RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Kind of, though I wasn't actually going that far. I was simply pushing back against the temptation to reduce inspiration to ghost-writing and dictation theory
Charismatic Movement's Recent "Prophetic Standards" Statement
- Thread starter hLuke
- Start date
Kind of, though I wasn't actually going that far. I was simply pushing back against the temptation to reduce inspiration to ghost-writing and dictation theory
hLuke
Puritan Board Freshman
Okay, I don't know those terms to offer insight. I'd have to research more.
The opening few paragraphs in Poythress' essay are jargon filled. But I'd need to read it all to make a reasonable judgment.
“...holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. According to the old view all the words are immediately given by God, whereas the new view posits the medium of the writers' psychological, social, intellectual, religious and emotional state and allows for degrees of inspiration.”
“The old view of dictation or immediate inspiration is the only explanation which secures the truly divine origin or theopneustos of holy Scripture, and it is only on the basis of immediate inspiration that human error is properly guarded against.”
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/Peter-enns-a-a-hodge-and-inerrancy.49731/
“The old view of dictation or immediate inspiration is the only explanation which secures the truly divine origin or theopneustos of holy Scripture, and it is only on the basis of immediate inspiration that human error is properly guarded against.”
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/Peter-enns-a-a-hodge-and-inerrancy.49731/
hLuke
Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks!
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I reject the view that the dictation theory is the only one that doesn't allow for degrees of inspiration. I've already demonstrated that Luke didn't rely solely on the dictation view, and I hold to Luke's full inspiration (maybe more so than most, because I believe it also teaches us stuff).
This is an assertion and is almost certainly false when you compare Isaiah's style with Amos's and the fact that Ezekiel switched from first person to third person to first person in one chapter.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Also, Genesis 31:47 is written in Aramaic. Why did God inspire all of it in Hebrew, switch to Aramaic for one verse, and then go back to Hebrew? That might be too simplistic. Nonetheless, Laban's referent is Aramaic, not Hebrew.
Just a few more quotes I collected from perusing older PB threads on inspiration. I thought these quotes might be helpful as they provide some resources and ideas to search further.
"The history of the doctrine [of inspiration] shows that there is a great gulf between the original Protestant doctrine of dictation, as codified in the Westminster Confession under the name of immediate inspiration, and the later Warfieldian doctrine of superintendance, which amounts to mediate inspiration at best... [Warfield was working against] the tide of theological liberalism. He candidly recognized the different point of emphasis in his essays on the Westminster Assembly and its Work. Two points in particular relate to immediate inspiration and textual criticism. The age as a whole gave more attention to the human characteristics of the Bible, and Warfield's providential theory of inspiration was designed to uphold the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible while accomodating these human characteristics as understood at the time. The age was also marked by an increasing openness to inductive sicience, and the contents of the Princeton review in the back half of the nineteenth century will show that the Princeton school shared this openness. The inductive method distinctly comes out in Warfield's approach to the NT text.
"Post-Warfield, we can see in Van Til an attempt to put the brakes on the Princeton apologetical openness to inductive science and to steer it by means of presuppositional committments."
"Primary sources are best, but for a general overview of the doctrine (of inspiration), and the historical shift which began to distinguish between primary and secondary authors, see G.C. Berkouwer, 'The God-breathed character of Holy Scripture,' in Holy Scripture."
"For the traditional view of immediate inspiration, there is a clear discussion in Samuel Rutherford's Due Right of Presbyteries, where he argues at length that the decision of the council of jerusalem was by mediate inspiration, and that this council therefore was an ordinary presbytery. In the process of his discussion he states clearly what immediate inspiration is, and distinguishes it from a human process of reasoning."
"In the modern view (of inspiration) the man's cultural background, learning, mode of communication, etc. are organically part of the inspiration process. Hence providence plays an integral part, and the Holy Spirit's activity is one of superintendence. Positively He suppresses error in the writer. In the traditional view, the Holy Spirit supernaturally gave the words to the men. The words were such that they would have been understood according to the penman's cultural background, learning, etc., but the words themselves were given or communicated by the Holy Spirit. This can go under the names of "dictation' or 'suggestion,' but more properly 'immediate inspiration.' It is often erroneously called the mechanical theory by its detractors."
"The history of the doctrine [of inspiration] shows that there is a great gulf between the original Protestant doctrine of dictation, as codified in the Westminster Confession under the name of immediate inspiration, and the later Warfieldian doctrine of superintendance, which amounts to mediate inspiration at best... [Warfield was working against] the tide of theological liberalism. He candidly recognized the different point of emphasis in his essays on the Westminster Assembly and its Work. Two points in particular relate to immediate inspiration and textual criticism. The age as a whole gave more attention to the human characteristics of the Bible, and Warfield's providential theory of inspiration was designed to uphold the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible while accomodating these human characteristics as understood at the time. The age was also marked by an increasing openness to inductive sicience, and the contents of the Princeton review in the back half of the nineteenth century will show that the Princeton school shared this openness. The inductive method distinctly comes out in Warfield's approach to the NT text.
"Post-Warfield, we can see in Van Til an attempt to put the brakes on the Princeton apologetical openness to inductive science and to steer it by means of presuppositional committments."
"Primary sources are best, but for a general overview of the doctrine (of inspiration), and the historical shift which began to distinguish between primary and secondary authors, see G.C. Berkouwer, 'The God-breathed character of Holy Scripture,' in Holy Scripture."
"For the traditional view of immediate inspiration, there is a clear discussion in Samuel Rutherford's Due Right of Presbyteries, where he argues at length that the decision of the council of jerusalem was by mediate inspiration, and that this council therefore was an ordinary presbytery. In the process of his discussion he states clearly what immediate inspiration is, and distinguishes it from a human process of reasoning."
"In the modern view (of inspiration) the man's cultural background, learning, mode of communication, etc. are organically part of the inspiration process. Hence providence plays an integral part, and the Holy Spirit's activity is one of superintendence. Positively He suppresses error in the writer. In the traditional view, the Holy Spirit supernaturally gave the words to the men. The words were such that they would have been understood according to the penman's cultural background, learning, etc., but the words themselves were given or communicated by the Holy Spirit. This can go under the names of "dictation' or 'suggestion,' but more properly 'immediate inspiration.' It is often erroneously called the mechanical theory by its detractors."
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Point of clarification: I reject Warfield's inductive method (as I reject empiricism in general). The quotes are instructive, but they do nothing to address the difficulties I've mentioned.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
It's interesting that Grudem has his feet in a lot of different waters. He advocates (or at least did) for Vineyard, Third Wave movement, etc. many of which, especially the former, ordain women, something he is ardently against. I think @Andres probably has something more general in mind: that many of these 'prophets' are nuts. Aside from this new statement I still haven't really seen how continuationists can logically or exegetically seperate from the nutty fringes. I suspect Andres feels the same way.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Vineyard is a denomination. Third wave is a more generic movement. For example, PCA is a denomination, whereas Young Reformed Restless is a movement within that denomination (I hate to tag Vineyard with something as distasteful as YRR, but you get the idea).
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
I can't help but see this as a move in the right direction, however slightly. It's too bad that it took the prophecies, the Trump idolatry, and all of the other nonsense surrounding the election to make it happen. Incalculable damage has already been done. (I'm not referring to Trump voters in general as being idolatrous. But some "prophecies" and other things clearly have been.)
I listen to Michael L. Brown's podcast from time to time, mainly for cultural analysis, etc. This is the most I've heard him criticize charismania. He's even mentioning names now, although some of that may be because he isn't friends with them. He has been clear that prophets are supposed to be under the elders and (I think) that people are not bound to believe or obey any NT prophecy.
I listen to Michael L. Brown's podcast from time to time, mainly for cultural analysis, etc. This is the most I've heard him criticize charismania. He's even mentioning names now, although some of that may be because he isn't friends with them. He has been clear that prophets are supposed to be under the elders and (I think) that people are not bound to believe or obey any NT prophecy.
I finally had time to read over the statement. I am left bewildered.
It's fine, as far as it goes, which is next to nowhere in my opinion. Not one single word about the real problem, the huge problem, the satanic overload problem in the prophetic movement today?
The end time prophets are going up to the third heaven and joining in the councils of the Godhead, the heavenly council. They receive new revelation from the third heaven. They receive visitations from not only Jesus, but the Patriarchs, various OT prophets, and NT men, who visit them and mentor them. They may ascend in the privacy of their own room, or at conferences where they teach about it to help attendees learn to also join in the heavenly councils, and many laymen experience this.
I had an old friend who got into it heavily (started her Christian life with Calvinism, sigh) and spoke at a conference with Chuck Pierce. She told me the people come right into your room....they are tall, and glow with light. This is Satan or his minions masquerading as angels of light. The blindness of my old friend was staggering, as well as her superior air.
At least a couple names on the list of signers associate with and hang out with these prophets. Randy Clark is on there- your healing ministry goes better when you have angels assisting you, etc. John Kelly of the NAR is into all of it- third heaven, visits from Jesus and angels. Larry Tomczak is into it to some extent. I don't want to even spend one minute looking up other names I don't recognize. Its one big incestuous mess.
How do you expect to keep people from being manipulated when the prophet joins in the councils of the godhead and brings back their revelation, and has a personal relationship with somebody like say Isaiah to mentor them? How can you argue with that? How can you disagree with direct heavenly revelation?
Sorry but this statement is the stupidest excuse of whitewashing the biggest problem of all that I could ever imagine. Not one single word about what is going on with this demonic activity.....and it is not ignorance on the part of the writers, or Charisma magazine. I am disgusted and revolted.
It's fine, as far as it goes, which is next to nowhere in my opinion. Not one single word about the real problem, the huge problem, the satanic overload problem in the prophetic movement today?
The end time prophets are going up to the third heaven and joining in the councils of the Godhead, the heavenly council. They receive new revelation from the third heaven. They receive visitations from not only Jesus, but the Patriarchs, various OT prophets, and NT men, who visit them and mentor them. They may ascend in the privacy of their own room, or at conferences where they teach about it to help attendees learn to also join in the heavenly councils, and many laymen experience this.
I had an old friend who got into it heavily (started her Christian life with Calvinism, sigh) and spoke at a conference with Chuck Pierce. She told me the people come right into your room....they are tall, and glow with light. This is Satan or his minions masquerading as angels of light. The blindness of my old friend was staggering, as well as her superior air.
At least a couple names on the list of signers associate with and hang out with these prophets. Randy Clark is on there- your healing ministry goes better when you have angels assisting you, etc. John Kelly of the NAR is into all of it- third heaven, visits from Jesus and angels. Larry Tomczak is into it to some extent. I don't want to even spend one minute looking up other names I don't recognize. Its one big incestuous mess.
How do you expect to keep people from being manipulated when the prophet joins in the councils of the godhead and brings back their revelation, and has a personal relationship with somebody like say Isaiah to mentor them? How can you argue with that? How can you disagree with direct heavenly revelation?
Sorry but this statement is the stupidest excuse of whitewashing the biggest problem of all that I could ever imagine. Not one single word about what is going on with this demonic activity.....and it is not ignorance on the part of the writers, or Charisma magazine. I am disgusted and revolted.
hLuke
Puritan Board Freshman
I agree. It is bad. So much demonic deception in this movement.
Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions; they have not exposed your iniquity to restore your fortunes, but have seen for you oracles that are false and misleading. (Lamentations 2:14, ESV)
And her prophets have smeared whitewash for them, seeing false visions and divining lies for them, saying, 'Thus says the Lord GOD,' when the LORD has not spoken. (Ezekiel 22:28, ESV)
And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. (2 Corinthians 11:14, ESV)
These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. (2 Peter 2:17, ESV)
For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. (2 Peter 2:20, ESV)
On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' (Matthew 7:22, ESV)
And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.' (Matthew 7:23, ESV)
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8, ESV)
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Although I have backed away from much of my continuationism (which was always at an exegetical level), the above marshaling of verses wouldn't do much to address the position of someone like Dr Brown. It's not clear how a proposition (and admittedly it is trite) that "God told me the car keys were behind the couch" (and they were) is equivalent to preaching another gospel.
I know you probably didn't intend it as such, but the charismatic movement is far more nuanced in figures like Brown, Keener, and the like.
hLuke
Puritan Board Freshman
I agree. There's certainly much variation in beliefs. But I was directing these verses, yes some out of context for the purpose of demonstrating scriptures overarching view on false prophets which I'm sure you're mostly aware, to the extreme side of the charismatic movement as which was quoted by @lynnie in the previous post: those who wilfully disobey the gospel, blaspheme, abuse people for gain, and make the gospel fictive to unbelievers. My post was more to demonstrate disapproval of the unrepentant false teachers.
Eyedoc84
Puritan Board Sophomore
Unless he has changed his public position in the last year or so, Brown couldn’t even bring himself to identify Bill Johnson and all the garbage at Bethel false. And after years of being associated with Johnson by critics, he still was still claiming ignorance of just about everything that was going on there and everything Johnson teaches. I listened to Brown for a few years, but eventually got sick of his running cover for all these charlatans.
hLuke
Puritan Board Freshman
Brown is also associated with Sid Roth's show (ISN). That channel hosts many false prophets. They get together and share their prophetic 'revelations' from God, so called.
Admittedly, I used to watch ISN.
I thank God for pulling me, and other Christians away.
I thank God also that He uses even faulty preachers for the good of those who are called to love Him. I reckon there are believers who were taught by Johnson, Osteen or Copeland, for example, and God has planted a seed of truth in the heart a believer amid an abundance of lies, leading them to saving faith: Glory to God alone.
Last edited: