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.