’s not about what God can do. No Christian argues that. It’s about what he said. In a lot of ways it similar to the creation argument, no one says God couldn’t use evolution if he wanted to. But the Bible says he didn’t.
Do you see spiritual truths clearer than Paul (writer of 3/4 of the NT) did? And, you are basing your argument on your opinion that “the perfect” describes the canonization of the Bible. Well-respected Reformed (and cessationist) theologian Dr. Richard Gaffin disagrees with you. Are you in authority to determine that they ceased exactly at that time and that the “perfect” absolutely must mean the Bible’s canonization? Your argument holds a little water until you read it in context with the following verses. Arminians do the same with the sovereignty of God that you do with the spiritual gifts…fight and die on the hill of a pet verse out of context.
1 Cor. 2:2,Clint
Daryl,
I am willing to agree with you that 90% of the stuff we see regarding the spiritual gifts isn’t from the Holy Spirit at all. I’m sure you may have never seen the real thing (I remind you that you were appealing to experience again), I’m willing to relent that your community hasn’t seen the real thing. But to confidently assert, that nowhere in the world are the real spiritual gifts in operation…is a bit ignorant. I have seen just as much of the fake, conjured stuff as you…and I despise it.
Clint
Clint,
Ease off the pedal a little. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I’ve read the following verses and see no disagreement. He’s talking about 2 different things. And no, I don’t think those verses are the whole case.So far Clint, your answers have amounted to “WHAT, YOU CAN’T BELIEVE THAT!!”. And your reply about the Arminian argument…silly. You’ve not being very convincing, and demonstrating exactly what I originally said was the problem with this debate in the first place.
But..bless you for at least recognizing what is clearly fake. There’s not enough of the in the charismatic camp for my taste.
Let me quote Craig Keener is response to the 1 Cor. 13 objection. Keener says :
” The fact that Paul assumes all gifts will continue until the return of Christ is clear from his argument in 1 Corinthians 13. There Paul argues that love is more important than the gifts (13:1-3) and that love, in contrast to the gifts, is eternal (13:8-13). Paul mentions three representative gifts of special importance to the Corinthain Christians : prophecy, tongues, and knowledge (13:8), perhaps with slight emphasis on prophecy and knowledge (13:9). In the course of Paul’s argument that the gifts are temporary, we learn when Paul expects them to pass away. The church will no longer needs such gifts when we know as we are known (13:12;compare Jer.31:34), which is when we see Christ face to face (13:12).We live now in a time when we know Christ imperfectly, but when we see him face to face “the perfect” will come. The context leaves no doubt that “the pefect” arrives at Christ’s second coming. Although some older interpreters argued that Paul’s “perfect” referred to the completion of the canon, such an idea could not have occurred either to Paul or to the Corinthians in their own historical context (since at that point no one knew that there would be a New Testament canon, even though Paul was presumably aware that God’s Spirit was guiding his writing). Evidence from the context that “the perfect” refers to the second coming, together with the impossibility that Paul could have expected the Corinthian Christians to think he meant the canon, has left few evangelical scholars who continue to use this text to support a cessation of the gifts. Richard Gaffin, a prominent cessationist, concedes that ” the view that they describe the point at which the New Testament canon is completed cannot be made credible exegetically ”.
I also looked up 1 Cor. 13 in my ” Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible ” (NIV). (Richard L. Pratt, Jr. was the General Editor). I quote them on 1 Cor. 13:10 on the meaning of “perfection” :
” The context (especially v.12) suggests strongly that the apostle here was referring to the second coming of Christ as the final event in God’s plan of redemption and revelation. In comparison with what believers will receive then, the present blessings are only partial and thus imperfect. It was therefore a sign of immaturity for the Corinthians to attach so much significance to, and take so much pride in, the temporary, incomplete gifts of the Spirit. The view that Paul may be referring to the complete revelation contained in the New Testament Scriptures- a view that makes prophecy and other revelatory gifts obsolete, has little support from the context.”
Thanks for the exegetical contextualization of the “cannon” issue. There is no reason to fear the gifts of the Holy Spirit, when they are practiced for the good of all, in the atmosphere of Christ’s Love. There is much to fear when anyone claims “revelations” that add to or take away from that revealed in Christ. As seen throughout both testaments, the role of prophecy was to warn of judgment and the consequence of sin. It’s role was not primarily to predict the future or even speak so as to compile the Scripture. Though they spoke “thus saith the Lord”, I don’t see any Prophet seeing their utterances as being “cannon worthy” as they said them. All of the sayings of the Prophets became canonized over the test of time and the test of their words. None of the prophecies at the church of Corinth (save Paul’s) were canonized. That would challenge what I read as a very limited view as to the scope, purpose, and durability of prophecy in the cessationists viewpoint. Paul noted what a prophet does: “…everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort…and edifies (builds up) the church - 1 Corinthians 14:3,4. Is this not needed in the churches of our day? There are no perfect, “infallible”, sermons that preach the Word. Neither are there are there any “perfect” prophecies that warn of hidden sin and it’s consequences. We are all imperfect vessels with imperfect messages…but God’s Word…the message within the message…that we all preach from the Scriptures…is Perfect. Let’s not confuse the two. (Nor are commentors on even the most holy of the blogs inerrant in their pontifications).
You want me to prove that spiritual gifts have continued until this day (but no Christ-honoring “experience” can be thrown into the mix)? Should I also prove that salvation by faith through grace has still continued and that God has not replaced it with circumcision? The burden of proof is on the cessationist Daryl, not the continuationist. You simply telling me that I’ve proven your point (twice)…has not proven your point at all.
“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but THEN face to face. Now I know in part; THEN I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” - 1 Cor. 13:12
What does “then” refer to in your position? The canonization of the Bible?
I love cessationists Daryl. Sometimes, when people like the “revivalist” Todd Bentley rise up, I’d rather be one. I would not consider myself a “charismatic”…Everyone is charismatic because “charismata” is just a word for gifts….and the whole Body has those whether they are overtly “spiritual” gifts or not.
1 Cor. 2:2, Clint
Clint,
The point I was saying that you proved was simply the uselessness of affirming things without argument or claiming that something “happened to me once” builds a case either way.That was my original point, not cessationism vs. continualism.
Also, since the majority view throughout church history has been that the sign gifts had ceased, surely the burden of proof is at least as much on the continualist as the cessationist.
I don’t think it’s a simple as you make it, nor do I think it all that important. I agree with Frank Turk, that there is more commonality than difference, between a cautious continualist and a cautious cessationist.I’m pretty sure that we both agree that a non-cautious approach to either side is of limits.
One last bit…perhaps both sides would do well to remember that the other side has considered their opinion and not just made it up…
“Also, since the majority view throughout church history has been that the sign gifts had ceased, surely the burden of proof is at least as much on the continualist as the cessationist.”
The “Church” also felt like indulgences were a good idea for a while Daryl. Scripture is authoritative to me, not someone else’s experience (nor mine) or “Church experience.” As wonderful as both may be, neither can authoritatively testify of whether God has sovereignly decided that miracles won’t glorify Him anymore.
I do think it is important because we run the risk of disobeying a command that I believe God hasn’t made obsolete (Do not despise [or esteem of little value] prophecies but test all things…obviously not referring to Scripture). But, in times where “Christians” gobble up disgusting rhetoric about needing to know the healing angel “Emma” or that penal substitutionary atonement is “child abuse”…I think there are far clearer commands that are being neglected. I applaud many qualities about cessationists. And, overall, they have more to teach “charismatics” than vice-versa. Thanks for the dialogue.
1 Cor. 2:2,Clint
Hmmm, it seems to me that many folks want Scriptural proof presented for certain ideas/positions in this debate… and rightly so… However once Scripture is presented, each “side” seems to already know perfectly well what is said in any given text, therefore turning to reason or experience in order to reject or advance certain thoughts. And here we’ve come full circle. Seems to me most here know the Scriptures they want to use for this subject pretty well,. What I observe (at times), is people reading the same scriptures and sharing differing opinions on them. Please don’t demand Scripture when what you’re really looking for is a convincing argument only so you can pick it apart. It’s as if I can see children on a playground arguing about whether the new toy some kid got from his dad is real because someone heard the factory stopped making them. Have any of those kids been to the factory? Can we ever just agree to disagree? So long as we are all proclaiming the glorious work of Christ? (by the way, I’m not equating prophecy with a toy). A LOT of good points have been made for both views/cases here. Perhaps we take them away and ponder for a while before reacting to get our next two cents in. Maybe we all won’t be persuaded the same way, but that’s ok. No snide remarks, no offense/defense - just, there it is.. thankyou for sharing. Period.
I have learned a lot by following this blog. I can at least say that though some may not agree on certain issues it has produced in me more familiarity with certain Scriptures. That I take to be a good thing. I will say that I think He is a wonderful and loving God to continue His gracious gifts in his children in this age. I think it sorrowful both when we use the gifts wrongly and when we fail to recognize their presence in our lives. I am glad that we can all agree that Christ’s saving work on the cross is far more important than any other issue for us who believe, and that the Bible is THE written authority for knowing more about Him. Nothing else is needed for us to come and believe in our beloved Lord. (isn’t it great when we agree on stuff?) Since none of us have “arrived” we must look into ourselves quite closely to see if what is produced in us during these debates/arguments/conversations is more akin to pride, anger, or hunger to know more of God’s word - not prove a point. (It is a little tricky to know the tone of a few blogged paragraphs.)
Anyway, thanks :)
Clint,
Thanks, I’ve enjoyed it. Honestly I was hoping we could end on that kind of note. Too often blog comments don’t.
Just so we’re clear, I’m not saying that because cessationism was the majority view that makes it a slam dunk. Not at all (can we say paedo-baptism???) just that, as you say, like indulgences and baptism, the answer has to come from Scripture, but if many have held to a belief, it can’t be ignored, but rather addressed head-on.I’m sure we agree on that, and more.
Thanks again, I’m sure we’ll run into each other here or elsewhere in the future.
Daryl.