Though I have posted some of this material before, I thought it might be helpful to gather three articles on the theme of fallible prophecy so that they might be in one place.
The first of these is:
Five Dangers of Fallible Prophecy by Dr. Nathan Busenitz
(original source: https://thecripplegate.com/five-dangers-of-fallible-prophecy/)
I have a great deal of respect for Wayne Grudem. His Systematic Theology was required reading in seminary, and I learned a great deal from his clear and comprehensive discussions on everything from angelology to soteriology. Though I did not always agree with his conclusions, I appreciated his ability to articulate the major positions with fairness and objectivity.
Along with many others, I am thankful for Dr. Grudem’s contribution to the body of Christ — not only through his Systematic Theology, but also through his work with the ESV and his involvement in the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
Having said that, I find his views on the gift of prophecy to be particularly troubling. Hence today’s post.
Just a few days ago, a colleague pointed me to a video in which Wayne Grudem and Ian Hamilton engaged in a friendly debate regarding the definition of prophecy in the New Testament. I was already aware of Dr. Grudem’s espousal of a non-authoritative, fallible form of New Testament prophecy (from his Systematic Theology, his extensive chapter in The Kingdom and the Power, and his book on Prophecy), so I was eager to watch the interchange.
For those who have not watched the debate (it is over an hour long after all), the issue essentially boils down to this: What was the gift of prophecy in the New Testament, and is it still in operation today?
Ian Hamilton, representing the cessationist perspective (which I agree with), contended that there is only one kind of prophetic gift in the New Testament, and it is equivalent to prophecy in the Old Testament. It consists of error-free revelation from God. Thus, it is both infallible and authoritative, such that the prophet can proclaim, “Thus says the Lord” with absolute accuracy. Moreover, the gift of prophecy was for the foundation age of the church (Ephesians 2:20). Thus, it passed away, along with the apostles, when the foundation age ended.
Wayne Grudem, representing the continuationist position, argued that there are two kinds of prophetic gift in the New Testament. There is apostolic prophecy which was infallible, authoritative, and foundational; it alone was equivalent to Old Testament prophecy, and it ceased after the time of the apostles.
But, in Grudem’s view, there is a second type of New Testament prophecy — what we might call congregational prophecy. This form of prophecy is fallible, non-authoritative, and has continued throughout the church age. It is not equivalent to Old Testament prophecy (and therefore bypasses the strict stipulations of Deuteronomy 13 & 18) and might be better compared to “Spirit-led advice.” It generally consists of personal impressions from God, which are then interpreted by the prophet and reported to the congregation (sometimes incorrectly depending on the faith of the individual). The congregation is not bound to obey these words of prophecy, but nonetheless ought to consider them carefully within the greater context of life.
Here are a few key statements (with timestamps) from the video in which Dr. Grudem explains his views:
[26:00] Because this [congregational prophecy] does not have the authority of God’s words, I would counsel people never to make huge life decisions based on a prophecy alone.
[27:08] I don’t want to say that this ever comes — ever, ever, ever comes — with the force of Scripture, or stands alone, it stands in the whole complex of all of life and we take it into account as one factor.
[27:39] I would put this idea of God bringing things to mind in the same category of authority as advice or counsel from a godly person.
[35:10] So I do use the word “revelation” [when speaking of modern prophecy]. But I think it’s revelation that doesn’t result in canonical Scripture and doesn’t come with the force of Scripture, but is simply God bringing things to mind.
[38:51] I don’t see in the New Testament [discussion of prophecy] any parallel to the treatment of prophets in the Old Testament where they were taken out and stoned, or the New Testament equivalent would be excommunication. … False teachers are certainly condemned and should be excluded, but not anybody who makes a mistake on a prophecy.
[59:53 — regarding the evaluation of these prophecies:] Pastorally, if someone is in charge of a home fellowship group or if a pastor is in charge of a prayer meeting, you call it as you see it. I have to use an American analogy, it’s an umpire calling balls and strikes as the pitcher pitches the ball across the plate.
[1:09:15] To give a practical example [of prophecy], I’ll put it in terms of guidance. I’m convinced that a number of years ago, God led me to cancel my subscription to the newspaper to the Chicago Tribune, because morning after morning I was spending too much time reading it. And God finally put it on my heart, “Wayne, you’ve got to cancel that.” So out of obedience, I cancelled it. I think that was God guiding me.
Those quotes from Dr. Grudem are, obviously, just a small sampling of all that was said. But they highlight some of the key features of Grudem’s view. They underscore the fact that Grudem sees modern-day prophecy as non-authoritative, fallible, and essentially consisting of God guiding people through personal impressions.
Ian Hamilton did an excellent job pointing out some of the exegetical, theological, and pastoral reasons why Grudem’s view of prophecy is not tenable. (In my opinion, Hamilton overwhelmingly won the debate, though he was very gracious in doing so.)
But why is this issue so important?
Like Hamilton, I too have exegetical and theological reasons for rejecting a definition of prophecy that consists of non-authoritative, fallible messages. In this post, however, I want to outline several of the alarming implications for pastoral ministry that (I believe) stem from Dr. Grudem’s definition of prophecy. In my opinion, his position on this issue opens an ecclesiological pandora’s box.
Here are five of areas of concern:
1. By creating a category of modern “prophecy” that can include erroneous messages, this view makes it unnecessarily difficult for the church today to identify and refute false prophets (cf. Matt. 7:15). It further neuters (i.e. ignores) the strict requirements on true prophecy found in Deuteronomy 13 and 18.
2. By defining prophecy in terms of impressions and subjective guidance, this view provides no objective or authoritative means by which a person can know for sure if a feeling is from God or some other source. It also provides no objective or authoritative means by which church leaders can evaluate for sure whether a “prophet’s” message is legitimate.
3. By teaching that God still gives prophetic revelation today, this view encourages believers to look for messages from God outside of the Bible. While continuationists insist on a closed canon (and rightly so), this view of prophecy — in practice — calls into question the sufficiency of Scripture at the most practical levels of daily living.
4. By using terms like “prophecy,” “revelation,” and “a word from the Lord,” this view has the potential to manipulate people by binding their consciences to a fallible message or compelling them to make unwise decisions. Though proponents insists that congregational prophecy is not authoritative (at least, not at the corporate level), their understanding of prophecy is highly vulnerable to being abused within the local congregation.
5. By allowing for error in prophecy, this view permits people to say, “Thus says the Lord” when in fact their messages are fallible and erroneous. In effect, it allows people to attribute to the God of Truth messages that are errant, which is a very dangerous thing to do. Furthermore, by redefining fallible messages as “prophecy,” it demeans and cheapens the true gift of infallible prophecy as it operated in the Old and New Testaments.
There are other implications as well, but these are sufficient to make the point: the charismatic insistence on continued prophetic revelation (outside of Scripture) has significant implications for the life of the church. Thus, the cessationist-continuationist debate is not merely an academic exercise. Where one lands exegetically and theologically on this issue has very real ramifications for pastoral ministry.
In my judgment, those who open the door to modern-day prophecy not only do harm to the biblical text, they also open themselves up to all sorts of theological and spiritual danger. In so doing, they needlessly put themselves and their congregations at risk.
Here’s the second:
Prophecy and the Uniqueness of the First-Century Church by Mike Riccardi
(original source: https://thecripplegate.com/cessationism-and-continuationism-let-us-query-the-text/)
Motivated by the conversation from yesterday’s thread regarding the dangers of so-called “fallible prophecy,” I kind of want to piggy-back on Nathan’s post by addressing a hermeneutical weakness I perceive in a certain argument for the continuation of prophecy.
In a nutshell, this particular argument seems to be that since Paul speaks directly about prophecy in the New Testament—giving directions about its proper use in the church and even commanding that the gift be sought—everything he says automatically applies to the church today in the same way that it applied to the church in the first-century. Continuationists appeal to these passages of Scripture as “biblical support” or a “preponderance of Scriptural evidence” that the miraculous gifts are to be normative for today. For those of us who believe that there are no prophets in the church today, it is asked how we avoid deliberately disobeying Paul’s injunction to not despise prophetic utterance (1Thess 5:20). Didn’t he command the Corinthians to “earnestly desire” the gifts, and “especially that you may prophesy” (1Cor 14:1)?
A Surface-Level Approach
So, it must be granted that continuationists are not seeking to base their theology on experience alone. Rather, they are indeed seeking to base their understanding of the continuation of the gifts on Scripture itself.
The problem, however, is that this use of Scripture fails to take into account the uniqueness of the New Testament church in its nascent form. The foundation of the New Testament church—the mystery of the one new man, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it had then been being revealed—was still being laid through the ministry of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20; 3:5). The Holy Spirit had not yet finished bringing to the disciples’ remembrance all the things which He had spoke (John 14:26); He had not yet finished guiding them into all truth, revealing to them the things they couldn’t bear while Jesus was among them (John 16:13). The New Covenant Scriptures had not been recorded. God’s final, sufficient revelation awaited completion.
Any approach to the Scriptures that does not honor the implications of this uniqueness remains shallow. Carson and Keller provide a helpful summary of this kind of approach to Scripture:
“There is a kind of appeal to Scripture, a kind of Biblicism—let’s call it Biblicism One—that seems to bow to what Scripture says but does not listen to the text very closely and is almost entirely uninformed by how thoughtful Christians have wrestled with these same texts for centuries.”
Brothers, Let us Query the Text
We don’t want to be guilty of being shallow interpreters of the Bible who don’t “listen to the text very closely.” To avoid this, we must ask the difficult questions of a text, intent on understanding how what any particular text is teaching coheres with the whole of Scripture. This is simply what John Piper calls “querying the text” (Brothers, We Are Not Professionals). Scripture was not revealed in a vacuum, but to a particular people in a particular context, for a particular purpose. Therefore, to understand and apply Scripture rightly, we must ask such questions as:
- Who wrote this?
- To whom did he write it?
- When did he write it?
- What was the occasion for writing?
- For what purpose did he write it?
After answering these questions, we must then ask ourselves: “Given the differences that exist between the original recipients and me, can this text be applied to me in the same way it applied to them? Or are the differences that exist between us of such a nature that there cannot be a one-to-one application?”
This is not merely “theologizing,” or imposing our own theological presuppositions onto the biblical text. These are essential questions, and they are the bread and butter of sound, contextual exegesis.
Examples
For example, it would be a naïve, shallow reading of Scripture to suggest that followers of Yahweh in this age cannot eat shellfish (Lev 11:10–11) or mix fabrics (Deut 22:11). That would be to ignore the fact that such laws were given through Moses (who), for the nation of Israel (to whom), in order to rightly relate to Yahweh (occasion) under the Old Covenant Law (when), for the purpose of distinguishing Israel from the nations (purpose), before the substance of those shadows came in Christ (when). “But,” it could be argued, “it’s in the Bible!”
“Oh, but that’s the Old Testament, though, Mike. We have clear Scriptural testimony that such things are fulfilled in Christ and are thus obsolete.” Right. And that is the kind of contextual interpretation and comparison of Scripture with Scripture that I’m calling for in the cessation/continuation debate.
But let’s push it further. How about women covering their heads in church? That’s a New Testament command that Paul gives regarding orderly congregational worship. Should we require that all women wear head coverings?
No. Because we’re going to query the text. We’re going to consider that Paul is writing to the first-generation Corinthian church in AD 56, and that in that culture a head covering symbolized that a woman was under authority. We’re going to consider that Paul was making a specific application of a general principle. And we’re going to recognize that the differences between the original context and our contemporary context require us to apply the principle (perhaps by the woman taking the man’s last name) without making a one-to-one application.
Answering the questions of authorship, recipients, context, occasion, and purpose is not a way to get around the text, or to hover above the text. It’s actually the only way of digging into the text and submitting to its agenda, rather that forcing it to submit to ours.
Bringing it Back
So how do we apply what I’m trying to say?
First, we must acknowledge that there is no argument that first-century churches like Thessalonica and Corinth included members who had the biblical gift of prophecy. For this reason, it is no wonder that apostolic directions regarding prophecy turn up in letters to those churches.
But when we seek to apply passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:19–21 and 1 Corinthians 12–14 to our present context, we must realize that it will look different for us than it did for them. Contemporary churches do not include members who have the biblical gift of prophecy. There are no prophets receiving infallible revelation from God today.* That constitutes a significant difference between our period of redemptive history and that of the Thessalonians and Corinthians. Therefore, just as the food and fabric laws and the instruction about head coverings, the texts regarding the miraculous gifts will not apply to us in the same way they applied to the original recipients.
Because of this, it is invalid to argue that the 21st-century church should practice the miraculous gifts merely on the basis that Paul instructed the 1st-century church to do so. Such texts do not constitute Scriptural evidence for the continuation of the miraculous gifts.
Here is the third article:
Throwing Prophecy under the Agabus by Dr. Nathan Busenitz
(original source – https://thecripplegate.com/throwing-prophecy-under-the-agabus/)
Did Agabus get the details of his prophecy in Acts 21:11 wrong?
Continuationist scholars (such as D. A. Carson and Wayne Grudem) claim that he did. Cessationists (like Richard Gaffin and Thomas Edgar) are not convinced.
But why is this issue so important to the continuationist-cessationist discussion?
Because without Agabus, continuationists do not have any examples of fallible prophecy in the New Testament. In terms of finding biblical illustrations to support their views on prophecy, the continuationist perspective stands or falls with Agabus.
In Acts 11:28, Agabus is affirmed as a true prophet, who accurately foretold the coming of a severe famine. But controversy surrounds Acts 21:10–11, when Agabus warns Paul of the coming persecution he will face if he returns to Jerusalem. Luke writes:
As we were staying there [in Caesarea Philippi] for some days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, “This is what the Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’ ”
According to continuationists, the overall gist of Agabus’s prophecy is accurate, but the details are wrong.
In particular, Agabus erred when he stated (1) that the Jews would bind Paul and (2) that the Jews would deliver Paul into the hands of the Romans. As Wayne Grudem explains, this is “a prophecy whose two elements—‘binding’ and ‘giving over’ by the Jews—are explicitly falsified by the subsequent narrative” (The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 80). Elsewhere, Grudem adds that, for Agabus, “the prediction was not far off, but it had inaccuracies in detail that would have called into question the validity of any Old Testament prophet” (Bible Doctrine, 411).
So, how are we to think about Agabus? Are the details of his prophecy explicitly falsified by the biblical text? Did he err when he predicted that the Jews would bind Paul and hand him over to the Romans?
I certainly don’t think so. Rather, I believe Agabus got the details exactly right. Here are five reasons why:
1. Nothing in the text states that Agabus got his prophecy wrong. Neither Luke, nor Paul, nor anyone else in Scripture criticizes the accuracy of Agabus’s prediction or says that he erred. Thus, at best, the continuationist approach to Agabus is based on an argument from silence.
2. Luke’s description of what happened to Paul in Jerusalem implies that the Jews “bound” him in some way. Later in Acts 21, Luke explains what happened to the apostle shortly after he arrived in Jerusalem. The Jews “laid hands on” Paul (v. 27), “seized” him (v. 30), “dragged” him out of the temple (v. 30), “sought to kill” him (v. 31), and “were beating” him when the Roman soldiers finally arrived (v. 32). In Acts 26:21, Paul reiterates (before Agrippa) that the Jews “seized” him in the temple and “tried to kill” him. Since Paul did not willingly go with the Jewish mob (a point implied by verbs like “seized” and “dragged”), they would have had to restrain him in some way as they forcibly removed him from the temple—using whatever was immediately available to bind him. Luke did not need to repeat that detail, since Agabus had already told us that Paul would be bound with something like a belt. (The Greek verb deo [“to bind”] can mean to arrest or imprison, but it can also mean to tie up with ropes [Luke 19:30] or to wrap with rags [John 11:44].)
Not only does the text not state that Agabus’s prophecy was wrong, it gives us good reason to believe that his prediction that Paul would be “bound” by the Jews was exactly right. As Thomas Edgar explains:
There is no logical reason to assume that because the Romans bound Paul [in v. 33] this somehow means that the Jews could not have bound him previously. Certainly Paul did not voluntarily go along with the Jewish mob; he must have been bound in some sense. Since the Greek word deo, “bind,” can have several broader meanings, including the meaning “to take captive,” which the Jews obviously did to Paul, it is illogical to state that the Jews did not “bind” Paul as Agabus said. However, there is no reason to assume that the Jews did not actually bind Paul with some physical restraints. (Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit, 81-82)
3. Paul’s later testimony confirms that the Jews “delivered him over” to the Romans. Continuationists claim that Agabus also erred when he predicted that the Jews would give Paul over to the Romans. But is such an error demanded by the text? In Acts 21:32, Paul is being beaten when the Roman cohort arrives. The Jews, upon seeing the soldiers, stop assaulting Paul (v. 32). The bloodied apostle is then arrested by the Romans (v. 33). The implication of the text is that the Jews backed away and willingly relinquished Paul into the hands of the Romans once the soldiers arrived. Such accords perfectly with Agabus’s prediction.
The accuracy of Agabus’s statement is further strengthened by the testimony of Paul himself. Acts 28:16–17, describing Paul’s arrival in Rome, says this:
When we entered Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier who was guarding him. After three days Paul called together those who were the leading men of the Jews, and when they came together, he began saying to them, “Brethren, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.” (emphasis added)
Significantly, Paul uses the same word for “delivered” that Agabus used in Acts 21:11 (paradidomi). Commenting on this verse, Thomas Edgar explains:
Paul describes this event in the same way as Agabus, and Paul, more than anyone else, should know what happened and be able to state it correctly and accurately. Therefore, Agabus made no errors. Rather the errors are being made by those accusing Agabus of mistakes. (Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit, 83)
4. Agabus is quoting the Holy Spirit. In Acts 21:11, Agabus begins his prophecy by stating, “Thus says the Holy Spirit,” and nothing in the text indicates that he was wrong to do so. (In fact, the Holy Spirit Himself inspired Luke to record Agabus’s prophecy in just that way, with no qualifications or caveats.) Those who wish to accuse Agabus of error ought to be very careful, since Agabus himself is quoting the Holy Spirit.
Furthermore, by claiming to speak the very words of the Holy Spirit, Agabus was aligning himself with other biblical prophets. As David Farnell explains:
He introduced his prophecy with the formula, “This is what the Holy Spirit says” (Acts 21:11), which closely parallels the Old Testament prophetic formula of “thus says the Lord” so frequently proclaimed by Old Testament prophets (e.g., Isa. 7:7; Ezek. 5:5; Amos 1:3, 6, 11, 13; Obad. 1; Mic. 2:3; Nah. 1:12; Zech. 1:3-4). This same introductory phrase introduces the words of the Lord Jesus to the seven churches in the Book of Revelation (cf. Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14). (“Is the Gift of Prophecy for Today?” Online Source)
Based on such parallels, in which God was the direct Source of the message proclaimed, extreme caution ought to be exercised before alleging that Agabus erred in his prophecy.
5. No one in church history accused Agabus of errant prophecy until modern times. The church fathers don’t talk about Agabus much. But when they do, they equate him (in accuracy and authority) with the Old Testament prophets. There is no hint of “fallible prophecy” in their description of Agabus or his prediction in Acts 21:11. By way of illustration, here are five patristic passages that mention Agabus:
(A) John Chrysostom compares Agabus to the OT prophet Ezekiel, and assumes the accuracy of his prediction:
John Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts, Homily 65: He [Agabus] who formerly had declared about the famine [in Acts 11:28], the same says, This “man, who owns this girdle, thus shall they bind.” The same that the prophets used to do, representing events to the sight, when they spoke about the captivity—as did Ezekiel—the same did this (Agabus). “And,” what is the grievous part of the business, “deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.” (v. 12.)
(B) Cyril argues that OT prophets (like Isaiah) were taken away from the Jews and given to the church. These NT prophets (like Agabus) are thus parallel to their OT counterparts.
Cyril, Catechetical Lectures, 13.29: Rightly did the Prophet Isaiah aforetime bewail you, saying, My well-beloved had a vineyard in a hill in a fruitful place; and (not to recite the whole) I waited, he says, that it should bring forth grapes; I thirsted that it should give wine; but it brought forth thorns; for thou seest the crown, wherewith I am adorned. What then shall I now decree? I will command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it . For the clouds which are the Prophets were removed from them, and are for the future in the Church; as Paul says, Let the Prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge; and again, God gave in the Church, some, Apostles, and some, Prophets. Agabus, who bound his own feet and hands, was a prophet.
(C) Ambrose, in an effort to defend the full deity and equality of the Holy Spirit, argues that in the same way the Father spoke through the Old Testament prophets, so the Holy Spirit spoke through Agabus:
Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, 2.13.145: For as Paul heard the voice saying to him, “I am Jesus, Whom you are persecuting,” so, too, the Spirit forbade Paul and Silas to go into Bithynia. And as the Father spoke through the prophets, so, too, Agabus says concerning the Spirit: “Thus says the Holy Spirit, Thus shall the Jews in Jerusalem bind the man, whose is this girdle.”
(D) John Cassian (in a section suggesting that monks ought to wear belts, just like Paul did) implies that Agabus’s prophecy was accurate:
John Cassian, Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Coenobia, 1.1: Paul also, going up to Jerusalem and soon to be put in chains by the Jews, was met at Caesarea by the prophet Agabus, who took his girdle and bound his hands and feet to show by his bodily actions the injuries which he was to suffer, and said: “So shall the Jews in Jerusalem bind the man whose girdle this is, and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.” And surely the prophet would never have brought this forward, or have said “the man whose girdle this is,” unless Paul had always been accustomed to fasten it round his loins.
(E) Augustine, commenting on the reaction of Paul’s companions (who tried to convince the apostle not to go to Jerusalem in Acts 21:12), never suggests any doubt as to the accuracy of Agabus’s prediction:
Augustine, The Enchiridion, 101: How good seemed the intentions of the pious believers who were unwilling that Paul should go up to Jerusalem lest the evils which Agabus had foretold should there befall him! And yet it was God’s purpose that he should suffer these evils for preaching the faith of Christ, and thereby become a witness for Christ.
Conclusion
To play off of my title, I think it’s time to stop throwing Agabus and his prophecy under the bus.
The reality is that there is no inductive reason (either from the text or from church history) to accuse Agabus of fallible prophecy. His supposed errors are being forced upon the text by those seeking to defend a continuationist position. When such presuppositions are set aside, an honest reading of the text (as exhibited by the church fathers) finds no fault with the details of his prediction in Acts 21:11.
And that brings our discussion full circle, because if Agabus did not err in his prophecy, then there are no examples of fallible prophecy in the New Testament.