Well, good afternoon. My name is Nathan Busenitz and the title of
our seminar this afternoon is A Word from the Lord? Evaluating the Modern Gift of Prophecy. That subtitle really defines our goal in this
session. We want to look at prophecy in the contemporary
Charismatic Movement and compare it to the Word of God. Now as a side note, at the beginning, I want
to note that much of the material that we're covering this afternoon parallels what you'll
find in the Strange Fire book which you'll be receiving tomorrow. And I'm mentioning that at the outset so that
if you're interested in doing further study on this important topic, you can do so by
reading what Dr. MacArthur has published in that important
resource. Now before we begin this afternoon, it's important
for us to define several terms. And I realize that these terms have been defined
and used throughout the keynote sessions so far. But I feel like it's important from the beginning
to define some key terms. One of those terms is Charismatic. The term "Charismatic" is very broad. It encompasses millions of people and thousands
of denominations. In fact, according to the International Dictionary
of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, there are more than twenty thousand distinct
Charismatic and Pentecostal groups or denominations in the world. These groups are generally subdivided into
three different categories or waves. The first wave began in 1901 in Topeka, Kansas,
it really got started in 1905 or so here in Los Angeles and that would be classic Pentecostalism
under the leadership of men like William Seymour and Charles Fox Parham. The second wave is known as the Charismatic
Renewal, began in the 1960's and it represents really the influence of Pentecostal theology
in the mainline denominations. Actually started in Van Nuys, California,
just a few miles from here. And then the Third Wave began in the 1980's,
really started under the leadership of two Fuller Seminary professors, C. Peter Wagner and John Wimber. Wimber, of course, associated with the Vineyard
Fellowship and this is Pentecostal theology influencing evangelicalism and it's called
the Third Wave. These three waves together represent the Pentecostal
and Charismatic Movement and in our seminar today, we'll be using the term Charismatic
I a broad sense to refer to all three of these waves, recognizing that it's not possible
to deal with all of the nuances and specifics in the hour or so that we have this afternoon. Another important term that we need to discuss
is the term "Continuationist." The term Continuationist simply means that
those who are continuationists believe that the gifts have continued, the miraculous and
revelatory gifts of the New Testament have continued throughout the church age and are
still operational today. Often the term, continuationist, is used to
differentiate theological conservative Charismatics from those in the broader Charismatic Movement. And well-known continuationists would include
Christian leaders like John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and Sam Storms, and I think it's important
at the outset to mention the fact that we have great appreciation and respect for much
of what these men and their ministries represent. I like how Bob Kauflin defines the term Continuationist. He says this, "The term Charismatic has sometimes
been associated with doctrinal error unsubstantiated claims of healing, financial impropriety,
outlandish and unfulfilled predictions, an over-emphasis on the speech gifts and some
regrettable hair styles." Then he says this, "That's why I've started
to identify myself more often as a continuationist rather than a Charismatic." So I think it's helpful for us to note the
distinction there between those two terms. And then finally, we have the term cessationist. The term cessationist refers to those who
believe that the miraculous and revelatory gifts passed away in church history shortly
after the apostolic age ended. Cessationists assert that phenomena like the
gifts of apostleship, prophecy, tongues and healing are no longer operational in the church
today. Once the apostolic age passed, and the canon
of Scripture was complete, the primary purpose for these gifts was fulfilled and they passed
away. Now with those sort of basic terms defined,
we can then define the term prophecy. When we speak about prophecy or the gift of
prophecy, or a word of prophecy, we are talking about the human declaration of divine revelation. In fact, continuationists author Sam Storms
defines prophecy exactly that way as quote: "The human report of divine revelation." Now, just to be clear, we are not talking
about preaching, rather we are specifically talking about the reception of new revelation
from God which is then articulated by a human prophet. And I think in terms of that very rudimentary
definition of prophecy, I think most cessationists would agree, biblical prophets like Moses
and Isaiah, they received new revelation from God which they then reported to people both
by speaking the truth, declaring it, and by writing it down. Charismatics today similarly claim that they
receive revelation from God and that they are then able to articulate words of prophecy
to others. Another term, the word prophet. The word prophet itself comes from the Greek,
prophetes which means to speak in the place of or to be a spokesman. So a prophet is by definition a spokesperson
for God. I think this is an important point. When someone claims to be exercising the gift
of prophecy, or claims to have received a word from the Lord, they are in essence claiming
to be a spokesperson for God. This brings up an important thing for us to
consider, the need to test prophets. Throughout history there have been many people
who claimed to be prophets, who claimed to speak for God. But all Christians, whether Charismatic, Continuationist,
or Cessationist would agree that at least some, if not all, of these individuals were
false prophets. Now just for the sake of time, I'll give you
three quick examples. One example from the second century would
be Montanus. Montanus claimed to speak for God. In fact, the Montanus Movement called itself
the New Prophecy. He said that the world was about to end. He promoted extremely legalistic ethical standards
on his followers. He claimed that God was going to establish
the New Jerusalem not in Jerusalem, but in the town of Pepusa(?) in Phrygia(?). And needless to say his predictions of the
imminent end of the world did not come true and he was declared a heretic by the early
church. Moving all the way up to the Reformation,
Dr. Lawson yesterday talked about some of the
radical Reformers who at times claimed to receive direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. One of those would be a man named Melchior(?)
Hoffman(?) who claimed that the New Jerusalem was going to be established in Strasberg,
Germany. And we have Yen(?) Mathis one of his sort of disciples. Mathis said the New Jerusalem would be established
in Munster, Germany. At some point somebody is going to recognize
that the New Jerusalem is going to be in Jerusalem, but in any case, he and his followers essentially
took over the city of Munster, Jerusalem and were finally eradicated and declared to be
false prophets. The predictions that they made did not come
true. And then another perhaps more well-known example
in the nineteenth century would be Joseph Smith who, of course, claimed to receive direct
revelation from God. In his case, it came in the form of some golden
tablets which he allegedly translated and the result is the Book of Mormon. Smith, of course, is widely recognized, in
fact in his own day was widely recognized as a con-artist. He was in imprisoned. In fact, he was killed while in prison by
an angry mob who was offended by his doctrine of polygamy. And we would all regard Joseph Smith as a
false prophet. Now what's the point of these historical examples? Simply to demonstrate the truth that false
prophets exist and that they represent a major threat to the church. Both the Old and New Testaments repeatedly
warned believers about the danger of false prophets. And if time permitted, we could go through
dozens of similar examples and dozens of passages in which God's Word warns people to avoid
anyone who claims to speak for God but in reality does not. So when a person claims to have received new
revelation from God then, we might ask, "What criteria can we use to discern whether or
not they are really speaking for God?" How can we recognize a false prophet? And I think that really is the key question
that we have to ask even as we think about the modern Charismatic version of prophecy. The Bible articulates three criteria for identifying
a false prophet. And Tom Pennington hit on these quickly in
his seminar just this morning. These three tests, I'm just going to state
them briefly and then we'll go through them in more detail. The first would be the test of doctrinal orthodoxy. God's true prophets proclaim doctrines that
are right and true. New Revelation is always consistent with previous
revealed truth. Second, moral integrity. God's true prophets are characterized by personal
holiness. Those who claim to speak for God must also
live out that truth in their lives. And then thirdly, predictive accuracy...predictive
accuracy. God's true prophets foretell future events
or reveal hidden things with 100 percent accuracy. We'll go through these each in more detail. First, a true prophet must be doctrinally
orthodox. Conversely any self-proclaimed prophet who
deceives people by leading them into theological error is a false prophet. Now there are many places in Scripture that
we could look to bear out this point, but we're just going to look at two today, for
the sake of time. One of them was mentioned by Tom in his earlier
message, that's Deuteronomy 13:1 through 5. Here's what it says, "If a prophet were a
dreamer of dreams rises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder and the sign or the
wonder comes true concerning which he spoke to you saying let us go after other gods,
let us serve them, you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer
of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your
God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall follow the Lord your God and fear
Him. And you shall keep His commandments, listen
to His voice, serve Him and cling to Him. But that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams
shall be put to death because he has counseled rebellion against the Lord your God who brought
you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from
the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk so you shall purge the evil from
among you." In other words, Moses is saying if a prophet
comes to you and even if the prophet does things that seem spectacular, even if they
say things that come true, if that prophet leads you away from biblical doctrinal truth
into heresy or error, that prophet is a false prophet. And you'll notice how seriously God takes
this offense, the death penalty itself is attached to those prophets who would tread
in this area. In a New Testament context, Peter gives a
similar warning in 2 Peter 2:1. He says, "But false prophets also rose among
the people just as there will also be false teachers among you who will secretly introduce
destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction
upon themselves." And notice in that passage Peter equates false
prophets from the Old Testament with false teachers in the New Testament. Those who teach false doctrine demonstrate
themselves to be false prophets. Now, if we wanted to do so, we could spend
the whole time this afternoon documenting time after time when well-known Charismatic
prophets have taught egregious forms of doctrinal error from the prosperity gospel to the Word
of Faith Movement, to one is Pentecostalism, those things that Dr. MacArthur articulated this morning. The larger Charismatic Movement is hardly
known for its doctrinal orthodoxy. And I realize I'm speaking in broad terms. But when we see egregious doctrinal errors
being taught by self-appointed prophets, like when Benny Hinn famously claimed there were
nine members of the Trinity, or when Kenneth Copeland stated that Jesus took on the nature
of Satan on the cross, we can be immediately certain that those individuals are not true
prophets. But we need to move on. Moral integrity, a second requirement or a
second test for a true prophet of God. Any self-proclaimed prophet who lives in unrestrained
lust and greed, or unrepentant sin shows himself to be a false prophet. Again we could look at numerous texts in Scripture
that bear this out, but once more we will consider just two. Jeremiah 23, Jeremiah says this, "Also among
the prophets of Jerusalem, I have seen a horrible thing, the committing of adultery and walking
in falsehood, and they strengthen the hands of evil doers so that no one has turned back
from his wickedness. All of them have become to me like Sodom and
are inhabitants like Gomorrah, therefore thus says the Lord of hosts concerning these kinds
of prophets, Behold I am going to feed them wormwood and make them drink poisonous water. From the prophets of Jerusalem pollution has
gone forth into all the land. Thus says the Lord of hosts, do not listen
to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you, they are leading you into futility,
they speak a vision of their own imagination which is not from the mouth of the Lord." There in an Old Testament context, here we
have these immoral prophets and God says don't listen to them, they are false prophets. In the New Testament context, Matthew 7 verse
20, Jesus said that prophets will be known by their fruit which certainly includes the
fruits of their lives. Second Peter 2, we read verse 1 already, here's
verses 2 and 3, "Many of the false prophets whom Peter is describing, or those who follow
them, many will follow these false prophets sensuality and because of them, the way of
the truth will be maligned. And in their greed they will exploit you with
false words. Their judgment from long ago is not idle and
their destruction is not asleep." So again we see that false prophets can be
identified by their life style and also by the lifestyles of those under their influence. We really can know them by their fruits. And again, if we wanted to this afternoon,
we could spend our whole time documenting times in the broader Charismatic world where
some of the best known Charismatic celebrities and self-proclaimed prophets have been exposed
for the immorality, carnality, and greed that exists in their life styles. When the best known leaders and public faces
of a Movement are frequently embroiled in scandal and controversy to do lavish lifestyles
and immoral escapades, it does call into question their self-appointed status as prophets. Maybe just one example. One of the most prolific prophetic groups
from a few years ago, at least, is known as the Kansas City Prophets, included men like
Mike Bickle and Rick Joyner, two of the most highly regarded were Bob Jones, not of Bob
Jones University, different Bob Jones, and Paul Cain. Both of these men were regarded as prophets
by their fellow Charismatics. Both of them were highly visible and influential,
especially within the Third Wave circles where they ministered. But both of them were subsequently disqualified
from ministry on moral grounds. Bob Jones had to be removed from ministry
when it came to light that he was using his prophetic gifts to illicit sexual favors from
women. And Paul Cain's ministry was publicly scandalized
when he admitted to long-term drunkenness and homosexuality. Irony is that in spite of their lack of moral
integrity, they continued to be held up as true prophets by many within the Charismatic
world. Bob Jones, for example, still has a thriving
ministry. On his web page he compares himself to the
prophet Daniel. Well that brings us then to a third test of
false prophets, predictive accuracy. And this is where we're going to spend more
of our time this afternoon. When a true prophet speaks about future events
or other unknown things, he speaks with 100 percent accuracy. And that's because God knows all things. So if someone is accurately speaking on God's
behalf, what he says will invariably be true. Now once again, there are a number of scriptures
that we could look at on this point, but we will consider just two. The first is Deuteronomy 18 which Tom Pennington
referenced this morning, but it's worth reading again. Here God Himself says this, "The prophet who
speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which
he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. You may say in your heart, 'How will we know
if the Word, or how will we know the Word which the Lord has not spoken?'" In other words, how will we know if this is
a true prophet or a false prophet. "When a prophet speaks in the name of the
Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord
has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously,
you shall not be afraid of him" Well that's just about as clear as you could possibly
make it. God says if a prophet claims to speak for
God, but then says things that do not come to pass or are inaccurate, then that prophet
has spoken presumptuously and he can be considered a false prophet. The rest of Scripture reverberates the same
truth. According to Isaiah 44:26, God confirms the
words of His true messengers. According to Jeremiah 28:9 the true prophet
is the one whose predictions come true. According to Ezekiel 12:25, "The Word which
God speaks will come to pass." By contrast a false prophet, all he can do
is hope in the wishful thinking sort of hope, hope that what he has predicted will actually
happen. Here's what Ezekiel 13 says, "Thus says the
Lord God, 'Woe to the foolish prophets who are following their own spirit and have seen
nothing. O Israel, your prophets have been like foxes
among ruins. You have not gone up into the breaches nor
did you build the wall around the house of Israel to stand in the battle on the day of
the Lord. These prophets, they see falsehood and lying
divination who are saying, The Lord declares, when the Lord has not sent them. Yet...notice this...they hope for the fulfillment
of their word.' Did you not see a false vision and speak a
lying divination when you said the Lord declares? But it is not I who have spoken. Therefore thus says the Lord God, because
you have spoken falsely and seen a lie, therefore behold, I am against you, declares the Lord
God. So My hand will be against the prophets who
see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will have no place in the council of
My people, nor will they be written down in the register of the house of Israel, nor will
they enter the land of Israel that you may know that I am the Lord God." So a prophet who claims to speak for God and
then what he says turns out to be a lie, turns out to be false, God Himself says that He
is against those prophets. So God's Word is very clear. Now when we compare the modern Charismatic
form of prophecy to this third biblical requirement, we again find that it falls far short. In fact, by their own admission, proponents
of the modern gift of prophecy readily acknowledge that modern prophecies are often inaccurate
and full of error. Just to give you some examples. Here Rick Joyner says, and he's commenting
about Bob Jones, he says, "There is a prophet named Bob Jones who was told that the general
level of prophetic revelation in the church was about 65 percent accurate at this time. Some are only about ten percent accurate. A very few of the most mature prophets are
approaching 85 to 95 percent accuracy. Prophecy is increasing in purity but there
is still a long way to go for those who walk in this ministry. The problem is biblically a true prophet is
not recognized based on how many predictions he gets right. Rather, false prophets are recognized by how
many predictions they get wrong." Rick Joyner again in a different place says
this, "One of the greatest hazards," and this, by the way, helps us understand, what do they
do with Deuteronomy 18? They know that it's there, what do they do
with it? Well they just ignore it. Here's what he says. "One of the greatest hazards effecting maturing
prophets is the erroneous interpretation of the Old Testament exhortation that if a prophet
ever predicted something which did not come to pass, he was no longer to be considered
a true prophet. The warning was that if this happened, the
prophet had been presumptuous and the people were not to fear him." That's a right understanding of the text. But Joyner just says, "If one predicts something
in the name of the Lord and it does not come to pass, he probably has spoken presumptuously
and that needs to be repented of but that does not make him a false prophet. No one could step out in the faith required
to walk in his calling if he knew that a single mistake would ruin him for life." But that is not how Scripture defines the
test. Here's Bill Hayman(?), he says, "We must not
be quick to call someone a false prophet simply because something he said was inaccurate. Missing it a few times in prophecy doesn't
make a false prophet, no mortal prophet is infallible. All are liable to make mistakes." But you see how far short this is falling
from the biblical standard. Here's Jack Deere, "Prophets are really messy. Prophets make mistakes. And sometimes when a prophet makes a mistake,
it's a serious mistake." I mean, I know prophets just last year that
cost people millions of dollars with the mistake they made. I talk to people who made the wrong investments,
actually moved their homes and spent tons of money. In the extended interview between Mike Bickle
and Bob Jones, which if we had time we could read the whole thing, a large portion of it
is included in the Strange Fire books. So you'll see it when you get the book tomorrow. The interview concludes with Mike Bickle asking
Bob Jones, so there have been errors, there's been a number of errors in your prophetic
ministry--is the implication. And Bob Jones answers, "Oh, hundreds...hundreds
of them." A couple of other examples, Cindy Jacobs and
Chuck Pierce at a prophecy conference in 2000 acknowledged, "We've made a lot of mistakes. There's no excuse but we need to do better. And Kim Clements(?) on TBN said, and this
pretty much just sums up the Charismatic view of prophecy, "You can be a wrong prophet,
and not be a false prophet." Now someone might say, "Well that...that's
the broader Charismatic Movement. That's the TBN mainstream larger, wider Charismatic
Movement, what about the continuationists? What about the more conservative continuationists? Well, this view of prophecy is prevalent among
continuationists as well. Perhaps the most well-known proponent of modern
prophecy is Wayne Grudem and Grudem says this in his book The Gift of Prophecy in the New
Testament and Today . He says, "There is almost uniform testimony
from all sections of the Charismatic Movement that prophecy is imperfect and impure and
will contain elements which are not to be obeyed or trusted." As a result of this then, continuationists
acknowledge that people can rely too much on the subjective guidance of prophecy. So Grudem says, "Usually this has been because
they did not realize that prophecy in the church age is not the Word of God and that
it can frequently contain errors." Sam Storms adds this, "One should avoid looking
to or depending on the gift of prophecy for making routine, daily decisions in life, because
God does not intend for the gift of prophecy to be used as the usual way we make decisions
regarding His will." In other words, modern prophecy can't be trusted. Very interesting here, Wayne Grudem talks
about how you can know whether or not a prophecy is legitimate. You'll note how subjective this becomes because
now the objective criteria of being accurate is no longer being use. So Wayne Grudem says this, "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. So by ignoring the objective standards of
Scripture, then, evaluating whether or not something really is a true prophecy becomes
hopelessly subjective." Here in another place, and this again comes
from his book The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today , Grudem adds this. "Did the revelation seem like something from
the Holy Spirit? Did it seem to be similar to other experiences
of the Holy Spirit which he had known previously in worship? Beyond this, it is difficult to specify much
further except to say that over time, a congregation would probably become more adept at making
evaluations and become more adept at recognizing a genuine revelation from the Holy Spirit
and distinguishing it from their own thoughts." You can see the subjective language that is
being used because all objective criteria have been ignored. Now this raises an important question. If the Bible requires 100 percent accuracy
for prophets, then how can the Charismatic Movement justify prophets who regularly speak
errors when they claim to be speaking words from God? Now just to illustrate some of the more outlandish
errors, we could talk about, for example, in 1989 when Benny Hinn predicted that Fidel
Castro would die sometime in the 1990's. Or when he predicted that the homosexual community
in America would be destroyed by fire before 1995, or that a major earthquake would devastate
the east coast before the year 2000. None of those predictions came true. In the 1990's, Bob Jones and Rick Joyner predicted
that within a matter of months, Southern California would be swallowed by the Pacific Ocean after
a major earthquake. That also did not come to pass. And in 2007 Pat Robertson predicted a major
terror attack in the U.S. in that year. Here's what Robertson said on his show, "The
Lord didn't say nuclear but I do believe it will be something like that, that it will
be a mass-killing, possibly millions of people, major cities injured. There will be some very serious terrorist
attacks. The evil people will come after this country
and there's a possibility not a possibility, a definite certainty that chaos is going to
rule." Those kinds of stories, of course, could be
multiplied many times over. And those are just a few more egregious examples
to make a point. If we were to apply the standard of Deuteronomy
18, we would have to consider these men to be false prophets. But Charismatics are quick to say, just because
a modern prophet gets a prediction or many predictions wrong, that doesn't make him a
false prophet. How can they say that? Well the answer may surprise you. Defenders of modern prophecy generally claim
that there are actually two categories of prophets or prophecy depicted in Scripture. The first kind of prophet is the one that
is described in Deuteronomy 18. That kind of prophet had to be 100 percent
accurate. And in that category they would include the
Old Testament prophets, along with the Apostles and the writers of any other New Testament
books. So they have to be 100 percent accurate. But then they would contend that there's a
second lower category of prophet, a second tier of prophet in the New Testament. They refer to these as New Testament congregational
prophets and they claim that these prophets were not held to a standard of 100 percent
accuracy. So the argument essentially goes like this. While first tier prophets like Moses, Isaiah,
Peter and Paul were held to a standard of absolute, orthodoxy and correctness, these
congregational prophets were allowed to deliver revelations from God that weren't actuality
full of errors and mistakes. Because this second tier form of prophecy
was not accurate, it also was not considered authoritative. And so, as a result you don't have to obey
the word of a prophet. In a sense then, this congregational form
of prophecy was essentially nothing more than Spirit-led advice. It was optional for people to follow because
it may or may not be accurate. In fact, Wayne Grudem himself speaking of
modern prophecy says, "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." Now there's a significant pastoral issue with
that redefinition of biblical prophecy because modern prophecy unlike mere advice, can be
used to abuse, manipulate, and coerce people who think that they're obeying the Lord when
in fact they are not. Kim Crutchfield(?), Charismatic author, an
advocate of modern prophecy acknowledges this fact. He says, "Some churches and church leaders
become abusive. Abusive church leaders use prophecy to castigate,
vilify and place fear in a person's heart. These are false prophecies, uttered as a tool
of social control. They predict doom for those who leave a church. Such leaders do not allow people to question
the prophet, judge the prophecy or call the message into question. This is a clear abuse of spiritual authority,
Unscrupulous leaders often use prophecies and words from the Lord to manipulate their
flock. It is a crass form of spiritual manipulation. It leaves people vulnerable to the whims and
manipulations of would-be prophets." I think that is absolutely true. On a practical level, if you tell me that
you've received a Word from God for my life, that's definition more than you just telling
me that you're sharing a Word of advice or counsel that comes from your own opinion. So you can see the devastating effects this
type of prophecy can have in the church. It can really become a burden on well-meaning
people. But there's an even bigger problem. Continuationists justify errant prophecy by
suggesting a lower-class of New Testament prophets. The bigger problem than just the pastoral
implications is that this is simply not a biblical way to define prophecy, either in
the Old Testament, or in the New Testament. The notion of a lower tier of prophets who
are frequently inaccurate in their prophetic declarations is completely absent from the
New Testament record. The New Testament nowhere suggests that prophets
in the church were to be held to a lesser standard than their Old Testament counterparts. In fact, the evidence indicates exactly the
opposite. New Testament prophets, no matter what church
congregation they were part of, were held to the very same standard as those used...the
very same standards as those used in the Old Testament. So, for starters, the New Testament refers
to both Old Testament and New Testament prophets using the exact same terminology. There is no distinction in the way the New
Testament talks about Old Testament prophets, or New Testament prophets. We see this in the book of Acts where time
after time references are made to Old Testament prophets and then references to New Testament
prophets are interspersed throughout the book of Acts without any sort of distinction, comment
or caveat being used. Sam Waldron says this, "If New Testament prophecy
in distinction from Old Testament prophecy was not infallible in its pronouncements,
this would have constituted an absolutely fundamental contrast between the Old Testament
institution and the New Testament institution. So suppose that a difference as important
as this would be passed over without explicit comment is unthinkable." So the New Testament never defines prophecy
in a New Testament context as being anything different than what it was in an Old Testament
context. But there is more than just evidence from
silence to support the fact that there's only one kind of prophet described in Scripture. In Acts 2:18, for example, Peter quotes from
Joel 2:28 to describe the type of prophecy that would characterize the New Testament
age. Joel 2:28 is an Old Testament passage, it's
describing Old Testament quality prophecy. So by using that passage, Peter was declaring
that New Testament prophecy would be of the same kind as the Old Testament prophecy that
Joel had just described. Not only that, but the New Testament describes
prophets in the New Testament in a way that is equivalent to how the Old Testament describes
prophets as well. So we have the same terminology and now we
have the same descriptions. Dr. David Farnell(?) who teaches New Testament
here at the Master's Seminary, after a lengthy study of this issue in the New Testament says
this, this is about the prophet Agabus in particular, we'll talk more about Agabus in
just a few minutes. But he's showing how Agabus is described in
the same way as Old Testament prophets were described. Agabus introduced his prophecy with the formula,
"This is what the Holy Spirit says," or "Thus says the Holy Spirit," which closely parallels
the Old Testament prophetic formula of "Thus says the Lord." It's the same introductory phrase, in fact,
that the Lord Jesus used when He declared words of prophecy to the seven churches in
the book of Revelation. And certainly, we would not accuse the Lord
Jesus of using ...of using fallible or errant prophecy. Like many Old Testament prophets, Agabus presented
his prophecies through symbolic actions. Again as a similarity. Like the Old Testament prophets, Agabus was
empowered by the Holy Spirit and like the Old Testament prophets, Agabus' prophecies
were accurately fulfilled. Now on that last point, we're going to go
into a little bit more detail because Continuationists would argue that perhaps Agabus was not accurate
in his prediction. But Dr. Farnell summarizes the evidence and says,
"Look, in summary, the early post-apostolic church judged the genuineness of New Testament
prophets by Old Testament standards. Prophets in the New Testament era who were
ecstatic, who made wrong applications of Scripture or who prophesied falsely were considered
false prophets because such actions violated Old Testament stipulations regarding what
characterized a genuine prophet of God. The New Testament church during the apostolic
age, their scriptures consisted of the Old Testament. So when they went to the Bible to decipher
how to judge a true prophet from an false prophet, they derived the same principles
from the Old Testament that we have articulated this afternoon. The bottom line then is this, nothing in the
New Testament suggests that there was a second tier of congregational prophets in the early
church that was held to a lower standard of one hundred percent prophetic accuracy. The New Testament indicates the prophets and
the church were measured by the very same criteria as Old Testament prophets: doctrinal
orthodoxy, moral integrity, and predictive accuracy. So there are two types of prophets in the
Bible, true prophets and false prophets. But there is not this third middle ground
that the contemporary Charismatic Movement wishes to hold to. Now, someone will say, "Well there are some
objections that Charismatics will raise to what you have just articulated." So let's take a moment to answer three of
the most common Charismatic objections. The first is an appeal to Romans 12:6, proponents
of fallible prophecy, or prophecy that has mistakes and errors in it, will often point
to Romans 12:6 which in the NAS reads as follows, "Since we have gifts that differ according
to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly. If prophecy, according to the proportion of
his faith." Based on this verse, Charismatics and Continuationists
argue that the accuracy of one's prophecy can vary depending on how much faith you have. So if you have 80 percent faith, then you
can deliver a prophecy that is 80 percent accurate. But that is actually a misunderstanding of
the Greek in this verse. And, in fact, though I like the New American
Standard, they have mistranslated this verse. The pronoun, the possessive pronoun "his"
before the word "faith" is not in the Greek. In Greek it is the definite article THE. It should read, "According to the proportion
of the faith." Now a number of translations like the ESV
and others do better they say, "In proportion, or in measure to our faith," sort of a collective
sense. But the Greek itself is explicit. It is THE faith. What this means then is this is not saying
that the accuracy of your prophecy fluctuates depending on how much faith you have. Rather it is saying that whatever a prophet
speaks, it must perfectly accord with THE faith, those things that were previously revealed. Jude 3 and 4 talks about contending earnestly
for the faith, once for all delivered to the saints. And Romans 12:6 should be understood in that
same light. If someone prophesies, if someone claims to
speak for God, their message must be measured against the faith...as it has been delivered
in previous revelation. So this is simply affirming that Old Testament
principle of doctrinal orthodoxy. You must be perfectly accurate theologically
when you claim to speak for God. Now there's another objection that Charismatics
often raise and that is an appeal to 1 Thessalonians chapter 5 verses 20 through 22. This verse reads, or these verses read as
follows, "Do not despise prophetic utterances, but examine everything carefully. Hold fast to that which is good and abstain
from every form of evil." Based on this verse, continuationists ask,
if New Testament prophecy was infallible like Old Testament prophecy, then why did Paul
tell the Thessalonians to test it carefully, or to examine it carefully? Well, we would respond with the following
observations. First of all, I think it's important to note
that Paul's statement "Do not despise prophetic utterances" was written at a time when everyone
agrees that the gift of prophecy was still active. So when cessationists reject the false predictions
being made by self-appointed modern prophets, they're not disobeying Paul's command, rather
they're taking the command to test things seriously. When we test modern prophets using the biblical
standards, we are right then to reject those who do not pass the test. Verse 22, Paul states that those prophecies
which do not pass the test, and I think by implication those who declare such prophecies,
that they are to be regarded as evil and believers are to abstain from them. This indicates that there is a seriousness,
a gravitas to that kind of rejection of error and cessationists seek to apply that in a
meaningful way. Now the fact that Paul instructed his readers
to examine prophecy carefully, it does not mean that New Testament prophecy was fallible
or full of errors. Rather it indicates that false prophets posed
a real threat to the New Testament church. Consequently believers needed to test all
supposed prophecies so as to distinguish between true prophets and false prophets. False prophets wreaked havoc in the Thessalonian
church. As John MacArthur explains, the Thessalonians
in particular needed to be wary of false prophets. Paul's two epistles to them indicate that
some within their congregation had already been misled, both with regard to Paul's personal
character, and with regard to the eschatological future of the church. Much of Paul's instruction was in response
to the erroneous teaching that was wreaking havoc within the Thessalonian church. Finally, the idea that New Testament prophecy
had to be examined or tested, that does not make it qualitatively different than Old Testament
prophecy. In fact, the very reason that God gave those
tests in Deuteronomy 13 and in Deuteronomy 18, was so that Old Testament saints could
test prophecy too, just as New Testament believers were commanded to do it in 1 Thessalonians
5. Now why did Old Testament prophecy need to
be tested? Because just as in New Testament times, the
threat of false prophets was in ever-present danger. I think it's important to note as well that
in Acts 17:11 the Bereans were considered noble for examining the things that even the
Apostle Paul was telling them. So even apostolic teaching should be tested
by that which had been previously revealed. So, Dr. MacArthur says this, putting all this together,
we see that 1 Thessalonians 5 does not support the Charismatic case for fallible prophecy. Rather it leads to the opposite conclusion
because it calls Christians to test any message, or messenger that claims to come from God. When we apply the test of Scripture to the
supposed revelations of modern-day Charismatics, we quickly see their prophesying for what
it really is, a dangerous counterfeit. Now there's one more objection that Charismatics
raise, and perhaps this is the most common objection of all. Tom hinted at it this morning in his message. But let's talk just a little bit about the
prophet 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 chapter 21
verses 10 and 11, according to continuationists, Agabus was a true prophet who got the predictive
details of his prophecy wrong. In their minds then, he provides an example...in
fact, really the only New Testament example of a prophet who failed to make an accurate
prediction but was still considered a true prophet. Here's what Luke says in Acts 21:10 and 11. "As we were staying there for some days, a
prophet named Agabus came from Jerusalem....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.'" Now according to continuationists, the overall
gist of Agabus' prophecy is correct, but the details are wrong. In particular, according to continuationists,
Agabus erred when he stated, number one, that the Jews would bind Paul and number two, that
the Jews would deliver Paul into the hands of the Romans. So here Wayne Grudem says this, "This is a
prophecy whose two elements of binding and giving over by the Jews are explicitly falsified
by the subsequent narrative." In another place, Grudem says, "The prediction
was not far off, but it had inaccuracies and detail that would have called into question
the validity of any Old Testament prophet." So how are we to think about Agabus? Are the details of his prophecy explicitly
falsified? Did he err when he predicted that the Jews
would bind Paul and hand him over to the Romans? I think the answer to this question is no. I don't think Agabus got anything wrong in
his prophecy. Let me give you five reasons why. Number one, nothing in the text states that
Agabus got his prophecy wrong. So the idea that this is explicitly falsified
is in itself explicitly false. Neither Luke nor Paul, nor anyone else in
Scripture, criticizes the accuracy of Agabus' prediction or says that he erred. Thus at best, the continuationists' conclusion
about Agabus is based on an argument from silence. Secondly, Luke's description of what happened
to Paul in Jerusalem farther down in Acts chapter 21 implies that the Jews bound him
just as Agabus predicted. In fact, Luke doesn't need to repeat those
details because he's already given us those details through the words of Agabus. But the details are implied as being perfectly
fulfilled. So the rest of Acts 21 explains the Jews laid
hands on Paul. They seized him, they dragged him and they
sought to kill him and they were beating him when the Roman soldiers finally arrived. Later when Paul stands before Agrippa, he
reiterates that the Jews seized him in the Temple and tried to kill him. The mob would have had to restrain Paul in
some way in order to do all of this to him, since Paul did not subject himself to it willingly. As they forcibly removed him from the Temple,
the would have used whatever means were necessary to seize him and to bind him. So the implication in both Acts 21 and Acts
26 is that Paul was bound exactly as Agabus said he would be. In fact, the Greek word "to bind" can mean
to arrest or to imprison, but it can also simply mean to tie someone up, or to wrap
someone up with rags. So when Agabus says you're going to be bound
in this way, that's exactly what happened. Number three, Paul's later testimony confirms
that the Jews delivered him over, or handed him over to the Romans. Continuationists claim that Agabus also erred
when he predicted that the Jews would deliver Paul over to the Romans, but that error is
not demanded by the text. In fact, in Acts 21:32, Paul is being beaten
when the Roman cohort arrives, the Jews upon seeing the soldiers stop assaulting Paul and
the implication of the text is that when the Roman soldiers arrived, the angry mob dispersed
and relinquished Paul into the hands of the Roman soldiers. That, of course, accords perfectly with Agabus'
prediction. But there's an even more explicit statement
in Acts 28 where Paul has just arrived in Jerusalem. He's under house arrest in Rome. Here's what Luke says. "When we entered Rome, Paul was allowed to
stay by himself with a 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 to say to them,"
and this is Paul speaking, "Brethren, though I had done nothing against our people or the
customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered." That word for delivered is the exact same
word that Agabus used when he said that Paul would be delivered by the Jews into the hands
of the Romans. Here he says, "I was delivered as a prisoner
from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans." So you can see, there's no reason to cast
aspersion or doubt on the details of Agabus' prophecy. Now here's probably the most important reason
why I think it's very dangerous to accuse Agabus of getting the details wrong. Agabus is quoting the Holy Spirit. In Acts 21:11 Agabus begins his prophecy by
saying, "Thus says the Holy Spirit." Just like the Old Testament prophets would
declare, "Thus says the Lord." Nothing in the text indicates that he was
wrong to do that, and, in fact, the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to record Agabus' prophecy in
exactly this way. So, those who accuse Agabus of error ought
to be very careful. And I don't say this flippantly but meaningfully,
Agabus is quoting the Holy Spirit and I believe it is dangerous to then accuse the following
words of being inaccurate. Now finally and probably least important in
our list of five, but one that I appreciate because I teach church history, no one in
church history ever accused Agabus of errant prophecy until the modern Charismatic Movement. And we don't have time this morning for me
to read to you from Augustine and Chrysostom and Gregory of Nanzianzus, and Ambrose and
others who talk about Agabus. But when they do talk about Agabus, which
isn't very frequently, they acquaint him with the Old Testament prophets like Isaiah and
Ezekiel and they never ever imply that his prophecy was wrong. So, based on these five reasons, I feel confidence
stating that there is no hint of fallible prophecy not only in church history but in
a straight-forward reading of the biblical text, no hint of fallible prophecy in Agabus'
prediction. Which means if Agabus didn't get the details
wrong, then there is no New Testament example of a prophet who got the details wrong. Now, what are the implications of what it
is that we are discussing? We have just a few minutes left this afternoon,
and I want to talk just a little bit about what it is that we've been discussing and
what the implications of this are. Terms of a review, the Bible articulates three
criteria by which to evaluate a true prophet from a false prophet. Those criteria are, number one, doctrinal
orthodoxy. Number two, moral integrity. And number three, predictive accuracy. A word that truly comes from God will be consistent
with what has previously been revealed and will come from the life of someone who is
consistent in their own walk with the Lord and if it includes details of prediction,
or of hidden knowledge that is being revealed, those details will be perfectly accurate because
the source of that prophecy is the God who knows everything and who cannot speak falsehood. Self-proclaimed prophets who fail any of those
three tests should consider the serious biblical warnings against falsely claiming to speak
for God. So quote from the Strange Fire book, John
MacArthur says, "Fallible prophets are false prophets. Or at best, misguided non-prophets who should
immediately cease and desist from presumptively pretending to speak for God. When compared to the clear criteria set forth
in the Word of God, nothing about modern prophecy measures up." Now, from a cessationists standpoint, and
I appreciated Tom Pennington's defense of cessationism this morning, we would say that
the true gift of prophecy has ceased. According to Ephesians 2:20, the foundation
of the church built on the foundation...the church being built on the foundation of the
Apostles and the prophets, the foundational age, once that age passes, both Apostles and
prophets, those gifts associated with those offices pass away as well. So the foundation age has passed and so we
would contend that the gift of prophecy passed along with it. With the canon of Scripture complete, there
is no longer any need for us to receive new revelation from God. We have the prophetic word and it contains
all that we need for life and godliness. And I appreciate the emphasis that's been
made in the keynote sessions and that will be made with Dr. Lawson's upcoming message, and that emphasis
is that the sufficiency of Scripture itself is at stake. Any concept of new revelation from God undermines
the authority of Scripture and it also competes with the exclusivity of biblical revelation. And that is what makes the concept of modern
prophecy, even if you redefine it as Spirit-led advice, the concept itself is dangerous. So the idea that new revelation is still being
given, undermines the doctrine of Scripture sufficiency. It also enables unscrupulous leaders to abuse
their people supposedly in the name of God and I recognize that not everyone who claims
to be a Charismatic prophet is guilty of abusing people, but it does happen and the problem
comes by labeling error as prophecy. It shows us how dangerous the idea of modern
prophecy really is. Now I'd like to close our time by citing three
well-known figures from history...two from church history, and one from biblical history. All three of these extended quotations are
going to be included in the Strange Fire book, so you will have these tomorrow when you get
the book. But I think they provide a fitting conclusion
to our discussion about modern prophecy. The first comes from a well-known British
pastor of the early twentieth century, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Here's what he said in his work on Ephesians
chapter 4. He said, "Try to imagine our position if we
did not possess these New Testament epistles but the Old Testament only. That was the position of the early church. Truth was imparted to it primarily by the
teaching and preaching of the Apostles but that was supplemented by the teaching of the
prophets to whom truth was given and also the ability to speak it with clarity and power
in the demonstration and authority of the Spirit. But once these New Testament documents were
written, the office of a prophet was no longer necessary. Again, we must note that often in the history
of the church, trouble has arisen because people thought they were prophets in the New
Testament sense and that they had received special revelations of truth. The answer to that is that in view of the
New Testament scriptures, there is no need of further truth. That is an absolute proposition. We have all truth in the New Testament and
we have no need of any further revelations. All has been given, everything that is necessary
for us is available. Therefore, if a man claims to have received
a revelation of some fresh truth, we should suspect him immediately. The answer to all this is that the need for
prophets ends once we have the canon of the New Testament. We no longer need direct revelations of truth,
the truth is in the Bible. We must never separate the Spirit and the
Word. The Spirit speaks to us through the Word so
we should always doubt and query any supposed revelation that is not entirely consistent
with the Word of God. Indeed the essence of wisdom is to reject
all together the term revelation and speak only of illumination. The revelation has been given once and for
all. And what we need and what by the grace of
God we can have and do have is illumination by the Spirit to understand the Word. Now this next quote that I want to read to
you comes from another well-known British pastor, a couple of generations before Lloyd-Jones,
and that's Charles Spurgeon. This quote is direct. So I want to hide behind the fact that this
is Charles Spurgeon's quote. Okay...good. He says this, "Honor the Spirit of God as
you would honor Jesus Christ if He were present. If Jesus Christ were dwelling in your house,
you would not ignore Him. You would not go about your businesses if
He were not there. Do not ignore the presence of the Holy Spirit
in your soul. To Him pay your constant adorations, reverence
the august guest who has been pleased to make your body his sacred abode. Love Him, obey Him, worship Him. Take care never to impute the vain imaginings
of your fancy to Him. I have seen the Spirit of God shamefully dishonored
by persons--I hope they were insane--who have said they have had this and that revealed
to them. There has not, for some years, passed over
my head a single week in which I have not been pestered with the revelations of hypocrites
or maniacs. Semi-lunatics are very fond of coming with
messages from the Lord to me, and it may save them some trouble if I tell them once and
for all that I will have none of their stupid messengers. Never dreamed that events are revealed to
you by heaven, or you may come to be like those idiots who dare impute their blatant
follies to the Holy Spirit. If you feel your tongue itch to talk nonsense,
trace it to the devil, not to the Spirit of God. Whatever is to be revealed by the Spirit to
any of us is in the Word of God already. He adds nothing to the Bible and never will. Let persons who have revelations of this,
that and the other go to bed and wake up in their senses. I only wish they would follow the advice and
no longer insult the Holy Spirit by laying their nonsense at His door." That was harsh but I would add this, I didn't
read that intending it to be funny, I read it intending it to be sobering because I think
Spurgeon intended it to be received in a spirit of sobriety, recognizing just what an offense
it is to claim to speak for God and then to speak words that don't actually come from
God. Last place I'd like to read to you from is
from Jeremiah, this is the Lord Himself speaking through the prophet Jeremiah. Jeremiah chapter 23:16 to 32, this, I believe,
underscores just how serious God takes it when people claim to be prophets but the revelation
they've supposedly received is from their own imaginations and not from Him. "Do not listen to the words of the prophets
who prophesy to you. They make you worthless. They speak a vision of their own heart, not
from the mouth of the Lord. I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran. I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in My council and had
caused My people to hear My Words, then they would have turned them from their evil way
and from the evil of their doings. I have heard what the prophets have said who
prophesy lies in My name saying, 'I have dreamed, I have dreamed. How long will this be in the heart of the
prophets who prophesy lies? Indeed they are prophets of the deceit of
their own heart.' Behold, I am against the prophets, says the
Lord, who used their tongues and say, 'The Lord says,' behold, I am against those who
prophesy false dreams, says the Lord, and tell them and cause My people to err by their
lies and by their recklessness. Yet I did not send them or command them, therefore
they shall not prophet this people at all." Let's close our time in prayer. Heavenly Father, those are sobering words
to end this seminar with, and we do not seek to be trite, but rather to recognize the sober
warning of Scripture. And, Father, we are so thankful that You have
given us the prophetic Word which is complete and which is sufficient to reveal to us the
knowledge of God which is all that we need for life and godliness. And so, Lord, we ask as we seek to apply what
we've talked about this afternoon, we ask that we would be faithful to find our joy,
our satisfaction, our contentment in the things that You have revealed to us in Scripture
and that we would not look for some other fountain of knowledge because none other exists. You have chosen to reveal yourself through
Your Word and You've given us Your Holy Spirit through whom in Him we can come to understand
through His illuminating power the truth of that Word and submit ourselves to it. So, Lord, we ask that as we are conformed
to Your Word, that we would also be conformed to Your Son, Jesus Christ. We pray this in His precious and holy name. Amen.
