Recently a blog post addressed pastoral concerns over the contemporary practice of fallable prophecy. His tone is respectful. He concerns are directly linked to quotes from one of the more famous and respected proponent of modern fallable prophecy: Dr. Grudem. And he makes it clear that his purpose is not to address his theological and exegetical issues, but the implications of this position on church.
He lists five concerns.
1. The practice of infallable prophecy makes it difficult to identify and refute false prophecy.
2. Placing this prophecy category of subjective guidance removes an objective means to determine its legitimacy.
3. Insisting on ongoing prophecy practically undermines the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.
4. It has the potential to bind consciences and lead to abuse.
5. It cheapens the true gift of prophecy in the Old and New Testaments.
In my judgment, those who open the door to modern-day prophecy not only do harm to the biblical text, they also open themselves up to all sorts of theological and spiritual danger. In so doing, they needlessly put themselves and their congregations at risk. (Full Post)
I am sympathetic with concerns he identifies. Those of us who defend modern prophecy as described by Dr. Grudem should be mindful of the potential abuse, misuse, and misunderstanding of the practice within their churches. However, I wonder if the concerns are anything new. Would these not also be valid concerns for non-apostolic, non-canonical prophecy during the early days of the church? I will have more to say on this in a later post.