Agabus the fallible prophet?

Posted on by
3

A conversation in our home group sparked the re-post of this two post series on fallible prophecy originally published in 2011.

One of the many seminary classes I am taking is pneumatology (the theology of the Holy Spirit). In this class we evaluated various positions on the spiritual gifts which exposed me to the a view that regards the NT gift of prophecy as operating today in a fallible manner. It is held by such esteemed pastors and scholars as John  Piper, Wayne Grudem, and D. A. Carson.

Piper gives this succinct definition of the NT prophet:

the gift of prophecy is in the New Testament [and it] is a Spirit-prompted, Spirit-sustained utterance that does not carry intrinsic, divine authority and may be mixed with error.

Continue reading →

Free Grace for All (Seussical)

Posted on by
4

What if Dr. Seuss entered the debate on Calvinism & Arminianism? It might go something like this…

Grace for all
Grace for all

That grace for all!
That grace for all!
I do not like
that grace at all!

do you like
free grace for all?

I do not like God
made so small.
I do not like
free grace for all.

Would you like grace here and there?

CalvinParadox

I would not like grace
here and there.
It tries to make God
much too fair.
I do not like
free grace for all.
I do not like God
made so small.

Choice does not put
God in stocks.
It cancels out
paradox. Continue reading →

Grace for All: The Problem is Proof Texting and the Solution is…

Posted on by
Reply

“Exegetical Notes on Calvinist Texts” is the next essay in Grace for All. It is written by Grant R. Osborne, professor of New Testament at TEDS (link). Osborne is also a prolific author, having written numerous commentaries and books, including the Hermeneutical Spiral (a Christianity Today 1993 Critics Choice Award winner).

For Osborne, theological problems are the result of “proof texting”.

The problem is that in the past, systematic theology has by and large taken passages out of context, grouped them together in a logical order, and in many cases made them say things not intended by the original authors.

If “proof texting” is the problem, then what is the solution?

The answer is to be found in the methods of biblical theology

Does that mean there is no place for systematic theology? Before we tackle that question let’s make sure we understand what it meant by the terms systematic and biblical theology.

What is systematic theology? Continue reading →