Q & A

Below is an email dialogue with my professor, Dr Griffith, about the Gaffin article. Dr Griffith is super cool, by far. His responses are in blue, and I've added some links.

~ ~ ~

Hi Dr. Griffith,

I did have some questions related to the Gaffin article. I'll preface by saying that I'm coming from a Vineyard background, and while I'm sold on Reformed theology now, I'm still trying to reconcile some of those charismatic influences. I would agree, like most, that the role of the apostle was finished with the early Church, as is clear from the very criteria defining an apostle. And, I've always been a little uncomfortable with speaking in tongues. My issue is really with that of prophets/prophecy.

Gaffin uses one verse (Eph. 2:20) to make this link -- that both apostles and prophets are foundational once-for-all finished participants. (a) I'm leery of any argument that is based on one verse, with unclear or ambiguous cross-references (He later uses Matt. 13:11; Rom. 16:25-26; 1 Tim. 3:16...references I really didn't find helpful).

He puts Eph 2:20 in its larger Ephesians context, 2:11-22, where Paul writes about the "house-building" project that is the New Covenant Church. That's a little more than 1 verse, but I'll grant that Gaffin does give a big emphasis to the "foundation" metaphor. At the same time though, it is Paul who includes prophets in the foundation. You have to wrestle with what that inclusion implies. It rests on the character of revelation, the place of apostles as organs of final revelation, and the relation of NT prophets to the apostles. If you want it more carefully argued, Gaffin does that in his book Perspectives on Pentecost.

These cross-references are all used to show that the word "mystery" in the NT always refers to the fulfillment of the plan of redemption. That fulfillment came about by Christ's coming, death and exaltation. Gaffin's point in this context is that the "mysteries" Paul refers to in 1 Cor 14, as the subjects of prophecies, are revelations, or words from God explaining the significance of the redemption accomplished by Christ. As I described that revelation in lecture, it is organic, covenantal, and progressive. The point in Gaffin's context is that these messages in 1 Cor 14 were fully revelational; not "a thought I have from God," but divinely inspired words for the whole church.

(b) I'm also not entirely convinced that prophets and prophetic revelations are the same thing. "Prophets", like apostles, suggests an appointed office, i.e., Tom is the Prophet in our congregation. I don't know that that's necessarily the case; it's unclear to me how prophets were established in the early church. Clearly in the OT, Prophets were appointed by G-d to carry a specific message to a specific people.

I think there is a link between prophecies as events (or as gifts given to men and women) and the office of prophet. How often did a prophet prophesy? That's not easy to say, nor to say how he took the position. There's no indication of "appointment," but I don't think it really matters much. The point is that in the NT church, Paul can refer to "prophets" as a distinguishable group and expect his readers to know whom he's talking about. Not everyone has this gift. Paul is explicit about that. Look at Ephesians 4:11, and 1 Cor 12:29 and 1 Cor 14:29 and 32.

And while I do think that is true -- we are no longer in an era when prophecies occur for the entire church body, I have a difficult time making the leap that individual-specific prophecies cannot occur. This, I admit, is due to my own perception of the prophetic in my life, and therefore could be entirely faulty. But take this example: I dream that X will happen to A. Some length of time later (a few days, weeks, months, years), X does in fact, happen to A. Is that coincidence? Is it revelation? Is it prophetic? I have no idea. All I know is that it happens, and it happens to me more frequently than I'm comfortable with. The point being that it's not entirely impossible for the office of prophet to have ceased, while G-d still chooses to reveal events in a prophetic manner. I'd never claim to be a prophet, but I know that when I sense Y will happen to B, chances are, it will happen. How can I reconcile that with Reformed theology? Are all my premonitions just that, and nothing more?

Again, you state the issues well. The point I would want to make theologically is just what you agree with - we are no longer in an era where prophecies occur for the entire church body - what you have to wrestle with is, that is what prophecy was. It was for the whole church body (there in Corinth or wherever). There was no such thing as "private" prophecy. Why not? Because every spiritual gift was/is given for the common good of the whole church body. [emphasis mine] That is Paul's point in 1 Cor 12:7-11 and 1 Peter 4:10-12.

About your experience of "accurate dreaming," I'd say that is different than prophecy, because it is not a verbal message coming from the Holy Spirit. Is it just premonition? I'd say, not "just," but yes, that is what it is. Some people have a sharper sense of things around them, even things that are going to happen, than others. This is a gift of the Spirit. I'd prefer to call that "wisdom," which I think is the biblical category for it. That distinguishes it from verbally inspired words coming supernaturally from God, as we see in 2 Peter 1:20-21. The distinction is important.

At the same time, your dreams are a gift from God. They are something to be used for his glory. But they don't have the same authority as his Word does (I know you realize this). You should also factor in that sometimes (I expect) your dreams are wrong. My only theological point is that the equation of such with prophecy distorts the nature of NT prophecy. Anyway, that's how I'd start to answer your good questions!

~ ~ ~

Ah, good stuff. Another comment Dr Griffith made in class that I really enjoyed was something along the lines of this:

We cannot accept Reformed theology on the basis of its intellectual appeal. That's an easy pit to fall in, because it is such a sound argument. We must, however, look at what the revelation of Scripture says, and if Reformed thinking does, in fact, match with the Word of G-d, then we can accept it, based solely on the truth of Scripture. But with all things, we must go back and check it against the Word.

Small Signs of Spring

Today was the perfect day for a trip up to Great Falls. And half of the metro area thought so as well. Still got a few great shots, despite the hordes of people.

I loved this odd dip in the river.

The bird (white dot in the middle) took off about 3 seconds after I took this shot.

I caught him right then, but the shot came out blurry.

First buds of Spring.



More buds; better focus.



There were a handful of daffodils in one spot in the park.

Couldn't tell if they were planted or wild.

Didn't see a bird the whole day.

On my way out, this little guy posed for me.

Thoughts on covenant children

Since, this Dilbert aptly describes my work week, I'm making every attempt to use my time wisely, including, but not limited to, studying, perusing online articles (both frivolous and educational), changing car insurance companies, and preparing for small group.

We're in Romans these days, Chapter 9:1-29. Reading versus 6-8, Paul is describing the makeup of Israel : not all natural children are included, and others are adopted in as children of the promise. Tim Keller points to the distinction between physical and spiritual descendents, using the examples of Isaac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Esau. (From Keller’s Romans: A Study Course in the Gospel). This passage suggests a decisive break in the Jewish ethnic-descendent requirements of the OT. But what are the implications for the elect today? More on that in a moment.

Sunday I witnessed my first covenant baptism. I've seen infant baptisms before, but never administered in the Reformed tradition, or enveloped with the understanding of Reformed theology. Like much of my newfound awareness of grace, Sunday's baptism was awesome, in all verity and proper use of the word. The covenant relationship between promise and people, the foreshadowing and connection of circumcision and baptism, and the affirmation of a community that it is by His merciful choosing any of us can stand and call ourselves His, were all present with the sprinkling of water on a crying baby’s head. (And boy, did he cry!)

But now, pairing my experience on Sunday with the passage above, I have questions. I'm sure they are short of profound, and I'm not entirely perplexed; I'm just in the process of fleshing things out, and I'm bringing the two of you who read this blog along for the ride.

Are all children born into covenant families covenant children, i.e., chosen children of the promise? Doesn't this place the emphasis back on parental, physical lineage? I've just barely begun to scratch the surface of articles available online on this subject, but if anyone has authors to point me towards, that would be great.

There are some harsh criticisms for the failure of covenant parents who raise children that do not produce lives of faith. However, what I've found in general is more along the lines of the following excerpts:

"The situation of children who are born of believing parents is a special one. They do not have in themselves that quality of faith which is in the adult believer. Yet it cannot be the case that those who have been sanctified by birth and have been separated from the children of unbelievers, do not have the seed and germ of faith. The promise, accepted by the parents in faith, also includes their children to a thousand generations. . . . If it is objected that not all of them who are born of believing parents are elect, seeing that God did not choose all the children of Abraham and Isaac, we do not lack an answer. Though we do not deny that this is the case, still we say that this hidden judgment must be left to God and that normally, by virtue of the promise, all who have been born of believing parents, or if one of the parents believes, are sanctified." (Beza, Confessio Christianae Fidei , IV, 48).

"We do not ascribe this (the enjoyment of the benefits of the covenant) to birth in the flesh as the principle and true cause, for our children's salvation is only by the election and mercy of God, which often accompanies natural birth. . . This is not out of necessity, for the promise is not generally applicable to the whole seed but only to that seed in which election converges. . . But because we must not curiously investigate the hidden providence and election of God, we assume that the children of believers are holy, as long as in growing up they do not demonstrate themselves to be estranged from Christ. We do not exclude them from the church, but accept them as members, with the hope that they are partakers of the divine election and have the grace and Spirit of Christ, even as they are the seed of saints. On that basis we baptize them. We do not need to respond to those who object and ask whether the minister is deceived, whether perhaps the infant is in truth no child of the promise, of divine election and mercy. Similar diatribes could be adduced with regard to adults, for we do not know whether they come deceptively, whether they truly believe, whether they are children of election or perdition, etc." (Martyr, Loci Communes , IV,
8, 7).

I sense that my introverted brain is taking longer to process things theses days – a sure sign that I need to take more time for purposeful reflection as the intensity of the semester increases. I haven’t forgotten the post I promised on my response to Gaffin’s article. I just got my prof’s response today, and I’ll be mulling over his answers and Scripture references this evening.

Sunshine, trust and restlessness

Spring is finally shedding its light on the dullness of the city. This pleasant and much needed newness does not lighten my overbooked schedule, but it does make for improved spirits and general well-being.

To complement my mood this morning, I donned my spring rain jacket, a light yellow linen fitted trench coat. I love this jacket, even though I can really only wear it about two months out of the year. It's Ann Taylor LOFT, and fits perfectly; very feminine and the yellow contrast with my brown hair is pretty. (At least, I think it is).

I do realize that it is not technically spring for a few more days and yellow is a bit bold, but still, it's not breaking the White Rule for the few of us ladies out there who preserve it. I did not, however, expect quite the positive reaction it drew from my coworkers. My new nickname is Sunshine, and I've been serenaded with:

"You are my Sunshine, My Only Sunshine," "You are the Sunshine of my life" (Stevie Wonder), and "Sunshine Superman" (Donovan).

I could get used to this. :)

~~~

Today I also made an observation, and I'm not sure what, if anything, to make of it. There's a woman in my Cubicleland who I know to be a Christian. She's very pleasant, friendly, and talks openly about her faith, at least in the women's restroom. What I noticed yesterday was her underlying statement of distrust in her coworkers. She carried her purse to the copier. At first I thought maybe she was on her way out and just stopped at the copier, but she did it multiple times during the day. And today, I realized that she takes her purse with her everywhere, every time she leaves her cubicle. I could possibly understand this if a) we didn't work in a secure building, or b) each cubicle didn't have multiple lockable cabinets. Maybe she's had personal belongings stolen before. I do, I admit, put my iPod in a drawer when I walk away. But I don't lock it up. Because I generally trust that my coworkers are not going to raid my desk, looking for things to steal. I'm curious to know what message she's sending. "I'm a Christian and I don't trust people?" I suppose that would be the ultimate conclusion of total depravity.

~~~

Finally, I was reminded of the restlessness of my soul today; that eager yearning that cannot be explained, the longing for “home.” Strolling to work in my fabulous yellow coat, I listened to the lyrics of Caedmon’s Call, Valleys Fill First.

It’s like that long Saturday
Between your death and the rising day
When no one wrote a word
And wondered is this the end

In some sense, I feel this tension everyday. That we are ________, but not yet. The Kingdom has come, but not yet. But Paul writes definitively that we are called, justified, glorified (Rom. 8:29-30). I am, and we are; but we are not, too. We are living in that painfully long Saturday between the first and second coming, and this morning I felt the acute sense of division between the flesh that knows it is not yet fully sanctified, and the spirit that lives justified by grace.

~~~

I’m working on a post in response to this article for ST. Waiting on feedback from the professor.

Things future, nor things that are now,
Not all things below or above,
Can make Him His purpose forego,
Or sever my soul from his love. (Toplady)