Moses Costigan
Puritan Board Freshman
Dear Brethren,
Can someone recommend resources/books etc to help me understand the perspectives on the sign gifts held to by people like John Piper, Wayne Grudem and Sam Storms?
I read an article early this year that I've been thinking about a lot..... https://www.challies.com/articles/themes-or-challenges-for-reformed-christians-in-2018/ . It predicts that reformed continuationists will commence the practicing of the sign gifts particularly tongues and prophecy but also healing.
I read quite a bit by Piper, Grudem and Storms and i'm struggling to put the pieces together .... the perspective on the continuation of prophecy sets out a seemingly a new category of prophecy ('non "scripture quality" revelatory words', to quote Sam Storms; http://www.samstorms.com/enjoying-g...-the-contemporary-validity-of-spiritual-gifts) which it is admitted is not infallible.
1 Corinthians 14:29, but especially 1 Thessalonians 5:20–2, are used as proof-texts to create a category of true/false prophecy as against true/false prophets which doesn't seem consistent with Deuteronomy 18:21-22 "And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?'- when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.") and seems to contraindicate that such a category distinction can be made because the context ("I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.' And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?'- when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him", Deuteronomy 18:18-22) indicates speaking false prophecy is the defining mark which makes one a false prophet.
All of these men affirm the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture and none would deny that scripture clearly articulates God's unchanging nature. Yet Grudem and Piper directly acknowledge that contemporary prophecy can be incorrect and Storms speaks of categories of prophecy fallible and infallible based on the existence of prophecy in the Apostolic era which didn't form part of the canon of scripture especially the practice of women prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5) which on the basis of a particular understanding of complementarianism is understood to indicate this secondary form of prophecy is non-authoritative because it's being spoken by women. In referring though to the contemporary practice of prophecy there is caution offered and acknowledgement that what is offered as prophecy by believers could be erroneous yet ls still prophecy.
The perspective on tongues acknowledges that glossa is accurately understood to refer to actual human languages in scripture not a heavenly prayer language and i'm not aware of any continuationist reference to or interaction with the linguistics research that argues that speaking in tongues as practiced within the broader charismatic/Pentecostal movement today (and since Charles Parham and the Azusa St Revival) doesn't possess the features of language. There is among reformed continuationists typically a desire to practice tongue-speaking but not current practice of prophecy and tongues yet the article predicts/speculates that some will soon commence practicing the gifts of tongues and prophecy.
I'm struggling to understand how clearly very learned men are seemingly willing to reinterpret scripture and confuse (at best) or intentionally twist scripture in creating new categories of spiritual gifts. Is there something i'm missing? Can anyone help me get a better understanding of the reformed continuationist perspective? I strongly disagree with perspective and am convinced, based on my current understanding, that it is erroneous but i want to seek an accurate understanding of this perspective and the works of those who hold to it.
Thanks
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Can someone recommend resources/books etc to help me understand the perspectives on the sign gifts held to by people like John Piper, Wayne Grudem and Sam Storms?
I read an article early this year that I've been thinking about a lot..... https://www.challies.com/articles/themes-or-challenges-for-reformed-christians-in-2018/ . It predicts that reformed continuationists will commence the practicing of the sign gifts particularly tongues and prophecy but also healing.
I read quite a bit by Piper, Grudem and Storms and i'm struggling to put the pieces together .... the perspective on the continuation of prophecy sets out a seemingly a new category of prophecy ('non "scripture quality" revelatory words', to quote Sam Storms; http://www.samstorms.com/enjoying-g...-the-contemporary-validity-of-spiritual-gifts) which it is admitted is not infallible.
1 Corinthians 14:29, but especially 1 Thessalonians 5:20–2, are used as proof-texts to create a category of true/false prophecy as against true/false prophets which doesn't seem consistent with Deuteronomy 18:21-22 "And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?'- when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.") and seems to contraindicate that such a category distinction can be made because the context ("I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.' And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?'- when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him", Deuteronomy 18:18-22) indicates speaking false prophecy is the defining mark which makes one a false prophet.
All of these men affirm the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture and none would deny that scripture clearly articulates God's unchanging nature. Yet Grudem and Piper directly acknowledge that contemporary prophecy can be incorrect and Storms speaks of categories of prophecy fallible and infallible based on the existence of prophecy in the Apostolic era which didn't form part of the canon of scripture especially the practice of women prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5) which on the basis of a particular understanding of complementarianism is understood to indicate this secondary form of prophecy is non-authoritative because it's being spoken by women. In referring though to the contemporary practice of prophecy there is caution offered and acknowledgement that what is offered as prophecy by believers could be erroneous yet ls still prophecy.
The perspective on tongues acknowledges that glossa is accurately understood to refer to actual human languages in scripture not a heavenly prayer language and i'm not aware of any continuationist reference to or interaction with the linguistics research that argues that speaking in tongues as practiced within the broader charismatic/Pentecostal movement today (and since Charles Parham and the Azusa St Revival) doesn't possess the features of language. There is among reformed continuationists typically a desire to practice tongue-speaking but not current practice of prophecy and tongues yet the article predicts/speculates that some will soon commence practicing the gifts of tongues and prophecy.
I'm struggling to understand how clearly very learned men are seemingly willing to reinterpret scripture and confuse (at best) or intentionally twist scripture in creating new categories of spiritual gifts. Is there something i'm missing? Can anyone help me get a better understanding of the reformed continuationist perspective? I strongly disagree with perspective and am convinced, based on my current understanding, that it is erroneous but i want to seek an accurate understanding of this perspective and the works of those who hold to it.
Thanks
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk