Saucy on prophecy

Contemporary attempts to redefine Biblical prophecy argue for a 'lesser gift' which is not held to the same Biblical standard, nor is it considered authoritative.

However, in response to such attempts Robert L. Saucy reminds us:

"Prophecy in the biblical sense [is] speech which is inspired by the Spirit and therefore totally true and authoritative"

"we have seen nothing sufficient to overturn the traditional understanding of all genuine prophecy as speech directly inspired by the Spirit of God and therefore fully authoritative"

Robert L. Saucy, "Prophecy Today? An Initial Response", Sundoulos [Spring 1990]

(Source: Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (April-June 1993), F. David Farnell, "When Will the Gift of Prophecy Cease?")

'Prophesy' (aka: continued revelation) ~ THIS is what I've been saying...

…(most recently HERE, HERE, and HERE) for quite some time regarding present-day claims of prophesy by our Charismatic, Vineyard, Signs and Wonders, Pentecostal, Reformed Charismatic, and Charismatic Calvinist friends.

It also highlights why I’m not particularly a fan of Wayne Grudem’s—while I can and do respect him for his work in many areas, his understanding/position causes great concern in significant areas of theology and Xian practice. (Please always remember that one questioning, examining, and challenging the views of others does NOT equal attacking.)

In the second century, postapostolic Christianity faced a serious challenge from the prophetic crisis known as the "New Prophecy" or Montanism. This labeling of Montanism as the "New Prophecy" by its adherents shows why the early church rejected Montanism: it was "new" in that it differed markedly from the early church's understanding of the nature of New Testament prophets and prophecy. As noted, this understanding by the early church came from the standards set by the Old Testament for the evaluation of prophets. Before being checked, Montanism spread rapidly throughout the Greco-Roman world and quickly won many adherents, so that even the church father Tertullian was swept away by its claims. Such a sharp departure from accepted biblical norms of prophecy, especially in its content and manner of expression, caused great alarm. The crisis became so acute that the church struggled for decades to quell the swelling numbers of adherents to Montanism.

Now in the 20th century, Christianity is once again facing a prophetic crisis. Its original impetus occurred in the Pentecostal and charismatic movements, which developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Recently, however, the momentum has come from the Vineyard and the Signs and Wonders movements, which have spread rapidly among churches that have held traditionally to the "cessationist" viewpoint regarding New Testament prophecy. These groups essentially argue that prophets and prophecy are active today as they were in the first-century church.

Defense of this practice of "prophecy" has recently come from the work of Wayne A. Grudem, who is active in a Vineyard-affiliated church and is an associate professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deer-field, Illinois. Grudem's arguments have become a primary justification for this form of "prophecy" not only in Vineyard fellowships but also among such groups as the Signs and Wonders movement and the Kansas City Fellowship of prophets. Accolades for his view are coming from within and without the charismatic and Pentecostal movements, while some express hope that this work could be used as a means of fostering dialogue between cessationists and noncessationists.

Since Grudem's work has become a mainstay of defense among charismatic groups and since calls for dialogue and unity between cessationists and noncessationists are being voiced based on his writings, his central thesis and major supporting arguments must be analyzed in order to determine their validity…

[Conclusion] In light of the substantial negation of the major premises of Grudem's hypothesis, his assertions regarding two forms of New Testament prophecy cannot stand. Close examination of his hypothesis reveals critical weaknesses and also outright contradictions of the biblical data. Hence this major justification of the practice of "congregational" prophecy among such charismatic groups as the Vineyard and Sign and Wonders movements evaporates. The idea of a bifurcation of the prophetic gift into two distinct forms has no support either from the biblical data or from the church's handling of the Montanist controversy in the second century. Such a hypothesis is also invalid for promoting dialogue between cessationist and noncessationist camps, because it does not provide valid grounds for the justification of the present practice of prophecy among noncessationist groups. Grudem's hypothesis also should be viewed with alarm. Since prophecy has the assumption of revelational authority from the Holy Spirit, the idea of "mistaken" prophecy has the potential of doing untold harm to the church.

(all emphasis mine)

Farnell, F. David, “Does The New Testament Teach Two Prophetic Gifts?”, Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (Jan-Mar 1993): 62-88

Still working on the 'continued revelation' question...

...and I've decided on my thesis statement:

"Today's claim to and practice of 'continuing revelation' is rooted in an experience-driven theology and is dependent upon redefining the historically Biblical understanding of the acts and ministries of the Holy Spirit."

Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves...



Copyright 2008

Hear me now and believe me later: "continued" revelation today

I'm working on the last question in the Bibliology section of my NANC Theology exam, "Many Christians today speak of continuing revelation. Relate this concept to inspiration and sufficiency of the Scripture. Relate this concept to the issue of miracles, prophesy and tongues." So, after reading Berkhof, Adams, and Ryrie I decided to consult my $9.99 copy of Grudem's Systematic Theology, which I blogged briefly about last year, so I could verify my understanding of the charismatic/pentecostal view and practice--having been one myself.

What stands out to me both as a former charismatic and a now aspiring Biblical counselor is Grudem's statement, "If prophesy does not contain God's very words, then what is it? In what sense is it from God?". My instinctive question is, "What possible authority or purpose could this sort of 'prophesy' have for Christians and the Church today seeing that God has already 'granted to us everything pertaining to life and Godliness' (2 Peter 1:3)?"

Grudem goes on to build a case that he believes the apostle

"Paul indicates that God could bring something spontaneously to mind so that the person prophesying would report it in his or her own words...uses the word revelation in a broader sense...of communication from God that does not result in written Scripture or words equal to written Scripture in authority...simply referring to something that God may suddenly bring to mind, or something that God may impress on someone's consciousness in such as way that the person has a sense that it is from God..."

To which I ask, Is this not what the Holy Spirit does for all believers--both individually and corporately--without any 'fanfare', or the tag of 'prophesy'?.

Sadly, Grudem goes on to do something that I have found quite common and damaging within the charismatic/pentecostal movement. He relates a story he heard to illustrate and lend credibility to his position--apparently he did not witness this event, which is most often the case among my charismatic/pentecostal brethren, and sadly was my habit as well.

Here's the story Grudem provides (found in chapter 53:A, 5),

"I have heard a report of this happening in a clearly noncharismatic Baptist church in America. A missionary speaker paused in the middle of his message and said something like this: 'I didn't plan to say this, but it seems the Lord is indicating that someone in this church has just walked out on his wife and family. If that is so, let me tell you that God wants you to return to them and learn to follow God's pattern for family life.' The missionary did not know it, but in the unlit balcony sat a man who had entered the church moments before for the first time in his life. The description fitted him exactly, and he made himself known, acknowledged his sin, and began to seek after God."

Grudem further explains,

"In this way, prophesy serves as a 'sign' for believers (1 Cor. 14:22)--it is a clear demonstration that God is definitely at work in their midst, a 'sign' of God's hand of blessing on the congregation."

My follow-up questions are:

1) As we watch the Church begin to encourage, seek, and embrace this new definition and practice of 'prophesy', does it not undermine the Body's commitment to the sufficiency of Scripture? At what point will my 'prophesy' override and/or take precedence over what God has already sufficiently revealed in His Word? How soon till we willingly follow our 'hunches', our 'feelings', our 'impressions', or those of others merely because we desire a 'sign'.

2) How does my seeking after and embracing these 'prophesies' 'build me up in a way that Scripture has not already provided and accomplishes as 2 Timothy 3:16 declares?

3) When will we, as the Body of Christ, stop seeking after 'signs' and find our joy and contentment in Him as we devote our minds and our energy to seeking to know Him and please Him as He has revealed Himself in His Word?

Redefining Prophesy

As I've said before, I consider many 'practicing' charismatics to be brothers and sisters-in-Christ. Even so, I'm still unable to reconcile the habit of redefining prophesy as illustrated in this post, "Spontaneous and Prophetic Songs" (Please remember that questioning, examining, or challenging a teaching and/or a practice in light of Scripture is NOT an attack upon the person.)

I've always wondered--even during my days as a 'full blown" charismatic--what this practice is intended/hoped to accomplish that Scripture apparently is assumed to be deficient in?

Wherein I sound the charismatic 'alarm' AGAIN

Dan Phillips over at Pyromaniacs has once again written several clear, Biblically sound, compassionate (and passionate) posts--What I think about "the Florida revival", and Know how to think, and the what takes care of itself --regarding how we should view and evaluate the on-going behavior and practices within the charismatic church today.

I imagine there are those who will charge me with being 'overly concerned' about the charismatic movement and think I should 'get over it', and there are those who dismiss my concerns merely as the reaction of someone who was possibly 'hurt/wounded' by my past charismatic experience. If only they knew that all that remains of any past 'hurt/wound' from my charismatic experience is the pain of seeing and hearing how our holy God continues to be misrepresented and 'manipulated' by people crafting a God of their own appetite(s). If only they had seen the disillusioned masses filtering in and out of the charismatic church(es)--seeking hope and help, only to 'receive' some thing other than the holy, loving, sovereign God.

I cannot stress enough how subtle and damaging to the spiritual health and maturity of brothers and sisters-in-Christ the charismatic movement has been and continues to be, not to even mention how the movement continues to drag the very character of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit through the mud every time one of their 'prophesies' turns out to be bogus, or at best impotent.

The over-emphasis on pursuing feelings and unique experiences above Biblically-based sound-minded living has created a culture in the church of discontent, elitism, sensationalism, and dependence upon externals. I've taken note recently how more and more charismatics (most notably those calling themselves 'reformed' charismatics) who find themselves separated from opportunities to pursue and continue their pursuit of certain feelings and unique experiences, have confessed to being unwilling/discontent to yield those facets of their theology and practice even though sound Biblical teaching and preaching is readily available.

So, yes, I'll continue to sound the charismatic 'alarm' as long as I see evidence of the growing emphasis on pursuing/anticipating feelings, and pursuing/esteeming unique experiences characterized by the movement.

My 'Charismatic' Testimony ~ Holy Spirit Baptism

Updated 01/26/08 - this is still not a completed post, but I'm getting there!

In the summer of 1978 I was enjoying the happy-go-lucky life of a girl preparing for her senior year in high school! The only 'bad' thing going on in my life was what turned out to be a temporary break-up with my boy-friend--which I considered to be quite serious. It was during that summer that an old church friend, Rusty (who also happened to be an old boy-friend from my Jr. High days), came for a visit with a friend of his named Mark.

Rusty and I had become friends through the Southern Baptist church we both were members of in my hometown. Both of our families were pretty firmly established in this church, and we were both very active in the youth group. Even though we had been "boy-friend and girl-friend" we ended up being good friends and stayed in touch after my family moved through phone calls and letters.

So, when Rusty and his friend Mark (whom I'd never met before) arrived at my house one afternoon the three of us went to a local pizza shop for dinner--I still remember the name of the place, Orin's. And, for years when I happened to drive by, memories of that evening would come rushing back to me.

I don't recall much of our conversation over dinner but I do remember Rusty and Mark telling me about their recent habit of going to 'coffee houses' (in the 70's sense of the word) on the "Restless Ribbon" in Tulsa. The "Restless Ribbon" is about a 3-4 mile strip of street that became popular in the 50's and 60's for 'dragging main', and then became a popular hang-out with hippies in the late 60's and 70's. That summer Rusty and Mark had been doing street evangelism and joining impromptu prayer meetings along the "Restless Ribbon".

I had been enjoying the visit--both of them kind, as well as handsome, but at some point the focus of our visit had become the baptism of the Holy Spirit which was completely foreign to me. For the next hour or more the three of us sat in Rusty's car in the pizza shop parking lot while they explained their experience and tired to convince me that I needed the same thing.

It's important you understand that at this time in my life I was running full-tilt and head-long into sin. Just about any and every passage in the Bible listing sins described me to some degree. So, when Rusty and Mark began praying for me--and laying hands on me--to "receive the baptism" I wasn't particularly interested, but growing curious... (to be continued)

My 'Charismatic' Testimony

Last year when I posted THIS, a commenter asked me about my charismatic experience/testimony. I replied that I planned/hoped to post it someday--well, 'someday' has arrived! :-)

I've often been asked to tell about my experience as a charismatic--it's so far removed from who I am today and the theology I have come to understand and embrace since the mid 80's--apparently because they simply can't picture me in that context, which I consider to be a good thing!

So, if you're interested or just mildly curious, I plan to post a number of 'segments' detailing how I became charismatic, how that impacted my thinking and practice, and the 'how and why' of me leaving the charismatic movement after five years. Lord willing, I'll start posting those later today or sometime tomorrow.

The sovereignty of Satan

If you're a regular reader here, the title of this post most likely caused you to say, "What???!!" (at least I hope it did)! I'll admit, I want the title to "grab" you--it certainly grabbed me when I read it over at Pulpit Magazine just a few minutes ago.

Because I'm a former charismatic, I knew instantly what they were talking about because I lived it for a number of years.

During those years, I was taught (and believed) that Satan reigned supreme and it was my job to "show him who was boss"--that being me, not God. It was a life filled with uncertainty, would Satan "trick" me into marrying the wrong man (see my post HERE), would Satan cause me to misuse my money and not be able to pay my rent, would Satan make me sick so that I couldn't go to church, would Satan control my family or friends and cause me emotional pain, the list went on, and on, and on. Looking back now, many of those times are even comical, like the time my roommate and I "rebuked" Satan from her plastic Mickie Mouse bank!! That's a story for another day--when I'm feeling very unconditionally loved and accepted by fellow-bloggers and blog readers!

I cannot begin to tell you how freeing it was when by God's grace I began to understand God's true nature and character found in His Word! I no longer had to be "on the look out" for Satan and what He would throw at me next. Instead, God gave me a confidence that He in fact was in control--just as His Word says.

Even if you don't consider yourself to be "charismatic", I want to urge you to read THIS article. Believe it nor not, there are non-charismatics who act and talk as if they believe that Satan is "sovereign"--nothing could be farther from the truth of Scripture!

The Calvinist, the charismatic, and the humanist

UPDATE: I've responded/commented on one point that was raised by a reader and hope to respond on other points soon. Feel free to join the discussion!

What is the difference between a Calvinist, a charismatic, and a humanist? No, this isn't the intro to a joke or riddle! The difference is God-centered theology versus man-centered theology. Let me illustrate this so you'll understand what I'm getting at.

When a person thinks, perceives, understands, observes or experiences something he responds in accordance with his theology--his understanding of God and who God is. So, naturally the Calvinist, the charismatic, and the humanist will respond in accordance with their particular theology which will go something like this;

The Calvinist responds, "God has in His sovereignty ordained that I do/understand..."

The charismatic responds, "God spoke to ME and told ME that/to..."

The humanist responds, "Look what I know/did on my own..."

Very simply, God-centered theology promotes God while man-centered theology promotes man. I believe THIS is the foundational tension between charismatic Xians and Calvinist/Reformed Xians, and is foundational to why I have been unable to reconcile the relatively new position, practice and teaching of self-labeled "Calvinist/Reformed charismatics". Calvinist/Reformed charismatics are attempting to blend facets of two completely opposing theologies.

So, why do I even care about this? I care because not only did I endured the fall-out of being a charismatic Xian over 20 years ago, I continue to witness the ongoing fall-out nearly everyday. I live in Tulsa, Oklahoma which is home to Oral Roberts, T.L. Osbourn, Kenneth Hagin, Billy Joe and Sharon Daugherty, Bob Yandian, Willie George, and every variety of offshoot. I regularly hear fellow-homeschool moms and families claiming things of God that God's own Word does not support, everything from proclaimations that God will "miraculously provide money" to repair a damaged car, to claims that God has "made it clear" that a recently disabled Xian woman will soon be restored to complete health. All the while immature Xians (young and old in the faith) stand on the fringes listening, watching, and waiting--only to conclude that God cannot or will not act. All because He has been once again misrepresented by those who profess to "know" Him!

Is God able to do these things? You bet 'cha! Has God promised these things? Absolutely not! Yet His name and character is repeatedly dragged through the mud and soiled before believers and unbelievers alike.

Please, don't simply take my word on this! Consider the concerns voiced by men of far greater learning and understanding--Phil Johnson, Dan Phillips, and FrankTurk over at Pyromaniacs:

Phil Johnson: No doubt some will find that judgment "shrill." I'm sorry for those who feel that way, but the issues are serious and in real life those very kinds of lies often deceive, disappoint, and even destroy people.

Dan Phillips: "Because the issues are huge, though they're being dealt out as if this were a playground conversation. Because I feel deeply concerned for all the people who you and I know darned well will read an article like this, envy this man's (purported) intimacy with God, and start listening for voices in their head, too. And they'll start heeding those voices, even if (as in this case) they don't quite jibe with the Bible.And what kind of Christ-shaming, damaging, ruinous behavior will come of that?"

Frank Turk: What's at stake here is if we are first using God's precious gift of Scripture to seek Him and find Him, not whether some voice in one's head is the voice of God.

For a broader discussion on this subject check out Pyros (link provided in my blogroll) yourself--at least the last 4-5 posts.

What is charismatic theology?

This post is another follow-up related to my post, Invitation to dialogue on Reformed charismatics . Today we look at what charismatic theology holds/practices.

While I can tell you from personal experience what charismatics believe and practice, I thought it might be better that I provide quotes and/or links to publicly accessible sources.

Here is a portion of what Wikipedia offers,

"Charismatic is an umbrella term used to describe those Christians who believe that the manifestations of the Holy Spirit seen in the first century Christian Church, such as healing, miracles, prophecy and glossolalia (speaking in other tongues or languages), are available to contemporary Christians and ought to be experienced and practiced today."

And, here is a general summary drawn from a variety of charismatic websites and literature:

The major doctrinal distinctives of the charismatic movement are; the baptism in the Holy Spirit, tongues-speaking, prophecy, the gift of healing, and the emphasis on having a personal experience.

Practicing Theology: An invitation to dialogue on "Reformed Charismatics"

I'd like to invite discussion, via comments to this post, on the topic of "Reformed Charismatics" (aka: Charismatic Calvinists).

I am a former charismatic (including: tongues-speaking, prayer language, prophesy seeking, slain in the spirit, demon rebuking, name it and claim it, women preachers/pastors, etc.) who came to embrace Reformed theology in the mid-80's.

I assure you that I will NOT use this as an opportunity to belittle or attack anyone personally. But I do hope for some honest and even vigorous discussion because, try as I may, I have not been able to reconcile charismatic theology with truly Reformed theology.

Here are some possible areas to consider:

- Prophesy (Biblical accounts vs. what is claimed/experienced today)

- Worship (corporate and private)

- Miraculous gifts (verifiable examples today?)

- Spiritual gifts (still in operation today?)

- any other facets you might care to discuss

I'm inviting anyone and everyone to comment, even if you aren't charismatic--just stay on topic and behave like a Xian, please.