Learn the Hymn: A Mighty Fortress is Our God

 Singing has always been a rich and meaningful part of Christian worship. However, it’s value and usefulness diminishes somewhat if we don’t understand the words we are singing. With that concern in mind, I’d like to occasionally teach you the words of a hymn in this column and explain what the song’s message is all about. In honor of Reformation Day on October 31, we’ll begin these studies today with Martin Luther’s hymn “A Mighty Fortress is Our God.”

 

Written in German by Martin Luther sometime around 1529, the most commonly-known English translation of this hymn was produced by Frederick Hedge in 1853. This translation consists of four carefully-sequenced verses that develop one storyline from beginning to end, so when this hymn is used for public worship, it is important that all four verses be sung in order to get the full development of the thought. Let us now consider the words and their meaning.

 

A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing; Our helper He amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing.

 A “bulwark” is a wall built for defense against danger, so God is pictured as a strong defense for us against an ever-increasing flood of dangers. Luther knew more than his share of mortal ills, being a man who often dealt with stomach problems and threats from his religious and political enemies. Yet he found God faithful through it all!

 

For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe—His craft and power are great, And armed with cruel hate, On earth is not his equal.

 Lest we underestimate the danger posed to us by Satan, Luther in his own words reminds us that the devil “prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour (1 Peter 5:8).” It is very unique in hymnody for a verse to end with such lofty words about Satan’s power, so we must quickly move to verse two to find words of hope!

 

Did we in our own strength confide, Our striving would be losing; Were not the right man on our side, The man of God’s own choosing.

 By telling us that Satan’s equal cannot be found upon the Earth, Luther has reminded us that we must look away from ourselves to find strength to counter Satan’s craft and power. In this phrase, we find the announcement of a Savior—a man of God’s own choosing who has the strength to overcome Satan.

 

Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is He! Lord Sabaoth His name, from age to age the same, And He must win the battle.

 “Lord Sabaoth” is a reference to a Hebrew title for God in the Old Testament that is usually translated “Lord of Hosts.” The title pictures God as the commander-in-chief of the vast angelic armies of Heaven; thus, He is a terrifying figure to His enemies since He has overwhelming might at His command.

 

And though this world with devils filled Should threaten to undo us; We will not fear for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us.

 In our time, we have become all-too-forgetful of the influence that demonic beings can yield over our world. But Luther was under no such illusions—he was keenly aware of what we have come to call “spiritual warfare.” Nevertheless, such an awareness was not reason for despair in Luther’s mind because of the staggering truth that God has willed to display His triumph over Satan through the Church!

 

The prince of darkness grim, We tremble not for him; His rage we can endure, For, lo, his doom is sure: One little word shall fell him.

 Though Satan remains active and threatening today, his defeat was accomplished at the Cross. As Colossians 2:15 says regarding Christ’s crucifixion, “God disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in Christ.” Satan is therefore teetering on the brink of doom today, ready to be toppled over.

 

That word above all earthly powers, No thanks to them, abideth; The Spirit and the gifts are ours Through Him who with us sideth.

 Luther now clarifies for us which “word” it is that has the power to topple Satan—it is the word of God, the Scriptures. Many “earthly powers” in Luther’s time had hidden the Scriptures by forbidding their translation into languages that common people could understand. But nevertheless, the Bible retained its power, as Luther’s own life testifies. God has also equipped the Church with His own Spirit and the gifts that the Spirit supplies us for the purpose of ministry.

 

Let goods and kindred go, This mortal life also; The body they may kill; God’s truth abideth still—His kingdom is forever!

 Now we come to the sobering challenge of this song—to be willing to suffer the loss of all things with hope and good cheer, because nothing can defeat the truth of God! Luther himself lost goods and kindred during his life; many of his associates lost their lives. Nevertheless, as we can attest today, God’s truth remains, and we celebrate the foretaste that it gives us of His Kingdom!

Why I'm Tapping the Brakes on Molinism--and Potentially Changing Lanes

 Regular readers of my blog (I think there are two of you, so I’ll use the plural) will remember that in the past, I have voiced support for the theological system of Molinism (if you missed that post, you can read it here). I’ve even encouraged you to check it out further, and perhaps you have. Recently, I have been reassessing Molinism in my continuing studies, particularly in light of a philosophical framework known as Thomism, named for the 13^th-century theologian Thomas Aquinas. Allow me to relate a bit of personal history regarding my studies to introduce you to my current concerns about Molinism.

 Why I’ve appreciated Molinism

From my generally Calvinistic upbringing, I’ve always had a non-negotiable commitment to the sovereignty of God. God is in charge, and He is unfailingly causing His plan for this world to come to pass. Yet like all but the most rabid of Calvinists, I’ve struggled to reconcile this belief with man’s responsibility to accept the Gospel to be saved.

 Enter Molinism with its proposal of a solution to this quandary. I became a student of Molinism through my studies in apologetics at Biola University, an institution where evangelical Molinist philosopher William Lane Craig casts a considerably long shadow. My deepest appreciation for Molinism actually came through the application that Kenneth Keathley made of its concepts to the questions debated by Calvinists and Arminians. His book Salvation and Sovereignty remains a favorite of mine among studies of the doctrine of salvation.

Why I’m reassessing Molinism

In my continuing studies, I’ve felt that a stronger grasp of philosophy has been the missing piece in my overall education. To fill this gap and to continue to push myself to learn, I enrolled in the Doctor of Ministry program at Southern Evangelical Seminary in 2020. I was very intrigued by the seminary’s integration of Dispensational theology, Classical philosophy, and Classical apologetics—all inspired by the work of the seminary’s founder, Norman Geisler.

 In his voluminous works, Geisler championed an evangelical version of the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, particularly with respect to Aquinas’ teachings on the three Classical branches of philosophy—metaphysics (the study of being), epistemology (the study of how we know), and ethics (the study of how we ought to live in light of what we know of being). Being an evangelical, Geisler obviously disagreed with Aquinas’ broader theology but nevertheless felt that his views on Theology Proper and questions of being and knowing have much to offer evangelicals, since Aquinas’ views were arguably just a summation of Christian teaching on those matters up until his time.

I am very intrigued by the philosophical tools and ideas of Thomism because of what they claim to provide. Thomists claim that their system can provide at least the following three benefits, all of which are very desirable in my opinion:

             1. A philosophical framework to undergird the traditional view of God’s attributes

            In various ways, attributes such as God’s omniscience, timelessness, immutability, and others have been modified or outright denied by theologians in recent decades. The result is a portrayal of God that is quite different from the historic Christian tradition. Thomism provides an understanding of metaphysics that serves as a solid foundation on which to build a theological and biblical case for the traditional understanding of God’s being—provided that Thomism’s central claims are true, and I increasingly think that they are.

            2. A philosophy to support the claim that we really do have direct access to reality

            Philosophy since the time of Rene Descartes has spawned no end of nonsense. With what has been called “the epistemic turn,” philosophy has been chasing its tail, seeking to answer the question, “How can we know that we know?” The basic answer has been that we really can’t know anything for sure except our own thoughts; thus we really have no guarantee that those thoughts correspond to the way the world really is. But Thomism boldly asserts that we really do have direct access to reality. Its approach—known as moderate realism—begins with the assertion that we possess knowledge because it’s simply undeniable that we do! Thomism keeps philosophical study in the proper order—examine reality first (metaphysics), then assess how we have come to know it in order to discover how we might know other things (epistemology).

             3. It defends the claim that we can have an objective interpretation of the Bible

            Vast swaths of Christianity today are plagued by subjectivity. The subjective question “What do these verses mean to you?” has supplanted the objective question “What do these verses mean?” Though very few would know it, this situation is a direct consequence of the epistemic turn in philosophy. Thomism, through its claim about reality mentioned above, truly does seem to deliver the philosophical goods that are necessary to make people confident once again that objectivity in biblical interpretation really is possible.

Molinism in light of Thomism

But here’s the rub for my theology—Molinism and Thomism really do seem to have a conflict at a few points. Though these points are admittedly among the finest of the finer points of theology, if a person is going to speak on such points, then he must strive for truth in any statement that he speaks and for consistency with all other statements that he may speak. In that light, I want my theology to be accurate and consistent, so I’m reassessing Molinism right now on the following points:

             1. The doctrine of divine simplicity

            The doctrine of divine simplicity is central to Thomism. In fact, in Aquinas’ magnum opus, the Summa Theologiae, divine simplicity is the first attribute that Thomas seeks to prove after proving the existence of God. Contemporary Reformed Baptist theologian James Dolezal has described this doctrine about as succinctly (and clearly!) as anyone can:

The principal claim of divine simplicity is that God is not composed of parts. Whatever is composed of parts depends upon its parts in order to be as it is. A part is anything in a subject that is less than the whole and without which the subject would be really different than it is. In short, composite beings need their parts in order to exist as they do. Moreover, the parts in an integrated whole require a composer distinct from themselves to unify them, an extrinsic source of unity. If God should be composed of parts—of components that were prior to Him in being—He would be doubly dependent: first, on the parts, and second, on the composer of the parts. But God is absolute in being, alone the sufficient reason for Himself and all other things, and so cannot in any respect derive His being from another. Because God cannot depend on what is not God in order to be God, theologians traditionally insist that all that is in God is God (James E. Dolezal, All That Is in God, 40-41).

            To understand this a bit more clearly, think of what we mean when we ascribe goodness to a person. When you say “George is good,” if you really think about it, you can see that you’re really talking about two different things: George, on the one hand, and goodness on the other. You know this because you know that George could possibly be evil rather than good. Since George and goodness can exist separately like this, you know that you’re talking about two different things.

            But we encounter something different when we say “God is good.” In this case, we’re really not talking about two different things, as if God could possibly be evil rather than good. In the case of God, what we’re really saying is that God just is goodness. Goodness isn’t a quality that is in addition to what God is; goodness just is what He is. And when you ponder it further, we would say the same thing about God’s other attributes—they just are what God is, leading us to conclude that these attributes are not separate “parts” within God’s being. That is the meaning of Dolezal’s last statement that “all that is in God is God.”

            The more I understand it, the more I wish to affirm God’s simplicity, yet Molinism seems to run afoul of this doctrine. In positing three logical moments or stages within God’s knowledge—one stage of which does not result until after an act of God’s will—Molinism seems to create too sharp of a division between God’s knowledge and His will. It seems to treat these attributes as though one can be active without the other. In the light of divine simplicity, it seems better to say, as Geisler does in his book Chosen But Free, that God’s knowing and willing are simultaneous, eternal, and coordinate acts of God (see pp. 52-53 of the second edition).

             2. The notion of passive potency in God

            Thomism relies on the metaphysical insights of the Greek philosopher Aristotle. In fact, Thomas was the first theologian of any consequence who was able to “compare notes” with Aristotle after the latter’s works were rediscovered in the Middle Ages. Thomas, like Aristotle before him, argued that all of existence can be summed up in two categories—act and potency, or in other words, that which actually is existing and that which potentially could exist. God, says Thomas, is pure act—every facet of His being has always actually existed; no facet of God was ever made to exist, or in other words, caused to move from being merely potential to be actual. Something that is made actual by another is said to have “passive potency.”

            With its postulate of three logical moments in God’s knowledge, Molinism seems to say that God has passive potency. This observation seems especially true of God’s middle knowledge, which is said to be caused by the future free choices of God’s creatures. Should this be equated with passive potency? Craig apparently wants to avoid such a notion by arguing for a conceptualist model of divine knowledge, which he explains as follows:

On a conceptualist model of divine knowledge, God does not acquire his knowledge of the world by anything like perception. His knowledge of the future is not based on his “looking” ahead and “seeing” what lies in the future (a terribly anthropomorphic notion in any case). Rather, God’s knowledge is self-contained; it is more like a mind’s knowledge of innate ideas. As an omniscient being, God has essentially the property of knowing all truths; there are truths about future events; thus, God knows all truths concerning future events (Craig, “The Middle-Knowledge View,” in Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, eds. Bielby and Eddy, p. 133).

            That explanation seems like it could avoid the charge of ascribing passive potency to God, yet in other works such as his podcasts, Craig is very comfortable saying that for any choice I make, God’s knowledge would have been different if I had in fact made a different choice. That admission sure smells like passive potency, making it problematic from a Thomistic point of view.

             3. The grounding objection

            I should say just a brief word about the grounding objection, since many of Molinism’s opponents consider it to be the fatal flaw in the system. Simply put, the grounding objection deals with the question, “What makes statements about the future true or false?” I had heard about the grounding objection before and had more or less rested in the reassurances of Molinists that it wasn’t really a problem. Having examined it a bit more at this point, I must say that it appears to be more of a problem than I acknowledged before. In particular, Molinism would perhaps put pressure on us to abandon the correspondence theory of truth (meaning that statements are true if they correspond to the way things really are), which would simply be a bridge too far for me.

            It is also worth noting that Thomas argued by means of God’s eternality that He does know the truth about statements concerning what is still future to us because they are not future to Him (see Summa Contra Gentiles, Book One, Chapter 67). So Thomism certainly does have a way of explaining how God can know the truth about the future.

Contemplating a Change

Well, if you’ve made it with me this far, I don’t know whether to congratulate you or encourage you to find a hobby to better fill your time! Really though, if you’ve made it this far, I suspect you’re like me and you find value in thinking deeply about theology. Now that we’ve thought deeply about it, I’ll reiterate that I’m considering an embrace of Thomism. To be candid, some of these ideas from Thomism have only become clear to me in the last 15 weeks, so I still need some time to ponder it all. But having read this, I suspect that you won’t be caught off guard if you see me changing lanes.

Summer Reading Recommendations--2021 Edition

 Ah, summer! The perfect time for grilling, swimming—and reading! Though maybe not all at the same time—books do not play well with either fire or water. In what may prove to be an annual tradition, I’d like to present the 2021 edition of my summer reading recommendations. With little concern for my personal health or sanity, I have continued reading at a reckless pace since I presented you with the 2020 edition of these recommendations. Okay—I actually enjoyed almost every minute of my reading time, so it wasn’t much of a sacrifice. And now, with hopefully a little something for everyone, here are my recommendations:

 

For Children

In this category, I’d like to first mention a whole series of books that are well worth your time. The series is Tales that Tell the Truth from The Good Book Company. My family owns numerous books from this series and my children have wanted to read them over and over again—and the truths from Scripture that these books express are worthy of being pondered over and over again.

 

Recently, my children and I have enjoyed Go and Do Likewise by John Hendrix, a book that re-tells some of the parables of Christ. John was an acquaintance of mine in a campus ministry during my year at the University of Kansas, and his illustrating skills are put to great use in relating truths from Scripture. His drawings are incredibly imaginative—fascinating for both young and old alike. I am interested in checking out his historical graphic novels on Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the abolitionist John Brown.

 

Fiction

Though much of my reading time ends up being devoted to non-fiction works, I enjoy the slivers of time that I get to return to good works of fiction. I think it helps me become a better communicator.

 

One work of fiction I greatly enjoyed recently was Murder on the Orient Express by Agatha Christie. It is not hard to see why this book is a classic in the detective genre. Do yourself a favor and get the audiobook version read by actor Kenneth Branagh. All of the dialogue in this book makes it a perfect fit for the audiobook genre, and Branagh seems to have a great time producing the dialects of the various characters in this book, many of whom hail from different nationalities.

 

The Space Trilogy by C. S. Lewis will be of interest to anyone who enjoys science fiction as well as anyone interested in theology. The way that Lewis uses space travel to speculate about the role of angels in creation is particularly fascinating. The third book, That Hideous Strength, is Lewis’s warning about the potential dangers of an unchecked scientific community coming to dominate society.

 

Every American ought to read two books by George Orwell that skewer and lampoon the realities of life under a totalitarian state. First, pick up Animal Farm, a highly-readable novel that ought to be required reading in every high school in the United States. Follow up that book with his longer work, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

 

Non-Fiction

History buffs will love the works by Erik Larson. I particularly enjoyed Dead Wake and The Splendid and The Vile. The subject matter of The Devil in the White City made that book a little less enjoyable for me, and consequently I didn’t get through the whole thing. Isaac’s Storm was a fascinating account of a long-forgotten natural disaster in American history—the destruction of Galveston, TX in 1900 by a hurricane.

 

Born Again by Charles Colson is a good reminder that God is at work within the halls of power. This autobiography from Colson has a little something for everyone—history, political intrigue, true crime, and a conversion story to boot!

 

The nation of Israel has been in the headlines lately and the resulting discussions on social media have revealed that many people are utterly uninformed about how the modern nation of Israel came to be and how it has lived among its neighbors. Do yourself a favor and read Return to Zion by Eric Gartman. This work of history is highly readable and will leave you with a broader context for understanding current events.

 

Religious liberty has been a hot topic in the United States since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent restrictions on gatherings. Anyone interested in this subject ought to read Sacred Liberty by Steven Waldman. This book traces the history of religious liberty in the United States and shows how this “first freedom” has been understood differently at different times.

 

Christian Living

All of us will be affected at some time by a terminal illness, either in our own body or in that of someone we love. For Thou Art With Me by Bruce Baker is an excellent resource for both thinking through and living through the realities of a terminal illness. Baker is a long-time pastor and theology professor, and he knows that of which he speaks—he has been slowly progressing through his own battle with ALS for several years now.

 

Most Christians could stand to have a better grasp of church history. The 100 Most Important Events in Christian History by A. Kenneth Curtis will help you achieve just that. The layout of this book will allow you to bounce around a bit in history if you’d like and then fill in the rest of the narrative in your mind by reading the remaining events on the list.

 

Heavy-Lifting

For those brave souls looking for a challenge!

 

Many Christians face absolute bewilderment as they try to make sense of contemporary society. Two books—one older, one newer—will help you get a better grasp on society as it is today in the Western world. How Should We Then Live? by Francis Schaeffer is a classic book on this subject from one of the keenest observers of society from a Christian perspective. A newer book along these lines that deserves a wide readership is The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self by Carl Trueman. Being hot-off-the-press, this book has extremely helpful discussions of ongoing debates about issues like sex and gender.

 

Happy reading!

Are we commanded to listen for God in prayer?

 I opened a can of worms on Facebook the other day with a post about the practice of listening to or for God in prayer. I should have anticipated that a brief post on the subject might offer more confusion than clarity, but that possibility didn’t dawn on me at the moment. Several friends of mine commented on the post respectfully and thoughtfully, and I’m glad they did. Their effort to start a conversation has given me a chance to reflect on the subject, and I’ll offer the first fruits of those reflections in this post.

 

For anyone who did not see my Facebook post, here is what I said: “Where have we gotten the idea that we're supposed to listen to/for God in prayer? Can you think of a single passage of Scripture that commands us to do this, explains how to do it, or clarifies what to expect from God when we do it? Instead, passages on prayer tell us to make our requests known to God, to offer thanksgiving and praise, to confess our sins, etc. In other words, prayer is when we express our thoughts to God. God's communication to mankind is found in the Bible.”

 

As I reflected on my friends’ comments, I had to ask myself, “Why am I having such a strong reaction against the idea of listening to God in prayer?” Two possible reasons stood out to me as I thought about it. First, I feel there has been a growing trend to make this practice part of the essence of prayer—in other words, to say that a person really is not praying unless they take time to see if God will speak to them in that moment. Now of course everyone agrees that each instance of prayer doesn’t have to include all the elements that might make up your prayer life as a whole, but I think more and more people are saying that you must not merely seek to speak to God in prayer, but you must also seek to hear from Him—otherwise, you’re really not praying. I have reacted strongly to this idea because in passages that explicitly teach us about how to pray, I find a conspicuous absence of teaching on the idea of listening for God. More on that in a moment.

 

Here’s a second possibility that I must humbly consider at greater length. I am currently taking a class that critiques occult beliefs and practices from a biblical perspective, and this class includes discussion of all the various ways that occult practitioners seek to communicate with spiritual beings or “the higher power.” I am trying not to see an occult bogeyman behind every tree, but I must consider whether I am overly sensitive to such concerns right now. As every student knows, when you focus intensely on one subject for several months, your opinions can become out of balance. As time passes, you often re-gain a more balanced perspective. Am I out-of-balance at the moment? I think humility would demand that I consider this, and so I will try to consider it, though I am aware that my reaction against listening for God in prayer goes back before I ever started this class.

 

A few clarifications

Perhaps it will be helpful if I clarify a few things before I ramble on further. First, in my original post, I meant to comment narrowly on the idea of listening to God in prayer. I didn’t intend to comment on the various ways in which God might guide us to make certain decisions. One commenter mentioned the avenues of wise council and circumstances. I would certainly affirm that God does lead us through such means. Another commenter asked if I meant that God can only teach me, comfort me, and convict me by reading the Bible. No, I would say that those things can happen even when I’m not reading the Bible. Sometimes they happen through other people teaching me, comforting me, or convicting me. Sometimes the Spirit simply brings things to my mind in a more direct way, though I would say that the Spirit makes use of the knowledge of Scripture that I’ve gained prior to that moment.

 

One commenter brought up the testimonies of Muslims who say they’ve had a vision of Jesus that leads them to hear the Gospel. Though that’s a bit of a different issue than a born-again person praying, I’d like to mention that I don’t discount those testimonies. I don’t see a Scriptural reason to deny that Christ would do that, so I rejoice that He seems to work with people whom Christians have been somewhat slow to reach with the Gospel.

 

I’d also like to clarify that I won’t pretend like I can explain the various experiences that people have that they attribute to the Holy Spirit. I will simply say that we must not assume that we cannot err when we interpret our circumstances. I think we are far too quick to assume that we know exactly what gave rise to our experiences and that we know exactly what our experiences signify. Can’t we all attest that we’ve misunderstood our experiences before? I think we need to submit them to a more objective standard like the Bible.

 

A conspicuous absence

My greatest concern with the notion of listening for God in prayer comes from the fact that I don’t believe I, as a church-age believer, can find any explicit or implicit command to do it or any teaching on how to do it if I should try. I certainly don’t find enough teaching on the idea to elevate it to the status of being an essential element of prayer. As I say this, I’m thinking of passages like Matthew 6:5-13 (which includes the Lord’s Prayer), Philippians 4:6, Ephesians 6:18, 1 Timothy 2:1, Colossians 4:2, and 1 Peter 5:7. In passages like this that are meant to tell me what to do in prayer, I find no mention of the idea of listening.

 

A few comments on my FB post mentioned some specific verses as possibilities, so let me comment on just a couple of them.

 

My sheep hear my voice—and other voices, too?

John 10 was mentioned in the comments as one passage that may speak on the question of listening for God in prayer. I think everyone reading this would agree that Jesus isn’t explicitly teaching about prayer in this passage, meaning that He didn’t make these comments with the express intention of teaching us how to pray. The remaining question, then, is if Jesus’ words imply anything about prayer. I do not believe they do.

 

Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees in this passage, who have just denied their spiritual blindness (9:40). The Lord goes on to contrast their leadership over the children of Israel (which is self-seeking) with His own leadership over His sheep (which is self-sacrificing). In this context, He states that His sheep hear his voice. By this statement, is Jesus encouraging us to listen for His voice when we pray? To me, that seems like a big stretch given that this conversation did not arise from an intention to teach about prayer.

 

If we take that statement to apply to listening for God in prayer, I think that move also raises a troubling scenario. Jesus also mentioned that the sheep hear the voices of strangers (10:5). If we move this conversation into the context of prayer, are we to conclude that as we try to listen for the voice of God in prayer there will be other voices trying to talk to us at the same time—like demonic voices, perhaps? This possibility is all the more troubling given that everyone I’ve heard who teaches on listening to God in prayer says we cannot recognize His voice right away—that we have to work to hear it and learn to refine that skill.

 

But here, Jesus asserts that His sheep know his voice and will follow him. There is no suggestion that hearing His voice is a skill that must be refined or developed. I think it is far more accurate to interpret this passage as an explanation of conversion—in other words, the sheep who hear Christ’s voice are unbelievers who are effectually called by God to salvation. They hear the Gospel, become convicted of its truth, and thus follow Christ. I am not convinced that there is an application to be made here for prayer. If you believe there is, I would like to hear what you make of the “voice of strangers” in this passage. Is it a demonic voice that tries to talk to you as you pray?

 

Romans 8:16 and the internal witness of the Spirit

One commenter mentioned Romans 8:16 and the activity of the Spirit that is mentioned there. I mention this verse because of an interpretive possibility that we have to consider—that this activity of the Spirit is not actually directed toward us, but is instead directed toward God the Father. It depends on how we understand the word “with” in the phrase “the Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.” It is entirely possible that what Paul means is not that the Spirit speaks to us, but that the Spirit speaks to the Father with us or alongside us; that as we cry “Abba! Father!” (v. 15) the Spirit speaks to the Father to support and confirm our claim of being a child of God. If this understanding is correct, it would be the Spirit’s complement to Christ’s intercessory work that is mentioned in Romans 8:34.

 

Though the tenor of my whole discussion might suggest otherwise, I’m not denying the possibility of the internal witness of the Spirit—that in some way He provides internal re-assurance to us of the reality of our salvation. We may have to find that notion in another passage, however. But even if we take Romans 8:16 as teaching the internal witness, it should be noted that we are not told that we have to listen for it in prayer. Perhaps you think I’m just being far too narrow in my definition of prayer at this point. A fair objection! I’ll have to give more consideration to that thought.

 

Some other passages were mentioned that are certainly worthy of consideration as well, such as 1 Thessalonians 5:16-21 and passages that speak of waiting on the Lord. As I want to give careful thought to all the suggestions made, I must continue to ponder and consider some of those passages, and I am grateful that they were suggested. Perhaps I will try to write on them further at a later date.

 

Perhaps as you read this you feel some degree of pity for me, believing that I am missing out on a significant and meaningful part of a relationship with God. I’m not convinced that that’s the case, but if you are, you may feel free to pray for me. If you’d like to comment further on what I’ve shared here, please do so on my Facebook page as I do not have comments enabled here on my blog. Thank you to those who have challenged my thinking already.

My Testimony

Not long ago, I preached on one of my favorite psalms—Psalm 73. I was struck by the final verse—verse 28—which says, “But for me it is good to be near God; I have made the Lord God my refuge, that I may tell of all your works.” I certainly have a desire to be near God and make Him my refuge at all times, but this verse reminded me that such an effort isn’t just about me. Taking refuge in God should be about others as well; I should seek to do it in order to tell others about His works.

 

In light of this verse, I encouraged my congregation to share their testimonies with others—to tell people about the works that God has accomplished in their lives. I would like to do that very thing in this column today—to share with you my testimony of coming to faith in Christ and to tell of the gracious things that God has done in my years so far.

 

I was born to devout Christian parents whose faith defined every aspect of their lives. They truly “walked the walk.” I remember my brother saying that he came to understand that the Bible is important because he knew our dad woke up earlier than he had to in order to give himself time to read it. My mom and dad taught me the Gospel from the day I was born, and the totality of their lives made that message look so attractive that their witness served as a powerful testimony for me.

 

When I was six years old, then, I came to understand that the Gospel message isn’t just true in some general way—it was telling the very truth about my life. The story about mankind’s rebellion against God and His gracious gift of His own Son to pay for our sins wasn’t just some story about our race—I needed to see my own sinfulness and my own need of a Savior to deliver me from the penalty of my sins. And so, I trusted in Christ as my Savior, believing that His death paid for my sins and that His resurrection assures me of eternal life with God.

 

After trusting in Christ, my experience from then through my teenage years was like that of many young people. I grew in my faith in fits and spurts—sometimes more, sometimes less. This inconsistency came largely because I didn’t develop good habits in spiritual disciplines like reading Scripture and praying. I knew such habits were important, but I didn’t yet understand how desperately I needed them for my spiritual health and well-being. That lesson would not come in full force until my first year of college.

 

After finishing high school, I packed my bags and headed off to the University of Kansas. There, for the first time, I found myself in a setting where my Christian faith was down-right unpopular! Most students wanted nothing to do with the Holy Spirit’s fruit of self-control (Galatians 5:23), preferring instead to feast on—other fruits, shall we say. My philosophy professor saw Christians as his favorite punching bag, consistently using Christians as examples of illogical thinking. My psychology professor confidently announced there was no such thing as sin, that different behaviors simply reflected different brain-states and had absolutely no significance beyond that physical realm.

 

In addition, there was also a confusing dissonance coming from Christian voices around me. The Religion Department touted the Bible, but in a way that was very different from my evangelical upbringing. Then there was Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, who came on campus to protest drag queen fashion shows at the Student Union. Did either of these groups represent Christianity well—and if so, did I want anything to do with this faith?

 

All of these details came together to put me squarely at a fork in the road—was I going to be serious about my devotion to Christ or not? There was no third option—my faith was either going to grow or die. Well, to God’s praise and glory, He had surrounded me with family and new friends who continued to water the seeds of my faith that had been planted first by my parents, then by the Spirit Himself. As a result, that first year of college became a wonderful time of spiritual growth for me. The challenges to my faith were exactly what I needed to come to understand Christ’s statement that “apart from me you can do nothing (John 15:5).”

 

So God began to undertake a full renovation of my heart, and at the same time He threw-in a renovation of my occupational plans. I went to college as a computer science major with very high aspirations—I wanted to develop the first baseball video game that would allow you to have a bench-clearing brawl! Shooting for the stars, I know! But as my devotion to Christ began to deepen, it became obvious that that goal wasn’t going to leave me very satisfied in life. Perhaps a bit richer, but not very satisfied.

 

As I began to consider something else to pursue, God began to make it clear that He had given me strong skills in language—from understanding how it works to interpreting it to using it as a means of presenting ideas to others. He had also given me an insatiable thirst for studying the Bible and anything else that would shed light on the Bible. With these realities and the affirmation of others, it became clear that pastoral ministry would be an excellent pursuit—one for which there was a great need, and one for which I appeared to be greatly suited.

 

As pastoral ministry has now been my life’s work for 15 years, I want to express my gratitude to God for giving me the honor to serve. I am so thankful for all that He has done through me for His glory from the first day of my life until now. While the world is still waiting for that baseball game with the brawls (I think!), I am so thankful that those in my sphere of influence have not had to wait to hear the Word of God. It is a great honor for me to have shared it with them and to continue doing so. 

Did God get it wrong about Donald Trump?

In the months leading up to the Presidential election, numerous Christians claiming to have the gift of prophecy predicted that President Trump would be re-elected. Among these were:

 

·         Pat Robertson (The 700 Club)

·         Kris Vallotton (Bethel Church, Redding, CA)

·         Jeremiah Johnson (Jeremiah Johnson Ministries)

·         Sid Roth (host of “It’s Supernatural”)

 

Many other lesser-known Christians took to social media to share their own prophecies of a Trump victory. Well, today, on Inauguration Day 2021, we can say clearly that these prophecies did not come to pass. What are to make of this observation? If so many prophets agreed in their prediction yet the prediction was not accurate, a disturbing question arises: did God get it wrong about Donald Trump?

 

Perhaps we should ask a different question: are claims of modern-day prophecy actually legitimate?

 

It is this second question that I want to address in this post, because I believe the answer to that question is “no.” I do not believe that the gift of prophecy is still in operation today. (This position is called “cessationism” since it affirms that spiritual gifts like prophecy, healing, and speaking in tongues ceased at an earlier time in church history. The affirmation that such gifts continue is called “continuationism.” We didn’t get very creative with our titles in this area of theology!) In light of the very public prophecies made by those named above (among others), I invite you to consider with me just what has happened here, and that the problem actually lies with a mistaken belief in the continuation of the gift of prophecy.

 

(NOTE: To their credit, both Kris Vallotton and Jeremiah Johnson have now publicly apologized for their recent prophecies of a Trump win. See https://religionunplugged.com/news/2021/1/12/charismatics-are-at-war-with-each-other-over-failed-prophecies-of-trump-victory)

 

I always approach posts like this with a bit of unease since I am now publicly declaring a disagreement with some people whom I respect and care about. On this issue, that group would include personal friends as well as respected continuationist theologians like Wayne Grudem, Gordon Fee, and Craig Keener. I have been blessed by the ministries of the men just named, so I don’t take disagreement with them lightly; nevertheless, it is where I stand.

 

Since this post seems destined to be rather lengthy, let me give you the outline so you can scroll ahead to later sections if you wish:

 

Why address this question?

1.      The world has heard these prophecies and taken note of their failure

2.      Failed prophecies can weaken the faith of believers

3.      The question of modern-day prophecy has big implications for a local church

 

Why I don’t accept the validity of modern-day prophecy

1.      The fact of failed prophecies

2.      The conviction that Scripture is all we need for doctrine and behavior

 

Why address this question?

 

1. The world has heard these prophecies and taken note of their failure.

 

Do a simple Google search for “failed prophecies about Donald Trump” and you’ll find blog posts, letters to newspapers, and other articles in which non-Christians are gloating over the failure of these prophecies. I fear that serious damage has been done to the credibility of Christianity in the eyes of those who don’t believe.

 

It’s one thing to play the role of pundit and get it wrong. In that role, you are only claiming to have keen personal insight; it is only your reputation that’s on the line. But when you play the role of a prophet, you’re putting God’s reputation on the line as you claim to speak for Him. The esteem that others have for Him will correspondingly take a hit when a prophecy is proven false. I grieve when I read the condescending words of those who mock the Christian faith after observing those who mistakenly think they have heard a prophecy from God.

 

2. Failed prophecies can weaken the faith of believers.

 

I also grieve as I consider what those who believed these prophecies must be thinking. Whenever someone expects God to do one thing but He does another, that person’s faith can be shaken to its core. Sometimes a person’s faith doesn’t survive the disillusionment.

 

A failed prophecy can raise all kinds of faith-weakening questions. Did God not know enough to make the right announcement to His prophets? Did He have a plan in mind but He just wasn’t powerful enough to bring it to pass? Is He not wise enough to communicate to His prophets in an unmistakable way? Any of these questions will lead to a diminishing of God if you let them take root in your mind—but they are all strongly implied in a failed prophecy. If you let them run to their logical conclusion, you end up with a God who doesn’t inspire worship, so consequently, some people just stop worshipping Him.

 

I fear that many believers today just don’t appreciate how serious a claim it is to claim to speak in the name of God. It is a serious business with potentially everlasting consequences. If you claim to give someone a message from God and set them up to have false expectations, you may unwittingly become an accomplice to the unraveling of their faith.

 

3. The question of modern-day prophecy has big implications for a local church.

 

Every local congregation of Christians has to answer the questions, “What should we teach?” and “What should we do?” As a pastor, I want to teach my congregation everything that God has truly revealed. I grieve just knowing that some of my people have never read the entire Bible—if I thought we were missing out on new revelations from God through modern-day prophets, I would be beside myself! Man does not live by bread alone, according to Christ, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matt 4:4). If God is truly speaking through modern-day prophets, there is no question what a church should do—it should catalogue and study these revelations just the same as we study the words of the prophets of old. A church would be unfaithful and irresponsible to do anything else.

 

The question of modern-day prophecy also has big implications for how a church makes decisions. Imagine the potential difficulties if one part of a congregation expects God to lead the church by means of only one source (the written Scriptures) but another part of the congregation expects God to lead the church by means of two sources (the written Scriptures and modern-day prophets). What happens when the modern-day prophet speaks? How could a church take unified action in that case?

 

Think of it like this: imagine two Colonels in the Army out in the field together leading troops. One Colonel believes the General will only communicate with them through a personal messenger; the other Colonel believes the General may communicate with them through a personal messenger or over the radio. If a message comes over the radio purporting to be from the General, how can the two Colonels take unified action? One of them doesn’t even believe the General intends to communicate that way!

 

You can see how this whole question of communication can present quite a quandary. Thus, it is really a vital question for a church—vital enough that a church really can’t avoid taking a side on the issue. People are claiming to speak new revelations in the name of the Lord, and we have to decide if we’re going to believe them or not.

 

Why I don’t accept the validity of modern-day prophecy

 

1. The fact of failed prophecies

 

These failed prophecies concerning Donald Trump are just the latest failed prophecies from those who claim to have the gift of prophecy today. Interestingly, most continuationists do not dispute that predictions from modern-day prophets have at times failed to come to pass. These instances are usually explained away through appeals to a non-literal interpretation of the prediction, interference with the fulfillment from the demonic realm, or a misunderstanding on the part of the prophet. At least one continuationist theologian (Wayne Grudem) has, since the late 1980’s, attempted to defend the idiosyncratic view that the genuine gift of prophecy in the NT yields prophetic statements that might be a mixture of truth and error! (For an excellent though somewhat technical critique of Grudem’s position, see https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj2h.pdf)

 

This simple observation about failed prophecies puts modern-day prophecy in very hot water when we consider the test for a true word from God in Deuteronomy 18:21-22:

 

“And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?’--

when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.”

 

That final statement—“you need not be afraid of him”—must refer to future predictions from this so-called prophet. If the prediction under consideration has already failed to come to pass, then it is obvious that we do not need to heed that word. It would be redundant for God to state what the people would have already learned for themselves.

 

Thus, God was telling the people that they need not fear any later predictions from this person. This observation creates a standard of 100% accuracy for a true prophet of God. If a person claims to be delivering a revelation from God but makes a false prediction even once, he or she is disqualified from being a genuine prophet. This standard is one that modern-day prophets demonstrably have not met; thus, I conclude that the genuine gift of prophecy must not be in operation today.

 

2. The conviction that Scripture is all we need for doctrine and behavior

 

Historic Protestantism has always taken its stand on sola Scriptura—Scripture alone as our authority for doctrine and behavior. This claim about Scripture’s sufficiency for such needs seems only proper in light of statements like 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

 

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete [other translations: adequate, thoroughly equipped, thoroughly furnished], equipped for every good work.”

 

If the written Scriptures are enough revelation to make us adequate and thoroughly equipped for every good work, what need is there for further revelation through prophets today? A defense of continuing revelation can only amount to an affirmation that Scripture is not all the revelation we need to learn what God wants us to know about Him and His plans; that Scripture is not sufficient to allow us to make wise decisions about how we should behave. As I mentioned earlier, if modern-day prophets possess the genuine gift of prophecy, we should be hanging on to their every word in the same way that we seek to hang on to every word of the written Scriptures.

 

If you’re reading this and you’re Protestant, please consider two observations. First, you should already be comfortable with the claim that God ceased to give new revelations during at least one period in the past—the Inter-Testamental Period, those 400 years between the time of Malachi and the ministry of John the Baptist. If God ceased to give new revelations during that time, it should not be shocking to consider that He may have ceased again after the New Testament was completed.

 

Second, consider that many of the doctrinal differences that you as a Protestant have with other groups stem from claims of ongoing revelation. Progressive/Liberal Christians view the Scriptures not as a unique, once-for-all revelation from God but as a time-bound, historically-conditioned record of encounters with God that can still be expected to happen today (and that might correct erroneous viewpoints that Christians held in the past). The Roman Catholic Church teaches that God might still give new, binding, authoritative revelations to the faithful through the Magisterium of the Church. This belief is the source of distinctive Roman Catholic viewpoints on Mary and the saints, among other issues. Then of course there are the pseudo-Christian cults that rely on post-biblical writings or modern-day prophets as sources of revelation. So historic Protestantism has been unique in its emphasis on the sufficiency of Scripture, and I believe this emphasis must be sounded again to correct the misunderstanding of those who would promote a continuation of the gift of prophecy.

 

I realize that what I have written here is not all that could be said on this subject and it won’t settle the matter to everyone’s satisfaction, but this much at least needs to be said in this moment. You may have believed the prophecies about Donald Trump and might be very disillusioned today. Rather than allow your disillusionment to color your thoughts about God, I urge you to consider that what I have said is true—that the fault for failed prophecies lies not with God, but in a very unfortunate misunderstanding about the continuation of the gift of prophecy.