I had intended to do a round-up of recent debate in blogosphere, but I need to get something off my chest. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that only non-Charismatics have really taken the New Covenant Age of the Spirit seriously. Charismatics are still stuck in the Old Testament age. They’re not New Testament believers – they’re Old Testament believers.
Let me explain what I mean.
The Gift of Prophecy
Take the gift of prophecy for example. Many cessationists are happy to acknowledge that the gift of prophecy is a New Covenant gift for all believers. The cessationist Richard Gaffin, writes this:
…according to the New Testament all believers are prophets; the whole church is a congregation of prophets. Analogous to the Reformation insistence on the universal priesthood of believers, we may speak of the ‘prophethood’ of all within the new covenant community…1
The charismatic on the other hand believes that there are only some New Testament believes who are gifted as prophets. The majority of us don’t have that office. And so, just like the Old Testament priests and prophets, there is a spiritual hierarchy, and those who are not prophets must go to those who are to find out what God’s will is for them.
This principle is entirely opposite to Scripture’s own description of the New Covenant age. Listen to what the Bible says about the New Covenant and the age of the Spirit:
I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. (Ezekiel 36:27)
My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and for ever,” says the Lord. (Isaiah 59:21).
“This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbour, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. (Jeremiah 31:33)
The Bible is clear. One of the key distinctions between the Old Covenant and the New is that when the Spirit is in/on us, God’s words will not depart from us. Indeed, no longer will anyone need to tell us “Know the Lord”, because we will all know him.
The non-charismatic knows this. The non-charismatic knows that there are not some people who have God’s word (prophets) and some people who don’t. The reformation fought for the principles of the priesthood of all believers, and that the Word of God was for all, and now Charismatics are giving all that up.
The charismatics are right to argue that under the New Covenant every believer has a greater understanding of God’s will. The Old Testament alone makes that clear. But our greater understanding of God’s will is precisely because God reveals himself personally to each one, in contrast to revealing himself through the prophets as He did in the Old Covenant. The charismatic notion that the New Testament gift of prophecy reveals God’s will mediated through a gifted individual stands in direct opposition to the democratisation of the Spirit which characterises New Testament Christianity. It is a notion that is thoroughly Old Testament in character. It deserves no place in a New Testament church.
So, the gift of prophecy, as understood by Charismatics, both reverses the reformation, and reverses Pentecost.
It is not just the gift of prophecy that can be viewed in this way. My next post will focus on the gift of tongues. In the meantime, I’d be delighted to have your feedback.
- Richard B. Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), pg 59.
- Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology (Leicester: Intervarsity, 1994), pg 1070.
Popularity: 7% [?]
Mark,
It’s funny you should use these passages. In my mind, those have always been some of the strongest passages in support of continuationism. In fact, you seem to reinforce that message with your thinking that all New Testament believers are prophets. Could there be a more continuationist position?
Obviously you think this affirms cessationism. But if God’s Spirit is on each of us in such a way that it enables us to actually know the Lord then how does that not leave room for personal communication by the Spirit? In my view, the flaw of cessationism is that it says the Spirit can’t speak like that and thus we have professional training programs (seminaries) for ministers and it takes knowing Greek and Hebrew to actually know the Lord. And even then, most ministers wouldn’t be comfortable saying, “I know God.” It’s because there is no attuneness to his Spirit.
Sorry for letting this comment get so long. But my final question is how does this view possibly fit with verses such as 1 Cor 12:28-30, 14:1,5,32,37, and Eph 4:11-12. All these verses seem to say that prophecy is a distinct role within the church and that not all believers do it.
Other problems I see include (1)the jump from priest to prophet. By no means were all priests in the OT prophets. And (2)the implication that to know God one must have some prophetic gift. Surely the more reasonable interpretation of “they will all know me” is something along the lines of 2 Cor 3:3. All believers have the law of God written on their heart (as opposed to OT stone) but not all believers have a spirit of phrophecy.
Hi, Mark. Thanks for stopping by my blog and for the kind words.
You have an interesting thesis here, but I notice that the only passages you cite in support are from the Old Testament! Unfortunately, the New Testament does not support your view of what a “New Testament Church” ought to be.
Of course you are familiar with Paul telling the Corinthians that there is indeed a gift of prophecy, one that some, but not all, exercise (1 Cor. 12:10, 29). There is also Agabus the prophet, who foretold a great famine, precipitating Barnabas and Saul’s famine-relief visit to Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-28) and also foretold Paul’s arrest (Acts 21:10-11). Philip the Evangelist also had four daughters, of whom it is written that they prophesied (Acts 21:9). And in the church at Antioch, named among the “prophets and teachers” were Barnabas and Saul. So you see, the New Testament itself bears witness to many instances of a practice that you say “deserves no place in a New Testament church.”
I assume that you will respond that until the Canon was complete, there was a need for continued prophecy. If that is your argument, don’t you see that it undercuts your position? It makes of the actual New Testament church–the one in the New Testament–a sub-New Testament church. A practice that you say “reverses Pentecost” is being carried out and cited approvingly in Scripture.
Moreover, I think you seriously misunderstand how prophecy is viewed and used in pentecostal and charismatic circles. It is simply not true that “those who are not prophets must go to those who are to find out what God’s will is for them.” What we do believe is that 1) God can speak personally to any believer who is open to hearing His Voice; 2) anything we think we hear from God must be tested against Scripture–anything that is contrary to Scripture is automatically invalidated; 3) God may use some people more often than others in this gift of prophecy, but what they say never has the authority of Scripture, and God speaks through them what He wants to say: we don’t get “prophecy on demand.” Admittedly, there are some fringe groups that may operate more like you describe, but these are the fringe, not the mainstream.
But thank you for a thoughtful and considered response to Charismatics. God bless.
Robert thank you both for your comments.
I do agree with your first paragraph. The verses I cite are very much in favour of the continuationist position. That’s why I’m neither a cessationist or a charismatic. So I don’t think these verses affirm cessationism. But I do think they deny charismatism (if that’s a word!).
I therefore partly agree with your second paragraph, though I think you caricature cessationists unfairly (I think your original post was unfair for the same reasons, by the way). Genuinely spiritual cessationists (there are many) would be horrified by this description of them. By and large, cessationists reject miraculously gifted people, and affirm completely the need for the Spirit.
The New Testament passages you quote are of course crucial. In 1 Cor. 12:28 Paul asks, “Are all prophets?”, clearly expecting the answer “no”. But I’m arguing that not all are prophets. Indeed, I’m arguing that in the post-apostolic age there are no prophets at all - just “ordinary” Christians who prophesy. Ephesians 4:11-12 is understood in the same way. The rest of Corinthians suggest that all can prophesy, but not all will (at least at the same time). Because prophesy is Spirit-prompted, you cannot decide to prophesy. But prophesying is a gift that God can give to any believer at any time, not just to a few prophets. (Which is why Paul can say that everyone should desire to prophesy.)
My mentioning of priests was by way of illustration. What I’m saying is that in the Old Testament, few were kings, and few were priests. But in the New Testament, all believers are part of a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:4, 9). That doesn’t mean we all hold the title of King or the office of priest. The office is done away with in the New Covenant Age. But we have kingly and priestly privileges and responsibilities. I’m arguing exactly the same is true with regard to prophecy. We don’t all hold the office of prophet, but we do have prophetic privileges, and responsibilities.
I’m not implying that to know God you need a prophetic gift. Far from it. I’m saying that the prophetic gift comes because we know God. That’s why it should be characteristic of every New Testament believer. I’m not convinced 2 Cor. 3:3 is relevant. John 16:15 is much more relevant, I think: “All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.” Also, John 17:26, “I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.” The Spirit’s work in every believer is clearly in view from the context.
So my challenge to charismatics remains. You need to show us where the Bible teaches that in the New Covenant God’s will is communicated to me through another believer and not directly from God’s Spirit or from His Word. And, for reasons I’ll give in responding to Keith, quoting Agabus or the apostles won’t do!
Thanks for your interaction!
Keith, again, thanks for your original post and your comments (and for your tongue-in-cheek rebuke in the first paragraph!).
You’ll have seen now my comments above regarding 1 Corinthians 12. But remember Acts 2 as well. Prophecy is to be characteristic of all in the New Testament age.
The issue of Agabus and the apostles is important. I’m not able to do justice to this in a small comment, but let me simply say that (as you point out) there are examples of God revealing his will through individuals who have the office of prophet or apostle. But notice too that the whole point of the book of Acts is that the impact of Pentecost takes a little while to spread out from Jerusalem to the end of the world. So there is an overlap between the Old Testament age and the New Testament age during the lifetime of the apostles. It is this overlap that you are seeing. In other words, the prophetic office did not close because the canon closed. Rather, both the canon and the prophetic office closed because the Old Testament age closed.
To try and go back now to a time that was dying in the first-century, and dead by the second, makes no sense at all.
Finally, I trust I haven’t misunderstood the charismatic perspective, though perhaps I didn’t explain it well. Of the three points you raise I, as a non-charismatic, agree with (1), (2) and (3). I know that biblical charismatics accept that their prophecies are non-authoritative. But they also believe their prophecies are for other people. Therefore a modern-day prophet will (in Grudem’s words) say “It seems to me that the Lord is showing us…”. I know that the best charismatics know and practice that the Bible is authoritative. But in the charismatic world, sometimes God speaks to me through a prophet. I may check that prophecy against Scripture, but without the prophet, I would not know God’s will. It is this that stands in direct opposition to the democratisation of the Spirit in the New Covenant. Revealing the will of God is not the purpose of New Testament prophecy, as the Old Testament makes clear.
Mark,
I just wanted to let you know that I will certainly come back and reply as soon as I can. Unfortunately, I simply have more work than I even care to think about that must be done before tomorrow 11:00 am. So if I don’t get back to you before then, then I’ll get back to you tomorrow afternoon. Thanks again for your work on this subject.
Hello Mark,
Well, yours is certainly a unique argument against continuationism. But, I still find it unconvincing.
You should know, first of all, that I don’t consider myself a charismatic. However, when I compare 1 Corinthians 13:12 with 1 John 3:2 and Ephesians 4:11-13, it seems clear (to me, at least) that the “perfect” is the return of Christ. So, since Jesus has yet to return, I must conclude that all the gifts must still be present and operative in the Body of Christ.
Further, I just do not see how cessationism can be proved from Scripture. Acts 9:10-16; 11:27-28; 13:2; 16:6-10; 21:10-11, plus many, many other examples in the book of Acts and throughout the Old Testament, testify to the fact that God can and does speak outside the Bible. To write off Acts as just being a transitional book seems untenable to me. It resembles too closely the unbelief of theological liberals who write off whole portions of Scripture that don’t fit with their pre-determined views. So, I just can’t write off Acts that way. Additionally, I know of no text of Scripture says God stopped talking.
So, I can only conclude and affirm that God can and does speak outside of the Bible for the very simple reason that Scripture affirms it.
Wyeth Duncan
Hi Mark,
I disagree with your analogy on Charismatic Christians.
The church of the first century was a charismatic church. See the Book of Acts.
Paul , as he traveled and preached the Word, did so ” in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God” Rom 15:19.
Irenaeus (A.D. 125-200) bishop of Lyons and a disciple of the apostle John said ” For some do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those who have been thus cleansed from evil spirits believe in Christ and join themselves to the Church. Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions and utter prophetic expressions. Others still heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole.”
Novatian (A.D. 210-280) was a presbyter of the church in Rome said ” The Holy Spirit places prophets in the Church, instructs teachers, directs tongues, gives powers and healings, does wonderful works, offers discrimination of spirits, affords powers of government, suggests counsels, ans orders and arranges whatever other gifts there are of charismata.”
John Wesley said in 1750 ” The Christians of the second and third centuries were real Scriptural Christians, and that the main reason why the miraculous gifts were soon withdrawn was not only that faith and holiness were well nigh lost, but that dry, formal, orthodox men began to ridicule whatever gifts that they had not themselves, and to decry them all as either madness or imposture”
Unfortunately we see this today, the freedom of the Spirit, which is normally not understood, is being replaced by ceremonial ritual and ecclesiastical morder.
I’m not very comfortable with a lot of your hard and fast distinctions. Gaffin’s statement that “the whole church is a congregation of prophets” seems to be roughly analogous to Paul’s statement in I Cor 14:31 that “you may all prophesy, one by one.” But it seems to go against Ephesians 4:11, that God “gave *some* as apostles, *some* as prophets…” etc. These statements can’t be referring to prophecy in the same sense and still be consistent with each other.
At the same time, your statements about “knowing the will of God” seem to be awfully blurry. The concept is so broad, I can’t be sure if I know what you’re talking about here, or be sure if you aren’t conflating two related concepts so that you can affirm one at the expense of the other. You can talk about knowing the will of God in terms of “having his law written on your heart” and be speaking of something quite distinct from knowing the will of God in terms of what will happen to Paul when he goes to Jerusalem. Having one doesn’t necessarily cancel out all use for the other.
You also haven’t set up any limits on this “democratisation of the Spirit” you’re talking about here. If every believer having the Spirit cancels out any need for prophecy, to the point that prophecy as modeled in the New Testament now appears to you as repugnant and contrary to the gospel, what stops us from making similar claims about the scriptures themselves? How democratized is democratized?
Mark,
I think I’ve been away a little too long, so my mind isn’t as “in” the debate as it was a few days ago, but I just wanted to clarify something. You said, “So my challenge to charismatics remains. You need to show us where the Bible teaches that in the New Covenant God’s will is communicated to me through another believer and not directly from God’s Spirit or from His Word.”
I’m just wondering what your position is on Bible teachers like pastors and such. Do you think there is no need for them? If there is need then how does that not qualify as God’s will being communicated to a person through another believer?
Also, just clarity sake, I think most charismatics would agree that any believer can prophecy. We only call some “prophets” because they seem to be more gifted in that area than the average Christian.
Guys, thanks all for your comments. Sorry for the delay in responding - I’m on holiday right now. I’ll respond to each of your comments in a separate comment of my own.
Wyeth. I agree with you in part. The perfect in 1 Corinthians 13 is clearly the return of Christ (this is the position taken by Gaffin, too). I’m not sure 1 Cor 13:10 can be stretch to demand that all gifts must continue until the return of Christ. Rather the text suggests that they will continue. Having said that, I do believe that all gifts that are characteristic of the New Covenant age will continue until the return of Christ.
In answer to your second point about God speaking outside the Bible. I’ve never met anyone (who when pushed) didn’t admit that God could speak to us outside of the Bible (for example, through Creation). The real debate is to what God might say, and in particular what limits there are on His revelation outside Scripture.
I would challenge you to explain to me from the Bible just what (if any) are the self-imposed limits God places on His non-Biblical revelation.
You don’t accept that Acts is a transitional book. If so, then do you believe that everything that happened in Acts can happen today? Or do you believe that some of Acts is unrepeatable? If you do believe that all of Acts can be repeated today, that I would suggest you are on extremely slippery ground theologically. Almost every evangelical accepts that some of Acts is unrepeatable. And the reason it is unrepeatable? Because it represents the transition between the Old Covenant and the New. The only question is to how much of the Acts narrative is transitional and how much is permanent.
So, of course, I agree with your final comment. God does still speak. I’ve sought to explain how God speaks today outside His word (he reveals Himself personally to each one, rather than using an Old-Testament style prophet). How do you answer the question: How does God speak?
Hi, Mark,
You wrote,
If what you were referring to was my mention of your “kind comments,” I was certainly not rebuking you. You did comment on my blog, saying, “Thanks for the post. It’s certainly one of the more thoughtful out there,” which I do see as kind, particularly since we don’t agree on this point. No irony or sarcasm, and certainly no offense, intended.
With regard to seeing Acts as a “transitional” book, I first of all think you’re begging the question–assuming the thing that is to be proven–and second, I disagree that it is a transition from Old Covenant to New Covenant. A transition from local ethnically Jewish movement to international, primarily Gentile movement, yes. But all of Acts can’t be written off as merely historical witness to a now-defunct era.
Finally, you write,
Once again, I think this misrepresents what I have always been taught in both charismatic and classical Pentecostal circles: any “word” that someone may have for me should be merely confirmatory: it should merely witness to what God is already speaking to my spirit.
So perhaps our positions are not that far apart; especially since you acknowledge that God can and does speak to people individually in the present day, and I acknowledge that no “prophet” can tell me anything authoritative: I must depend on Scripture, and my own discernment of how God wants me to apply biblical truth to my life specifically.
Sorry for the delay in getting back to everyone. I was actually on holiday last week – I managed to get a connection via my mobile to respond to Wyeth, but the connection was so flaky I couldn’t respond to others. Sorry.
@David: I do agree that the first century church was one where the spiritual gifts were in continuous operation. But does the present day charismatic church reflect that situation well? The citations who give from church history are important, but only some of many that could be given. I do sometimes post on spiritual gifts and church history. But in this post, I’m particularly considering the theology of spiritual gifts, and want to restrict my comments to that area.
@Kyle: Many people recognise that not everyone who prophesies is necessarily a prophet. For example, For example, Mattie Elizabeth Hart writes, “the use made by Luke of the verb προφητεύω is to indicate prophetic activity among believers, and not to specify the office of prophet”. Richard Gaffin says that “the designation prophet is applied to those who exercise the gift frequently or with some regularity (e.g., Acts 21:10; I Cor. 12:28), while the gift itself can function temporarily in others on particular occasions”. This is a tradition that goes right back at least as far as King Saul (around 1,000 BC: 1 Samuel 10:11-12, 19:24).
I appreciate your correction about by use of “the will of God”. I’m talking really about discernment of the specific will of God. The following quote from Don Carson (with whom I am in full agreement on this point) may bring welcome clarity (it’s from page 152 of Showing the Spirit):
Finally, you say: “If every believer having the Spirit cancels out any need for prophecy, to the point that prophecy as modeled in the New Testament now appears to you as repugnant and contrary to the gospel what stops us from making similar claims about the scriptures themselves? How democratized is democratized?”
What I’m trying to say is not that old revelation is repugnant and contrary to the gospel. Far from it. Old revelation IS the gospel!! What I’m saying is that the means of old revelation do not belong in a New Covenant age. The purpose of Old Revelation was to point to a time when God’s relationship with his people will be changed (because of Jesus’ work on the cross and the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost). That time has now come. To carry on much as before ignores the significance of those events.
@Robert: Robert, you said:
This actually raises an interesting issue re: the difference between those who prophesy and those who teach. It also provides some welcome controls on true biblical preaching. The simple answer is to say that a teachers job is simply to explain what the Bible says. That’s ‘all’. He does so passionately, he does so in a way that applies the Scriptures to individuals, and he does so with the help of the Spirit. But ‘all’ he does it to say what the Bible says. In this sense the teacher passes on already existing revelation. But what is says is not revelatory.
@Keith: I took “I notice that the only passages you cite in support are from the Old Testament” as a tongue-in-cheek rebuke given that I had criticised others for only quoting the New Testament. It made me smile, and was deserved, even if it wasn’t a rebuke!
I just don’t see how we can avoid seeing Acts as a transitional book between two eras or covenants. What happened when people like Paul, Apollos and others were converted? Were they not taken from the Old Covenant into the New? And look at the Cornelius story. It’s a key marker in the book, and Cornelius is in some way ‘typical’. The story starts with ” a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God” and ends with “the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles… he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” That’s transition from Old Covenant to New, and these examples could be repeated throughout Acts.
I’m glad to hear that within your circle prophetic words are viewed as confirmatory to what God is saying to an individual. That is encouraging, but I’m not convinced that teaching is as widespread as you suggest. I’ve just re-read the relevant section if Grudem’s Systematic Theology, for example, and it makes no mention of whether prophetic words are confirmatory or not, it simply emphasises that they are not authoritative.
I do agree with you that when it comes to practice sensible charismatics are remarkably close to sensible cessationists at least in regard to prophecy (though tongues is an entirely different matter!). Cessationists will speak of promptings and sensing God’s guidance, but in essence it means much the same thing. I no of hardly any cessationists who would disagree with your last paragraph. Still, our vocabulary is important, and it’s good to be as accurate and faithful to scripture with regard our vocabulary as well as the doctrine behind it.