tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post2201389572001962454..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Vern Poythress and the modern sorta-gifts (Part Three)Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger157125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-55266817104629875292010-08-10T07:09:34.045-07:002010-08-10T07:09:34.045-07:00Disanalogous. Samuel was in no doubt that he heard...Disanalogous. Samuel was in no doubt that he heard a voice external to himself, there was no "this might just be me." The other verses don't really serve to overturn the whole of Scripture on prophecy and yes, we are afield.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-55320302523696217362010-08-10T06:54:01.960-07:002010-08-10T06:54:01.960-07:00I thought you may say that. You believe not only t...I thought you may say that. You believe not only that 1) genuine prophecy is inerrant, but also 2) that the person who receives genuine prophecy unmistakably knows that it is from God.<br /><br />I think premise 2) is very debatable from texts in the NT and OT. For example, Samuel heard the audible voice of God twice but thought it was Eli speaking at first. Also Paul's admonitions to believers (1Cor14:29 and 1Thess5:20-21) most naturally indicate that some genuine believers can be mistaken in thinking that theirs are genuine prophecies. <br /><br />But that is another debate.Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-30929463273384658902010-08-10T06:47:07.573-07:002010-08-10T06:47:07.573-07:00...a sincere believer can very well just offer a p...<i>...a sincere believer can very well just offer a prophecy up in a humble attitude of 'this might not be a genuine prophecy but I think it probably is' and then they are not absolutely claiming 'this IS the Word of the Lord'.</i><br /><br />If so, then this would be completely disanalogous to genuine prophecy.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-46585739574157972292010-08-10T06:44:11.885-07:002010-08-10T06:44:11.885-07:00Fair enough, I think your condition (A) is fine, a...Fair enough, I think your condition (A) is fine, and perhaps so with (B) except that it does not seem to me that Paul had this kind of discipline in mind when he was talking about weighing/judging prophecies, which I think is because a sincere believer can very well just offer a prophecy up in a humble attitude of 'this might not be a genuine prophecy but I think it probably is' and then they are not absolutely claiming 'this IS the Word of the Lord'. I would agree that people who do indeed do that and then get it wrong should be subject to your condition (B) though.<br /><br />One more note on a comment you made:<br /><br /><i>anecdotes aren't a big factor in exegesis for me</i><br /><br />I'm not sure exactly what you mean to imply with this but I sometimes think 'anecdotes' or (more fairly) credible real-life stories are unduly dismissed. It is true that exegesis should not be experience driven, but it is surely a benefit when exegesis makes sense of credible real-life stories. <br /><br />Some forms of cessationism leave people who have experienced a miracle or a genuine prophecy with no plausible answers at all, when a fair reading of the scriptures themselves would not do that (although you would disagree). <br /><br />Thanks for your response though.Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-10244470679530986842010-08-10T06:24:13.082-07:002010-08-10T06:24:13.082-07:00No, I think there are no ongoing prophecies. As I&...No, I think there are no ongoing prophecies. As I've argued in other posts, I think the gift served its purpose, the Canon is closed, we have sufficient witness to Christ and God's will in it with no need for supplementation.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-22515829716336468602010-08-10T06:20:00.977-07:002010-08-10T06:20:00.977-07:00All decent questions, and I'm tempted to respo...All decent questions, and I'm tempted to respond, but all except one are off-topic for this series, which <i>assumes</i> that prophecy in the NT is the same as the OT.<br /><br />What your questions miss is that Poythress is trying to invent a category for errant, non-binding prophecy as a legitimate spiritual gift on a par with Biblically-described gifts; and he lays foundation for calling what <i>is not</i> prophecy "prophecy." So if you want to say that his little stories are proofs that <i>that</i> gift is extant, then (A) you must require that everything calling itself "prophecy" be tested by that standard, and (B) must apply full church discipline when it doesn't.<br /><br />For myself, as I think I said in the first post, anecdotes aren't a big factor in exegesis for me, other things being equal.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-917721012751586462010-08-10T06:07:41.977-07:002010-08-10T06:07:41.977-07:00So basically, some modern prophecies (the inerrant...So basically, <b>some</b> modern prophecies (the inerrant ones) are <b>identical</b> to the kind of prophecy in the bible, so we should not just dismiss it all. <br /><br />But there is a need for testing and weighing supposed 'prophecies' (1Cor14:29; 1Thess5:20-21) to check that they are the bona fide inerrant ones.<br /><br />What can be wrong with this approach?Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-32841203744436635472010-08-10T05:59:55.179-07:002010-08-10T05:59:55.179-07:00DJP:
I'm a bit late in the game, but I have a...DJP:<br /><br />I'm a bit late in the game, but I have a question for you:<br /><br />I am inclined to agree that genuine <i>prophecy</i> in both the OT and NT is inerrant. (I say 'inclined' because I am not sure about Agabus). I am not at this time persuaded by Grudem that NT prophecy is fallible (have not read his book yet though, just the bit in his ST).<br /><br /><b>BUT</b> I do not see how this makes any difference because some of the examples Poythress and numerous others give <i>are</i> inerrant prophecies - they come to pass 100% like what was intimated in the prophecy and do not contradict scripture. So what is wrong with allowing those?<br /><br />Also, what do you do with the following verse which intimates that even genuine <b>prophets</b> can get it wrong:<br /><br />1Cor14:29:<br /><br /><i>Let two or three <b>prophets</b> speak, and let the others <b>weigh</b> what is said</i><br /><br />If they are 'prophets' why do you weigh ('judge' KJV, 'pass judgment' NASB) what they say unless they can be wrong?<br /><br />So understand me - I am saying that all <i>genuine</i> prophecies are inerrant, but that not everything given as a 'prophecy' is a genuine 'prophecy', and that is why we have to test all prophecies, even ones given by 'prophets' themselves (1Cor14:29).<br /><br />I would be interested to hear what you would say to that approach.<br /><br />Thanks.Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-37411568318336908932010-08-03T12:14:35.900-07:002010-08-03T12:14:35.900-07:00So Dan...would Poythress say your impropmtu semron...So Dan...would Poythress say your impropmtu semrons were analagous to Peter preaching at Pentecost? <br /><br />I almost posted this comment on today's thread, but felt it might have strayed off-topic a bit much.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13987985549747283669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-24538199500379931152010-08-02T18:37:28.135-07:002010-08-02T18:37:28.135-07:00You're missing something.
But please see my 8...You're missing something.<br /><br />But please see my 8:27 AM, July 29, 2010 comment. Yours is a decent question, but off-topic. Maybe another post.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-47854870762579257662010-08-02T18:11:39.656-07:002010-08-02T18:11:39.656-07:00What about Agabus in Acts 21? He prophesied about ...What about Agabus in Acts 21? He prophesied about what would happen to Paul, yet we know he wasn’t 100% accurate? Is this an example of an “analogous to Biblically-described prophecy”? Agabus prophesied that the Jews would bind Paul, yet it was the Gentiles that bound him. The Jews were trying to kill Paul, not trying to take him captive and hand him over to the Gentiles.<br />If this isn’t an example of what Poythress says is an ‘analogous to biblical prophecy’, what is it? Are we to consider Agabus a false prophet, or just someone with a good hunch? What is a little frightening for me is that Acts tells us, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, 'This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.'” If this is a wrong prediction, is this a transcription error that some scribe inadvertently inserted the phrase ‘thus says the Holy Spirit.”? or worse the HS was wrong. Help. <br />They way I’ve dealt with this passage in the past, is that the Holy Spirit spoke to Agabus, yet Agabus didn’t accurately deliver the message 100% right. Is that an accurate view, or am I missing something?Titushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05134027297009940873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-37114024144908447532010-08-02T06:14:23.163-07:002010-08-02T06:14:23.163-07:00David Houston wrote: "The whole idea behind p...David Houston wrote: "The whole idea behind perspectivalism is that there is a real truth that can be 'seen' from multiple perspectives (normative, situational, experiential) whereas relativism is the idea that the 'real truth' is the perspective (an idea that is rather difficult to express coherently for obvious reasons...). You'll know that the former is quite opposed to the latter!"<br /><br />Except when perspectivalists place the scripture in the category of normative, making it only one of the perspectives used to arise at the truth, which is what I have seen many teach. By doing so, they state that "real truth" is unknowable, and that we must use all three perspectives in our epistemology to arrive at our 'best' (analogous) understanding of "real truth', therefore placing experiential and situational alongside the normative (scripture).<br /><br />I think, in an analogous sense, that is the problem DJP has highlighted.Debhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13987103463669929569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-66057937830003854072010-07-31T06:51:18.524-07:002010-07-31T06:51:18.524-07:00Additionally, Stefan, the only form of those visio...Additionally, Stefan, the only form of those visions and dreams that we possess — that God made sure was preserved — is the <i>verbal</i> form. Good observation.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-29834499137915204582010-07-31T00:23:15.173-07:002010-07-31T00:23:15.173-07:00Also (come to think of it), in the two most vision...Also (come to think of it), in the two most vision-filled and cryptic books of the Bible—Daniel and Revelation—there are angels who explain in words what certain things in the visions mean, and which the writer has relayed to us.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-8062524099461590562010-07-30T23:50:28.391-07:002010-07-30T23:50:28.391-07:00When I was...oh, 18, 19, 20...I thought "intu...When I was...oh, 18, 19, 20...I thought "intuition" was the key to some higher truth...some mystical force in the universe. (I was also into what little I knew of Jungian-type thinking at the time.)<br /><br />It's rather disheartening to encounter someone like Poythress (of whom I've admittedly read very litte, but who I assumed is a thoroughgoing biblical scholar) to describe "prophecy" (in anything like the biblical sense of the term) as "non-discursive."<br /><br />Regardless of the position one may take on dreams or visions, prophecy in the Bible is <i>absolutely</i> discursive: the very Word of God, given by God to prophets <i>in verbal form,</i> after He has called and instructed them <i>in verbal form,</i> for them to relay to their intended audience <i>in verbal form.</i><br /><br />As for Revelation, yes, John had a vision on Patmos that was clearly rich in visual imagery (such that 1915 years later, the Bride of Christ still can't agree on what it means), but even here, isn't the essence of it verbal in nature? The letters to the seven churches; the verbal effusion of praise "to Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb"; the words of judgment against Babylon; and the ominous words in chapter 22, from Jesus Christ's own lips, regarding His imminent return; not to mention the invitation that immediately follows from the Spirit and the Bride for the one who is thirsty to come and "take the water of life without price."<br /><br />Regardless of how we may interpret John's visions, the warnings to the churches are clear, the promise of Christ's imminent return is clear, and the open Gospel call is clear...because they are all articulated to us in verbal form, heard by John, written down in Greek, and translated into English for us.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-61100043183072834042010-07-30T19:50:22.446-07:002010-07-30T19:50:22.446-07:00Paul wrote:
"I've been arguing that we c...Paul wrote: <br />"I've been arguing that we can call this phenomenon 'errant prophecy'."<br /><br />At best, I'd call it pseudo-prophecy. Calling it 'errant prophecy' legitimizes it as some lesser kind of actual prophecy, but it is nothing of the sort.Mike Westfallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06944727980772754938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-59658556850032132192010-07-30T18:57:43.841-07:002010-07-30T18:57:43.841-07:00David, I think your conclusion — the part that com...David, I think your conclusion — the part that comes <i>after</i> the infant-baptism part — is dead-on. I totally agree. Want to tell me your opinion, your hunch, your intuition, your feeling? Bring it, I'm happy to hear it and factor it in. "I've got a bad feeling about this" often means something worth considering, that a lot of subliminal red lights are flashing for good reason.<br /><br />Thanks for adding that.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-85654762134792258122010-07-30T18:49:52.758-07:002010-07-30T18:49:52.758-07:00Carlo, I'm sorry. I don't ever mean to com...Carlo, I'm sorry. I don't ever mean to come across "hoity-toity," unless it's in self-parody or just for fun.<br /><br />Is there any part in particular you'd like me to re-word or sum up?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-12117177307394643382010-07-30T17:34:27.623-07:002010-07-30T17:34:27.623-07:00Dan, I think it was in your first post you mention...Dan, I think it was in your first post you mentioned that you couldn't find any critical interaction with Poythress, is that right? That surprises me. Back some time in the 90's I went to a seminar on apologetics with Bill Edgar from WTS-Philly at a local church in FL. I guess this piece by Poythress had come out recently because we discussd it and Dr. Edgar said that the WTS thought, it was a good and interesting argument but they all, I took that to mean the other profs at WTS, disagreed with him. So I am surprised that there hasn't been some critical interaction with him in the Westminster Journal or JETS or somewhere. <br />I do agree wholeheartedly with you here. I am very prejudiced for Poythress ordinarily but here I think he missed the mark. <br />In deference to him I think we could cut him some slack and say that he is arguing according to the principle of good and necessary consequence. I wholeheartedly agree that some things in Scripture are known through good and necessary consequence, but I also understand that this begs the question of how do you define what is good and what is necessary. As a good card carrying presbo I think the doctrine of infant baptism arises out of good and necessary consequence, but I know my baptist friends would say that it is neither good nor necessary. <br />In this case I think that whatever deductions that Poythress has made here are neither good nor necessary. By definition prophecy is a word from God. If it is from God it cannot be errant. <br />I would be happy if people would just say "I've got a hunch God may be leading me in this direction," or "I think God is doing this and such." I'm not even opposed to considering some of these hunches under the doctrine of providence - God governs all of His creatures and all of their actions, maybe sometimes he guides them through hunches and impressions. But those can never be in the same class as prophecy and I am with you here - I think Poythress just bungled the meaning of all the words here. <br />In my own (fallible, non-revelatory or prophetic) experience it seems to me that when people claim that "God told me this and such" they are usually trying to add spiritual weight to their own ideas and impressions. If they just said "I think we should do this," that's not near as impressive as "God told me this." <br />Anyway, I'm rambling, sorry to take up so much space, but I think you are spot on here.David Waynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09648513894596145179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-33819474523342134512010-07-30T17:21:07.025-07:002010-07-30T17:21:07.025-07:00DJP delivers some 0wnership on the topic of spirit...DJP delivers some 0wnership on the topic of spiritual gifts. Nicely done!<br /><br />The word verification for this post was "miracal". Make of that what you wish. :)Jacobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17084189036334133951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-89826288417840257642010-07-30T16:00:30.161-07:002010-07-30T16:00:30.161-07:00sometimes I wish you guys would use regular englis...sometimes I wish you guys would use regular english that regular people like myself could understand! But that's my fault I guess! Reading this post was like reading a text book for scientists.Carlo Provenciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05169941376497162845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-16702703661582888272010-07-30T13:18:08.769-07:002010-07-30T13:18:08.769-07:00To pry the can of worms open farther, I am surpris...To pry the can of worms open farther, I am surprised that no one has mentioned Acts 2:17-18 - "'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy....'"<br /><br />Discursive or non-discursive prophecy, visions, dreams? Errant or not?<br /><br />Then, now or later?<br /><br />I'll just duck out now before the shouting starts.Mark B. Hansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15942591774072214556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-65529156164473084002010-07-30T12:53:28.151-07:002010-07-30T12:53:28.151-07:00Tyler wrote:
" or speak to a group of people...Tyler wrote:<br /><br />" or speak to a group of people of different languages and they all instantly understand in their own language."<br /><br />This statement sounds like you interpret what happened on the Day of Pentecost to be a miracle of hearing. The miracle was not that the Jews visiting from all over the Roman Empire "instantly understood in their own language." It was that the disciples were speaking in languages they had never learned.Brian Rodenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00026316545177087233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-41908567966489504312010-07-30T11:05:06.275-07:002010-07-30T11:05:06.275-07:00The decisions I make on a daily basis are not alwa...The decisions I make on a daily basis are not always the right ones. When I realize that is case, I go back to Scripture. There is no situation I have ever encountered that is not addressed by God's Word. I have encountered many trials; emotional, spiritual, physical, financial, relational, and just plain old wisdom issues. Never has there been any of them that is not either directly or in principle that was not found in the cannon of Scripture. What is the purpose of the desire to find "new prophesy?" There is an underlying problem to this whole issue. <br /><br />As far as spiritual gifts go, I have heard it argued that the most important part of spiritual gifts is the person exercising them to the benefit of the local church. The body.Rob Baileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10893938431904825170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-51314759397815890292010-07-30T10:35:53.190-07:002010-07-30T10:35:53.190-07:00Sorry Ted. Justin's a great guy, his blog'...Sorry Ted. Justin's a great guy, his blog's a great blog... but his meta is sometimes just one of the most discouraging places in the world, innit?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.com