Comments on: Quenching God's Oracles, Part 4

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 08 May 2008 01:24:52 +0000

Thanks, David. I like Grudem, line up with him in a lot of areas (particularly his Reformed soteriology), and have found his Systematic Theology helpful. I just haven't had much interaction with his thought in this area, so thanks for the tip!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 07 May 2008 22:03:13 +0000

Hey Aaron. Grudem actually wrote a commentary on 1 Peter (I forget which series it was for, but I beleive it was put out by Tyndale). If you're interested in his interpretation of that passage, that might be a good place to look.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 06 May 2008 05:59:58 +0000

Yes, it was for a class a few years ago- which is probably why I was so restrained 😉
I just needed to write a theological research paper. I don't recall what drew my attention to the Montantists, but my motivation was to find application for today's debates over prophecy.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 06 May 2008 05:57:21 +0000

I can't find any place where Grudem labels is view to any specific camp. He's often listed among Charismatic and Third Wave names. Of the “4 views on spiritual gifts,” I think he's closest to Sam Storms, who defended the Third Wave position. Regardless of the specific label, there do appear to be major similarities.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 05 May 2008 16:30:18 +0000

As I read through the previous posts, with all the talk about condemning “ecstatic” and “irrational” utterances, I was gearing up for a big bomb to be dropped on charismatics. Way to restrain yourself! Haha.
Very good posts, by the way. My Eastern Orthodox friends have convinced me that an intimate aquaintance with the beleifs and practices of the earliest Christians is absolutely essential, so I found all of this to be very interesting. I'm even thinking about having an emphasis in Patristics when I get to seminary. Was this paper for a class?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 03 May 2008 23:33:14 +0000

In direct conflict, also, with 1 Peter 2:20-21, though I'm sure Grudem has his own understanding of how that passage fits with his paradigm. This helps, though, since I'm fairly unfamiliar with Third Wave stuff. Is Grudem identified squarely within that camp, or just as having a similar pneumatology?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 03 May 2008 22:43:49 +0000

Thanks Aaron,
Grudem says, “nor did the terms “prophet” and “prophecy” in themselves imply divine authority for their speech or writing. Much more commonly, the words “prophet” and “prophecy” were used o ordinary Christians who spoke not with divine authority but simply to report something that God had laid on their hearts or brought to their minds.” (page 315)
On page 318, Grudem approvingly quotes Bruce Yocum: “Prophecy can be impure– our own thoughts or ideas can get mixed into the message we receive– whether we receive the words directly or only receive a sense of the message.”
Grudem offers biblical, historical and theological arguments for his position, and though I disagree with them, my point here is simply historical. From what I've read of the early church, especially in the case of the Montanists, their understanding of prophecy is in direct conflict with Grudem's. As I stated in the post, they believed “prophecy always refers to divine authority and is either true, and thus directly from God, or false, and thus directly against God.”

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 03 May 2008 01:15:02 +0000

Roger,
Great overview, analysis and conclusions – very applicable to much evangelical thought today. I was wondering, though, if you could elaborate on this:
“This third conclusion has specific application for the contemporary “Third-Wave” movement, which holds prophecy to be only a human report of what they think God has done.”
Thanks,
Aaron