Thomas 1992 Review

7/25/2019 Thomas 1992 Review

1/15

Prophecy Rediscovered?A Review ofThe GiftofProphecyin the NewTestamentandToday

Robert L. ThomasProfessorof NewTestament

The Master's Seminary, Sun Valley, California

Notoriety has suddenly come to Wayne A. Grudem's book,TheGi of Propheq/ in the NewTestamentand Today.1 No doubt this isbecause the Kansas City Fellowship with its Kansas City "prophets"and John Wimber, founder of the Vineyard Church Fellowshipand leader of the Signs and Wonders movement, have used argumentsfrom this book to support their "prophetic" practices.

2 Grudem, a

professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and an attender of

a Vineyard-affiliated church,

3

has based the book largely on his1978 doctoral dissertation for Cambridge University.4

Undertaking a review of this book entails a degree of apprehension because of this reviewer's high esteem for its author both as ascholar and as a friend and because of the prestigious credentials afforded the work through its acceptance by the Cambridge Universityfaculty.

5 Yet that apprehension is outweighed by concern to promote

the well-being of the body of Christ through suggesting affirmations


2/15

84 Bbliotheca Sacra / January-March 1992

of and needed modifications to features the book represents as belonging to the New Testament gift of prophecy.

Merits of Grudem's Book

In his well-written and persuasive work, Grudem sees certaincharacteristics of spiritual gifts in proper perspective. For instance,once a person has become a member of the body of Christ, his giftswill remain the same, since members of the spiritual body of Christare analogous to the parts of a human body (1 Cor. 12:12-26).

6 An

other point well taken is the potential for developing and sharpen

ing one's spiritual gifts as advocated in the New Testament.7

In contradicting recent critical theories, Grudem also is to becommended for showing the appointment of local-church elders anddeacons to have occurred during and not after Paul's missionarylabors.

8 Further, Grudem is correct in holding that no postascension

prophecies from Jesus have been read back into the Gospel accounts,as though Christ had spoken them before His ascension.

9

Grudem also correctly attributes to the New Testament prophets

abilities to perceive the thoughts and background details of anotherperson

10and to predict future events,

11though neither of these is nec

essarily the primary function of the gift. He also correctly observesthat the purpose of prophecy is edification of the church.

12 Further

more the book allows for the temporary nature of the gift,13

though,as will be shown later, his explanation of the duration of the gift ofprophecy leaves much to be desired.

Conflicts in Grudem's View of the Gift of Prophecy

A characteristic that makes Grudem's definition of New Testament prophecy

14so intriguing is its novelty.

15 He acknowledges that

0 Grudem, TheGift ofProphecyin the NewTestamentandToday,206.

7 Ibid., 206-8.

8 Ibid., 184-86.9 Ibid., 162-64.


3/15

Prophecy Rediscovered? 85

an understanding of the gift as he describes it has eluded the churchsince the second century.16 He attributes this to the church's failureto make a fine distinction between degrees of authority involved in

prophetic utterances.17 This reviewer, however, cannot put suchblame on the early church for dropping the gift because of her alleged lack of ability to perceive its true nature. The collage of NewTestament prophecy offered in Grudem's book is confusing. Some ofthe conflicting characteristics suggested by Grudem are as follows.

UNLIMITED VERSUS LIMITED NUMBER-OF-PROPHETS CONFLICT

Based on Numbers 11:29 and Joel 2:28-29, it was expected thatall God's people would be able to prophesy,18but God has appointedonly a limited number to be prophets.19 The idea that Christiansshould seek the gift as though it were available to all is misleadingif its availability is limited to a restricted number of Christians.

NONDOCTRINAL VERSUS DOCTRINAL CONFLICT

Unlike the gift of teaching, the gift of prophecy, according to

Grudem, did not impart "doctrinal and ethical standards,"20

but itmay have included the divine disclosure of doctrinal material21 orthe knowledge of a future event.22 But how can prophetic content beboth doctrinal and not doctrinal?

NONETHICAL VERSUS ETHICAL CONFLICT

Prophecies did not convey ethical standards for the church,23butthey provided guidance in Christian living24 through their practical

application (of ethical principles) to the lives of the hearers. 25What is guidance in Christian living if it is not a setting forth ofethical standards to be followed?

Christian prophecy" (The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians, xv, italics added).

1 6 Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 108-9, 112, 241-42.For an overview of prophecy's termination after the apostolic era, see Robert L.

Thomas, "The Spiritual Gift of Prophecy in Revelation 22:18,"Journal of the Evangel-ical Theological Society 32 (June 1989): 212-15.


4/15

86 Bibliotheca Sacra / January-March 1992

MORE BENEFICIAL VERSUS NONAUTHORITATIVE CONFLICT

Prophecy, Grudem states, is more beneficial to the church than

teaching,26

but teaching is authoritative while prophecy is not.27

This means that teaching had to be obeyed, but prophecy did not.28

How can prophetic contentwhatever it iswhose acceptance is optional be more edifying than authoritative teaching with its bindingobligations?

TRUTH VERSUS ERROR CONFLICT

Prophecy originates in a revelation from the God of truth who

cannot lie,29

but in the process of human transmission the prophecymay degeneratetoa mistaken or erroneous report of that revelation.

30

Yet it is difficult to see how God, who is without error, can be involved in a revelatory process that is spoiled through human imperfection.

ONE-GIFT VERSUS TWO-GIFT CONFLICT

The gift of prophecy is depicted as one gift,31

but throughout his

1988 work Grudem distinguishes between authoritative "apostolicprophecy" and nonauthoritative "local-church prophecy."

32 How-

z o Ibid., 145.

2 7 Ibid.,80-81,250.

2 8 Ibid., 144-45,167.

2 9 Ibid., 116-17.

3" Ibid., 81-82,100. TTiis thought of the human tendency to fail to communicate an accurate picture of what has been received from God is strongly reminiscent of the crisistheology of Karl Barth and Emil Brunner that so captivated much of professing Christendom during the middle decades of the 20th century. The system held to the beliefthat once the crisis-point of God's communication to an individual had passed, any attempt by the individual to share it with others degenerated into a distorted recollection composed of something like "merely humanwords"(ibid., 80,82,86-87, 90,95, 99,112-13,165). Yet Grudem with his insistence on biblical inerrancy and the sufficiencyof Scripture would certainly be unwilling to associate himself with the neoorthodoxyof Barth and Brunner.

At stake here, however, is the ability of an omnipotent God to transmit tomankind an accurate account of what He reveals. After all, what good is a revelation


5/15


ever, for a gift to be both authoritative and nonauthoritative is selfcontradictory.

CESSATIONIST VERSUSNONCESSATIONIST CONFLICTThe revelatory gift of apostleship ceased about the end of the

first centuryA.D.,33but, according to Grudem, other revelatory gifts

(e.g.,prophecy) and the signs confirming their revelations(e.g.,mir-acles,signs, and wonders which served to identify apostles;2 Cor.12:12)continue until theSecondComing of Christ.

34 However, after

thebeginning years of the church, direct revelation with its accred-iting signs eitherceasedor did notcease. Itcould not do both.

IfGrudem's view of New Testament prophecy, with thesecon-flicts, had been the concept of prophecy transmitted to the secondcentury church, the church did right in putting it to sleep. Itwouldotherwise have brought untold confusion to Christians at a time theyneeded no more confusion. In addition to these conflicts, Grudem'sinterpretations of key relevant passages are revealing.

Grudem's Treatment of Key Passageson theGift of Prophecy

Ina discussion on prophecy it is surprising that Grudem makeslittlemention of /in 1 Corinthians 13:10. Apparently heassumes, as do many, that it means "the perfect";

35 he does not

support this, nor does he discuss the more likely view that it referstoeither "the complete" or "the mature."

36 Nor does he elaborate on

the view that may refer to a maturing of the body ofChrist.37

In addition no reference is made to a significant possible

prophecy's nonauthoritative nature, he made himself a nonauthoritative prophet,says Grudem. This contradicts the author's representation of apostolic prophecyelsewhere.3 3

Ibid.,27576.3 4

Ibid.,25152,331, . 143.

3 5 Ibid.,23435.3 6

Grudem has a brief word about (The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians 21


6/15

88 Bibliotheca Sacra / JanuaryMarch 1992

interpretation of 1Corinthians 14:2025,one based on thedominantNew Testament usage of ("sign," 14:22), in the extendeddiscussion of this section.

38

Two key passagesGrudemdiscusses are Ephesians2:20and Acts21:1011. In discussing the former passage he argues primarily forthe existence of nonauthoritative prophecy

39 and in the latter for

mistaken prophecy.

EPHESIANS2:20

This verse refers to "the foundation of the apostles andprophets"( teal ). Grudemdicussesfour possible interpretations of this phrase.

40 Two of thefour

place the New Testament prophets on the same plane of authority asthat of the apostles, a tenet he says is unacceptable.

41 He offers

seven reasons why this cannot be so.42

Only the first two reasons

Cease,"8589),not the maturing of the church literally, as he statesit. The body ofChrist is most assuredly in thecontext(1Cor.12:1227)as is a reference to the matu-rity ofindividualmembers of that body (14:20). Paul'smajor challenge in1Corinthi-ans1214was for the Corinthians tobuildup or edify that body (12:7;14:35,12,26).Inthe companionpassageof Ephesians4:116,written a short time later by Paul to thecitywhere he lived whe writing 1 Corinthians,theedificationofthis body throughspiritual giftsistantamounttocontributing toitscorporate maturity (Eph. 4:13,16;cf.Thomas, Understanding Spiritual Gifts,203).

3 8 Grudem, The GiftofProphecy inthe New Testament and Today, 171-82.

in the New Testament most frequently is associated with "miracles, signs, and won-ders"that serve as credentials for divine spokesmen(DonaldW. Burdick,Tongues: T

SpeakorNottoSpeak(Chicago: Moody,1969],2631). Grudem considers only abustonguesas a sign, and that to signify God's disfavor. However, thetextdoes not sayabused tongues are a sign. Itsays tongues are a sign. This reviewer has writtenelse-where on1Corinthians14:2025as follows: "Enough has been said about the impro-priety of uninterpreted tongues (cf.14:619). Clarification of the proper surroundingsand purpose ofthisgift isnextin order. A mature Christian outlookrecognizestonguesasa signtounbelieversnot tobelieversof God's authentication ofamessage. Con-

versely, prophecy hasitsfunction among believers, not unbelievers. Even an unbeliev-ing visitor in Christian worship, having no experience in tongues, could verify thisfact. He would certify the propriety of prophecy, not tongues, for a believing audi-

ence. Tonguesprovides a sign suchasis needed where nonChristianslisten,but suchan evidential mark of divine verification is superfluous and even possibly harmfulamong Christians" (Thomas, Understanding Spiritual Gifts, 15; see pages 13847, 22


7/15


have seriousexegeticalsignificance. One of these two arguments is agrammatical observation that notes the possible reference of "theapostlesand prophets" to one group (apostlesprophets) rather than

two.43 This is not cogent evidence, however, because it onlynotesthepossibility of such an interpretation of the Greek construction. Thegrammarallows for other possibilitiestoo. Besides this, he does notmention obvious contrary evidence in Ephesians4:11,which clearlydistinguishes the prophets as a group separatefromthe apostles.

44

The foundation of the church is the inspiredteaching ministries oftwo groups ofpeople,apostlesand prophets.

45

Grudem'ssecondsignificant objectiontounderstanding two groupsin Ephesians2:20rests on his claim that the subject underdiscussionin Ephesians2:113:21theinclusion of Gentiles in the church on anequal basiswithJewswas revealed only to apostles and never toprophets.

46 In support of this he lists13passages in which this reve-

lation came only to apostles. However, 9 of the 13 passages werewritten by Luke, who was not an apostle and did not possess whatGrudem wouldcall the gift of "apostolic prophecy" (cf. Luke 24:46

47;Acts 1:8;10:15, 3435, 4648; 11:218; 15:629; 22:21;26:1718). Bythe standards Grudem has set for mere prophecy, the Gospel of Lukeand the Book of Acts, if viewed as theworkof a prophet, could nothave been authoritative.

InAppendixof hiswork,Grudem lists Luke and Acts amongthe New Testament books that were authoritative though written

by nonapostles.47

These were included in the New Testament canon

4 0 Ibid.,4951. For a refutation of Grudem's interpretation of Ephesians2:20from a

grammatical perspective, see F. David FarnelTsexcellentdiscussion in "Fallible NewTestament Prophecy/Prophets?" TheMaster'sSeminaryJournal 2(Fall1991): 16269Inhis research of this subject Grudem had the advantage of expert guidance by awidely recognized grammatical authority, C. F. D.Moule(referred to in The Gift ofProphecy in 1 Corinthians,xvi), but apparently he chose to disregard his counsel onthis grammatical point (C. F. D.Moule, An IdiomBook of NewTestament Greek

[Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,19601,p.0).4 4

Charles Hodge, A Commentaryon the Epistle to the Ephesians (1856; reprint.


8/15


because they contained God's words.48 Thusby the admission ofGru

dem himself, there was another means or gift other than apostle-ship for transmitting authoritative divine revelation. Luke, a nona-

postle, had this gift which in all probability was prophecy, and itmade him a vehicle for inspired Scripture.

49

If this is the case, then the inclusion of Gentiles in the church onan equal basis with Jews was revealed through prophets who werenot apostles, at least through Luke, and the force of Grudem's secondargument against two groups in Ephesians 2:20 is nullified.

Grudem's awareness of the dubious nature of his arguments forthe "one-group" interpretation is evidenced by his addition of a briefsection offering an alternate view. It suggests that the "two-group"interpretation could be reconciled with his presupposition of anonauthoritative gift of prophecy.

50 Inbrief,the reconciliation con

sists of conjecturing a third prophetic gift, authoritative prophecy,to add to apostolic prophecy and local-church (nonauthoritative)prophecy. This attempt to sustain his view that the New Testamentgift of prophecy was sometimes nonauthoritative lacks cogency.

51

ACTS 21:10-11

This prophecy by Agabus is the theory's classic example of aprophecy that is in error. According to Grudem, this prophet distorted his God-given revelation in saying that the Jews would bindPaul and would turn him over to the Gentiles. Neither of thesedetails was accurate, Grudem says, because Agabus erred in hisattempt to transmit to others the inerrant revelation he had

received. Grudem points out that the Romans, not the Jews, boundPaul after rescuing him from the Jews (Acts 21:32-33).

52

4 8 Ibid., 287.

4^ Also see Gentry,The Charismatic Gift ofProphecy,33. Grudem comes close to

mitting the authority of Luke's writings, but attributes it to Luke's close associationwith Paul (The Gift ofProphecy in the NewTestament and Today,329, n. 130). H

suggestion, however, dodges the central point that nonapostle Luke, not Paul, was thehuman instrument of the authoritative revelatory content of Luke and Acts.5 0


9/15


Grudem's analysis of this prophecy is unacceptable for two rea-

sons.

1. He is accusing not only Agabus of error. Grudem is making

the same accusation against the Holy Spirit, because in the inspiredrecord Agabus introduced his prophecy with the words, "Thesethings says the Holy Spirit." Grudem tries to circumvent this diffi-culty by viewing the introductory formula as only a vagueclaim re-garding content,not an indication of a direct quotation: "This is gen-

erally (or approximately) what the Holy Spirit is saying to us."5 3

Yet the same introductory expression, rdSe ("these things he

says"), introduces the exact words of the Lord Jesus seven times in an-

otherprophecy, Revelation 23 (cf. Rev. 2:1,8,12,18; 3:1, 7,14). Acts21:1011 records the very words of the Holy Spirit uncontaminated

by human mistakes of Agabus.

2. Grudem's conclusion that Agabus's prophecy was mistakenoverlooks other statements in the Book of Acts. As stated in Acts

28:17, Paul agreed with the latter detail of Agabus's prophecy whenhe viewed his transport to Caesarea while bound as being "deliv-ered over from Jerusalem," the headquarters of the Jewish hierar-

chy, into Gentile hands at Caesarea, the headquarters of the Roman

governor of Palestine. The Jews through their plot against Paul'slife forced him to be moved to the Gentile city (Acts 23:1233).

The former detail about his being bound by theJews recalls Acts2:23 in which Peter attributed the crucifixion of Christ to the Jews(also see 3:1315; 5:30; 7:52). Actually Roman soldiers crucifiedChrist, but the Jews were the prime instigators of the crucifixion

(4:27). In the same vein theJewswere the ones who bound Paul, thatis, they were the instigators of his binding. It is common to speak ofthe responsible party or parties as performing an act even though he

or they may not have been the immediate agent(s).54

For example

John 19:1 states that Pilate scourged Jesus. This means he had Him

scourged, that is, Pilate was the instigator of the scourging. TheJewswere the ones who put Paul in chainsjustasAgabuspredicted.

The prophecy of Agabus (and the Holy Spirit) was absolutely

accurate. TheJews did put Paul in chains and turn him over to theGentiles. When God revealed the future to His prophets, He also


10/15

92 Blbllotheca Sacra / JanuaryMarch 1992

tations from this section of 1 Corinthians, a passage basic to Gru-dem's interpretive decisions throughout the New Testament. Thereader is referred to a more extensive exposition of the sectionpub-

lished elsewhere.55

1. The gift of discernment (1Cor.12:10)is a companion gift toprophecy, and its function is referred to in 1Corinthians 14:29.

56 The

gift of discernment served to identify true prophecy and to dismissnonprophecy as unworthy of congregational attention.

2. The "others" of 1 Corinthians 14:29 who were called on todiscern the validity of prophecies were the other prophets.

57 "Oth-

ers"does not refer to the entire congregation who were left to formsubjective opinions about the prophecies.58 Nor does the evaluationof prophecies by othersimply the presence of both true and falseelements in the prophecy.

59 It simply enabled the congregation to

detectwhether the message was or was not a prophecy from God.60

3. New Testament prophets spoke divinely inspired words, not"merely human words" toward which the congregation could adopt a"take it or leave it" attitude.

61 Prophecywouldhave been an exer-

cisein futility if recipients of its message had the choice of acceptingor not accepting its stipulations.4. Divine revelation to a prophet carried the guarantee that

the prophet would report it accurately to his listeners and notweaken its authority through human mistakes.

62 Henceit wasbind

^ See Thomas,Understanding SpiritualGifts. This reviewer has also writtenEx

egetical Digestof1Corinthians 1214 (Sun Valley, CA: By the author,1988), whichdealsdirectly with the Greektext.5 6

Contra Grudem, TheGiftofProphecy intheNewTestament and Today, 7071.5 7

Contraibid.,7273.5 8

Contraibid.,7379.5 9

Contraibid.,78.

"" Saucystatesan appropriate corrective to Grudem regarding the gift of discern-ment: "The discrimination deals not with the level of prophetic authority, but with

the separation of prophecy from that which is not prophecy" ("Prophecy Today? AnInitialResponse,"3).6 1


11/15


ing that the hearers (or readers) submit to the doctrinal and ethicalstandards of the revelation.

63

5. First Corinthians 12:31does not command Christians to seek

additional gifts (including prophecy) for themselves individually,but tells them to seek the greater gifts for their local congregation.

64

The quest was to be for additional gifts thatwouldbenefit the wholegroup the most, not for additional gifts to be given to individuals.

6. Faith and hope do not continue beyond the second coming ofChrist (Rom.8:2425;2 Cor. ).

65 Herein lies their contrast with

love, as stated in1Corinthians 13:13,for love is eternal.7. The gifts of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge served their

useful purposeduringthe same period as the gift ofaposeship,andtheyceased functioning after the period of the apostles and directrevelatoryactivity (1 Cor.13183).

66Miraculous signs necessary to

confirm spokesmen of divine revelation were purposeless after theconclusion of the periodduringwhich special revelation was granted.

A Preferred View of Prophecy

Other corrective recommendations could be offered, but insteadofthis an alternative to Grudem's view of prophecy, one more in linewith the view of the secondcentury church,will perhaps alleviatesomeconfusion.

67

Personspossessing the gift of prophecy shared with the apostlesthe privilege and responsibility of being channels of direct divinerevelation. They had insights into the "mysteries" of God (1 Cor.

13:2;Eph.2:20;3:3,5) as did the apostles. Yet one with the gift ofprophecy did not necessarily have the gift of apostleship also. Itseemsthat the converse was the caseall apostles were prophets

but most prophets did not have criteria required for apostleship.Consequently prophets did not have broad authority in the body ofChrist as did the apostles. Yet New Testament prophets were stillvehicles ofdivinerevelation (cf. 1 Cor.14:29),some of which passedinto written form and was included in Scripture (e.g.,the Epistle to

the Hebrews). The very words of their prophecies, being based on


12/15


and inseparable from divine revelation, were inspired and thereforeauthoritative. This was an indispensable element of prophecyWithout direct revelation from God, someone who promoted edifica

tion through exhortation and comfort had to base his message on thinspired words of others and was exercising the gift of exhortation(cf. Rom. 12:8) or teaching (cf. 1 Cor. 12:28), not the gift of prophecyThis explanation of modern-day preaching is preferable to the viewthat equates preaching with the gift of prophecy. Through their receiving special revelations from God, the prophets were authoritative, though not in as general a sense as the apostles.

Another distinction between apostles and prophets is in theisphere of responsibility. Whereas the apostles' responsibility wato minister to the church at large and to extend its borders, those whowere prophets only, while they may have been generally availableusually served in settled situations, being attached to a single locachurch (Acts13:1;15:32).

The prophets1special function was to provide edification to the

body of Christ by exhorting and comforting the saints through th

revelations granted them (1 Cor. 14:3, 29-30). Most of these revelations were temporary and local in application, and were not neededfor the body of Christ in other generations and localities. Those opermanent value were put in written form and preserved as part othe New Testament canon.

Another element of prophetic ministry was the ability to predict future happenings (Acts 11:27-28;21:10-11;1 Tim. 1:18; Rev. 1:3)As far as can be determined from the New Testament, the predictive

element of prophecy for the body of Christ was not as extensive as iwas in the prophetic ministry to the people of Israel in the Old Testament. Yet Old Testament prophets were more closely parallel toNew Testament prophets, not to New Testament apostles.

68While

prediction was not the major element in New Testament prophecy, iwas an indispensable part of it.

Because of future predictions and their fulfillment, theprophetic gift is listed among the "confirmatory" gifts in 1 Corinthians 12:10. The fulfillment of a prophet's prophecy gave him the credentials of divine authority in the eyes of those to whom he spoke


13/15


Paul's authority as God's spokesman was enhanced. The respect ofthe crew for Paul, probably in part because of his prophecy, seems tohave grown even before the final prophesied deliverance was real

ized (vv. 31-36), but the fulfillment of his prophecy was God's visible vindication of Paul as His prophet.

There were also female prophetesses in the early church, asindicated by the four virgin daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9). Presumably these functioned in roles within the guidelines Paul set for theconduct of Christian worship. Paul's preference was for them not toprophesy to the whole congregation (1 Cor. 14:34-35), but if they didso,it was to be with a sign of authority on their heads (11:5-6, 10).

With the completion of the last book of the New Testament, thegift of prophecy became obsolete. A severe penalty is pronounced onanyone who attempts to add to the prophecies of the Apocalypse(Rev. 22:18). Since the Book of Revelation covers events occurringfrom the time John wrote it until the eternal state, any allegedprophecy subsequent to the Book of Revelation is counterfeit.

69

The canon of the New Testament is God's completed revelationfor the body of Christ. No more direct divine revelation is grantedsubsequent to the completion of that collection. Prophets in the future will minister to the people of Israel and the world at large during the tribulation after the rapture of the church (Joel 2:28). Theywill not be the prophets who are described in relation to the gifts ofthe Spirit bestowed on members of the body of Christ, however, because the church will no longer be on earth during that period.

Conclusion

Apparently Grudem has sought to present a concept of prophecythat is not so restrictive (i.e., authoritative) as to exclude the char-ismatically inclined or so loose (i.e., nonrevelatory) as to repel thenoncharismatic.

70 This is evidenced in several places. After allud

ing to the charismatic and noncharismatic positions, the authorwrites, "Can a fresh examination of the New Testament give us a

resolution of these views? Does the text of Scripture itself indicate a


14/15

96 Bibllotheca Sacra / January-March 1992

'middle ground* or a 'third position' which preserves what is reallyimportant to both sides and yet is faithful to the teaching of theNew Testament? I think the answer to these questions is yes."71 In

the same vein he writes, "So I wonder if there may be room for morejoint theological reflection on this area."72

A desire for unity is commendable, but the compulsion to obtainunity should not be so strong that it necessitates mishandling theNew Testament text. Second-century Christians rightly valued thesurvival of the truth over the establishment of a unity that wouldhave encompassed Montanist teaching. If they had sought a middleground with the Montanists' error regarding the gift of prophecy, the

progress of the church would have been seriously retarded. They didthe right thing in labeling the movement unorthodox in this phase ofits doctrine, thereby preserving the right perspective regarding thetrue nature of New Testament prophecy.

In contrast, the desire to bring Christians together should not bebased on a premise that is less than faithful to New Testament standards. The New Testament gift of prophecy should be seen for whatit was, namely, the spiritual ability to convey authoritative andinerrant revelatory messages from God in the church up to the time ofthe completion of the New Testament canon for the edification of thebody of Christ. The description of this gift inThe Gi ofProphecyin the NewTestamentand Today falls short of this standard.


15/15

^ s

Copyright and Use:

Asan ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Thomas 1992 Review

Documents

Transcript of Thomas 1992 Review