Why I Believe In the Gift of Prophecy Today

Is prophecy a gift the ended with the close of the canon? Many of my favorite theologians (B.B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, and most Reformed theologians) have argued so.

I'm not convinced. I believe the gift of prophecy (as well as tongues and other 'sign gifts') continue until Christ returns, though I am skeptical of most modern practitioners - especially the ones who have made a name for themselves as wonder workers.

The passage that is most convincing to me is 1 Corinthians 13:8-10:
"Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away."

When will these prophecies cease? And tongues? When the perfect comes. Not till then. So what is the 'perfect'? Cessationists argue that the perfect refers to the close of the canon and the apostolic age. Others argue that it refers the coming of Christ - so, on this view, the gifts will continue until Christ's second advent. Cessationists point out the the Greek word for perfect (τελειον) is in the neuter. Jesus is never referred to in the neuter, so, the argument goes, this couldn't refer to Christ's return.

I agree that 'the perfect' doesn't refer directly to Christ. Instead, it refers to the state of affairs Christ establishes when he returns - full knowledge, seeing face to face, sight instead of faith, the complete sanctification of believers, the return of Paradise, the complete and total victory of God. Until then, the gifts continue.

Another significant line of reasoning has to do with the purpose of the gifts. Cessationists typically argue that the 'sign gifts' were given to authenticate the apostles message. So, once the apostles and their message had been validated and canonized, the sign gifts passed away.

To me, that's an overly narrow understanding of the purpose of the sign gifts. The gifts did have an authenticating function, but it wasn't just to authenticate the message of apostles but also the arrival of the Kingdom of God, albeit a spiritual kingdom that arrived in seed (but will grow). Jesus preached and embodied the kingdom and sends his disciples out to do the same (Luke 9:2; Luke 10:9). Joel 2:28-29 connects the pouring out of the Spirit and prophesying to 'the last days'. This passage is quoted by Peter in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost as he argues the prophesy was being fulfilled in the events of that day. Hence, it is a sure sign we are living in the last days (Heb. 1:2), the days when the kingdom of God advances and the strong man (Satan) has been bound (Mark 3:27, Rev. 20:2?).

Moreover, it's clear from the New Testament that the gifts of healing, tongues and prophecy weren't limited to the apostolic core, but extended to the members of the church. In Acts, Stephen and Philip, two deacons (but not apostles) are said to have performed miraculous signs (Acts 6:8 & Acts 8:6). In this vein see also Galatians 3:5, 1 Corinthians 12:7-10, 28).

Moreover, several other passages deal with the churches responsibility (ongoing) to test prophesy (1 Thess. 5:20, 1 Cor 14:29, 1 John 4:1-3). What I see about prophecy as it is practiced in the church is that is must always be subject to the Word. In the early church it was subject to the words of the apostles - whatever portions of it the church had. In our context, it must be subject to the written Word.

The abuse of the gift of prophecy goes back to the Montanist heresy of the 2nd century (though historically accurate, it's probably an overstatement to call it a heresy). Some have actually referred to the Pentecostal movement as neo-Montanism. The Montanists made claims that the new prophecy was superior to the old, higher than the apostles and even higher than Christ's. Many modern prophets seem to be cut from the same mold - 'so what if Scripture contradicts what I'm saying - I've heard it straight from God'.

This week I learned a cool Latin phrase (thanks to Justin Taylor's blog): abusus usum non tollit (“Abuse does not take away proper use”). Fantastic. Abuse of prophecy doesn't mean proper use of it doesn't exist. In fact, it seems evident from Scripture that prophecy was always abused (how many false prophets were there in Israel? At least a few billion!). That is precisely why the church is called to be discerning, but not dismissive.

Hope that is somewhat helpful.

An Amazing Story of God's Sovereignty

Today I read the story of Jehoshaphat and Ahab's battle to take back Ramoth-gilead from the Syrians (2 Chron 18 and 1 Kings 22). I know I've read the story, but it was like reading it for the first time today. Here's a few things to notice:

Judah and Israel had been divided for some time now and had been at war that entire time. Jehoshaphat, who is deemed a good king in Judah makes peace with Ahab the king of Israel. To show that no good deed goes unnoticed, Ahab thought 'Ah, now I've got a military ally that will help me take back to town of Ramoth-gilead.' He proposes the joint venture to Jehoshaphat who agrees, saying, "I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses" (1 Kings 22:4).

But Jehoshaphat, showing why he's a good king, says "Inquire first for the word of the Lord" (1 Kings 22:5). Ahab brings together 400 prophets who tell Ahab and Jehoshaphat, "Go up, for the Lord will give it into the hand of the king" (1 Kings 22:6). Something doesn't sit right with Jehoshaphat and he asks Ahab, "Is there not here another prophet of the Lord of whom we may inquire?" (1 Kings 22:7). I think that's really interesting. What we'll see later in the narrative is that these 400 prophets are not speaking for the Lord but have been deceived by a lying spirit to lead Ahab to his destruction. Jehoshaphat knows something is amiss in his bones - he can sense it. He's able to discern the word of the Lord from a lie.

Ahab replies to Jehoshaphat's request, "There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the Lord, Micaiah the son of Imlah, but I hate him, for he never prophesies good concerning me, but evil" (1 Kings 22:8). Great illustration of the quote from John Thompson! A servant is sent to find Micaiah and bring him to the king(s). As they are about to enter, the servant, named Zedekiah, instructs the prophet to tell the king what he wants to hear, "Behold, the words of the prophets with one accord are favorable to the king. Let your word be like the word of one of them, and speak favorably" (1 Kings 22:13). Micaiah's response is what you would expect from a true man of God, "As the Lord lives, what the Lord says to me, that I will speak" (1 Kings 22:14). Micaiah will 'preach the whole counsel of the Lord', not just what Ahab's 'itching ears' want to hear (and it ends up landing him in prison).

Here's where the story gets real good. Micaiah goes in and speaks favorably, though my guess is it was spoken with thick sarcasm. The king says to Micaiah, "How many times shall I make you swear that you speak to me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord?" (1 Kings 22:16). Here's the real message from the Lord to Ahab: "And he said, 'I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd. And the Lord said, ‘These have no master; let each return to his home in peace.’” (1 Kings 22:17). After a brief interruption from Ahab, Micaiah continues:

"And Micaiah said, 'Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; and the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ And the Lord said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you.'”

Wow. Here's a few things I see. First, when the Lord calls court even the evil angels/spirits heed his call. Second, God uses evil, a lying spirit, to accomplish his purposes. Third, the truth of God's word comes to Ahab so he should have known better, known not to go up to Ramoth-gilead.

Ahab doesn't head Micaiah's warning. Instead, he has him thrown into prison and goes to battle anyway, albeit in disguise (maybe God won't recognize me without my kingly robe). As we read the story we are given privy to instructions given by the Syrian king to "Fight with neither small nor great, but only with the king of Israel" (1 Kings 22:31). When the Syrian army sees Jehoshaphat in his kingly robes they assume he must be the king of Israel. It says, "So they turned to fight against him. And Jehosphaphat cried out. "(1 Kings 22:32), so they turned away from pursuing him.

But..."But a certain man drew his bow at random and struck the king of Israel [Ahab] between the scale armor and the breastplate" (1 Kings 22:34). Ok, so not only are evil spirits under the sovereign control of God, forced to do his bidding, but so are stray arrows 'randomly shot'. The king bleeds out and dies and the charioteer washes out the blood by a pool in Samaria and dogs come and lick up the blood, 'according to the word the Lord had spoken' against Ahab for the killing of Naboth (1 Kings 21:19).

In a world filled with evil, lying spirits, chaos and seemingly random evils, it is encouraging to be reminded God is in control! Oh, no word on what happened to Micaiah after his prophesy was fulfilled.

Great Quote

I ran across this great quote from John Thompson (1690-1753). Don't know him? Either did I. He was an Old Side Presbyterian critic of New Side (pro revival) Presbyterians. History remembers the winners, and the Old Siders, though probably right in much of their critique, were the losers. He writes, "My dear friends, you may assure yourselves of it that you are not most edified or profited when you are most pleased. False Doctrine and mere Amusements do too often please an unskillful Auditory, to their Hurt."

Is there a reset button somewhere?

Have you ever wished you could unlearn or unthink something. I'm there now. A train of thought and study that began over a year ago has left me incredibly uncomfortable in my evangelical skin. It started with one question that led to another, and another, etc. I wish, honestly, there was a reset button, that I'd taken the Blue Pill or that I could be plugged back into the Matrix as if I didn't know there was anything else.

For a several years the question of how the church should engage culture has bothered me. It's a hot topic and has been for a while. On one side you see those who advocate a total withdrawal from culture; on the other side you see those radical theonomists who argue the church should seek to totally transform the culture into a Christian culture, implementing OT laws and the whole nine yards. My tentative conclusion is that the church should not seek the transformation of culture (as the sermon yesterday probably made clear). The kingdom of this world will always be the kingdom of this world - never the kingdom of God. The church is tasked with preaching the good news of the kingdom and should not allow itself to be distracted by vain attempts to Christianize the world. In addition, it really does seem to beg the question "In which direction should we try to transform the culture?" Calvin was willing to admit that while Scripture spoke clearly about the means of salvation, the person and work of Christ, etc, it was remarkably silent on many other things. For example, Scripture isn't clear how society should be governed. A case can be made from Scripture that democracy is the best form of government. However, a good case can be made for a limited monarchy or a more socialist state. Scripture isn't clear. I don't know that there is a particularly Christian form of government or even a particularly Christian way of governing/ordering society. (By particularly Christian I mean way of doing things that is accessible only to Christians through particular revelation as opposed to accessible to all men through general revelation).

That question led to the second - should Christianity effect everything I do? Is there a particularly Christian way of mowing my lawn, or of cooking chili, or of maintaining my truck (it sounds absurd to even ask those questions - but some would argue there is)? Another way to get at it is to ask if everything is really sacred or is there a distinction between sacred and secular (or common). I've come to embrace three domains (as did the Reformers): sacred, secular (or common) and profane. Certainly, Scripture rules out the profane - so it does govern what I watch on TV (Playboy channel is out), what vocations I can choose (pimp is no longer an option), and similar questions. But in the area of secular vocations like law, medicine, magistrate, carpenter, mechanic, teacher, etc., there isn't a particularly Christian way of performing the task. At the ultimate level there is a difference in motivation. As the Catechism states, our chief end is to glorify God. But at the penultimate level, in the details, a house built by a Christian or a non-Christian won't look any different.

So, I have come to question one of the central tenants of pietistic Christianity - that faith makes demands in all areas of life. I agree with DG Hart on this, that such an "application of religion to practical affairs sacralizes things that are common (e.g. exercise, eating and politics) and trivializes things that are sacred (e.g. creed, sacraments and pastoral ministry)" (pg. xxi in The Lost Soul of American Protestanism).

So, having provisionally rejected a transformationalist approach to the church and culture and it's kissing cousin pietism, I wonder where that leaves me in terms of my evangelicalism. Hart and other have argued convincingly that evangelicalism is really just conservative Protestantism mixed with revivalistic pietism. They argue that there is a branch of conservative Protestantism not warmed over by this pietism, calling it Confessional Protestantism and represented in historic denominations like Lutheran, Reformed, Presbyterian (OPC especially), etc. Do I fit there? In my mind I do, but my heart just isn't there. For now, I am just resolved to be an uncomfortable evangelical. This uncomfortability is honestly sapping a lot of intellectual and emotional energy and I pray that God will allow me to get past my need to neat answers and tidy systems and embrace living in the tension I'm in.

Song(s) of the Week

Having talked about the love of God last night at Connexion (from the story of Hosea), I thought I'd post a song about the love of God. However, I couldn't decide between these two. The first, 'Here is Love' was called the love song of the Welsh Revival of 1904. The first two verses were originally written by William Rees ("Dyma gariad fel y moroedd") and William Williams added the 3rd and 4th verses. It was translated to English by William Edwards (did you notice - three men, four Williams).

The second is my favorite hymn - to be sung at my funeral (just a reminder Lynn). I know I've posted it before, but it's I think we can handle it again. The words were written by Samuel Francis, a Plymouth Brethren open air preacher in London, in 1875.

Here is Love


Oh The Deep Deep Love of Jesus