Brothers,
The continuationist theologian Wayne Grudem argues for a distinction between OT canonical prophecy and NT congregational prophecy. In contrast with OT prophecy, which is divine, infallible, and fully authoritative special revelation, the NT gift of prophecy is, according to Grudem, semi-revelational, potentially fallible, and only relatively authoritative. Grudem’s arguments can be summarized as follows: (1) the NT apostles alone are the counterparts to the OT prophets. Only the NT apostles uttered infallible revelation. (2) the NT seems to contain examples of fallible prophecy uttered by NT believers or prophets. (3) NT prophecy was subject to evaluation and criticism, which seems to imply fallibility and lesser authority. These are Grudem’s three primary arguments for a distinction between canonical prophecy and NT congregational prophecy.
In the previous post (
Part 7), I sought to demonstrate (1) that OT prophets spoke the very words of God (Exod. 7:1-2; Deut. 18:15-19; 2 Pet. 1:20-21), (2) that the Bible assumes an essential continuity between OT and NT prophecy (compare Acts 2:4-18 with Joel 2:28-32), and (3) that several NT passages treat NT prophecy as inspired and on a level with OT prophecy as canonical revelation (Acts 13:1-4; Eph. 2:20; 3:1-5; 1 Cor. 13:2; 14:1-3; Rev. 1:3; 22:7, 10; 18-19). If the observations I highlighted above are valid, then Grudem’s first point, namely, that the NT apostles alone (and not the NT prophets) are the counterparts to the OT prophets is without biblical support. In this present post, I’d like to address Grudem’s remaining two arguments.
The Cessation of Special Revelation: A Humble Argument for the Cessation of NT Prophecy and Tongues, Part 8
Your servant,
Linear Mode
