The following is written in response to Todd Friel's comments on his Friday's broadcast of Wretched Radio — Wretched Clip of the Day
1. Regarding Luther's view of dreams and visions — If Luther can be wrong on baptism, he can be wrong on revelatory gifts. We love Luther, but he does not speak ex cathedra.
2. Regarding the '400 years of silence', between Malachi and Matthew — There
were certainly no 'national prophets' speaking on behalf of the Lord to the nations of Judah or Israel,
between Malachi's ministry and John the Baptizer's. There we agree. But
that does not mean that no one was experiencing prophetic revelation
during those 400 years. Simeon and Anna, for instance, both had
prophetic ministries, for many years,
before the birth of John (see, Luke 2). That alone should cause Todd to
reconsider his position. But more importantly than Simeon and Anna is the Book of
Daniel, which was written about 200 years after Malachi's ministry had concluded.
How might've that been accomplished if God had silenced his speaking? So, based
on this, I don't think Todd has rightly understood how those '400 years of
silence' are said to be silent. Besides, what was normative for Israel's experience under the Old Covenant is not normative for the Spirit-filled Church under the New.
3. Regarding Todd's question, "Why do we think it would be normative for today?" — Well, because unlike the prophets of the OT, who were very few and anointed by the Spirit to hold their office, every person who's born again into Jesus' Church and baptized with his Spirit has been anointed with power. Everyone, not just a few! "...in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy... For [this] promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Acts 2:17—18, 39 ESV)
4. Regarding the Church having "a more sure word" — see http://joshuaelsom.blogspot.com/2013/09/confronting-common-arguments-and_28.html
5. Regarding the imperspicuity of dreams — If imperspicuous dreams and visions are a problem for us today, then they were also a problem for the people in the New and Old Testaments. In Numbers 12:6—8 the Lord says to Miriam and Aaron "If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the Lord." Punchline, the dreams and visions that God gave to the prophets, who were lesser prophets than Moses, were imperspicuous dreams and visions. Not only were the messages of their revelations unclear, they were compared to riddles. Do you suppose those dreams and visions required interpretation? Do you suppose that any of those dreams or visions were ever interpreted and/or delivered wrongly?
On the other hand, if Todd doesn't believe that imperspicuous dreams and visions were a problem for the people living during the time when the Old and New Testaments were being written, then he has no legitimate reason to believe that they exist as a problem for the Spirit-filled Church today.
Five Observations and Responses
1. Regarding Luther's view of dreams and visions — If Luther can be wrong on baptism, he can be wrong on revelatory gifts. We love Luther, but he does not speak ex cathedra.
2. Regarding the '400 years of silence', between Malachi and Matthew — There
were certainly no 'national prophets' speaking on behalf of the Lord to the nations of Judah or Israel,
between Malachi's ministry and John the Baptizer's. There we agree. But
that does not mean that no one was experiencing prophetic revelation
during those 400 years. Simeon and Anna, for instance, both had
prophetic ministries, for many years,
before the birth of John (see, Luke 2). That alone should cause Todd to
reconsider his position. But more importantly than Simeon and Anna is the Book of
Daniel, which was written about 200 years after Malachi's ministry had concluded.
How might've that been accomplished if God had silenced his speaking? So, based
on this, I don't think Todd has rightly understood how those '400 years of
silence' are said to be silent. Besides, what was normative for Israel's experience under the Old Covenant is not normative for the Spirit-filled Church under the New.3. Regarding Todd's question, "Why do we think it would be normative for today?" — Well, because unlike the prophets of the OT, who were very few and anointed by the Spirit to hold their office, every person who's born again into Jesus' Church and baptized with his Spirit has been anointed with power. Everyone, not just a few! "...in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy... For [this] promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Acts 2:17—18, 39 ESV)
4. Regarding the Church having "a more sure word" — see http://joshuaelsom.blogspot.com/2013/09/confronting-common-arguments-and_28.html
5. Regarding the imperspicuity of dreams — If imperspicuous dreams and visions are a problem for us today, then they were also a problem for the people in the New and Old Testaments. In Numbers 12:6—8 the Lord says to Miriam and Aaron "If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the Lord." Punchline, the dreams and visions that God gave to the prophets, who were lesser prophets than Moses, were imperspicuous dreams and visions. Not only were the messages of their revelations unclear, they were compared to riddles. Do you suppose those dreams and visions required interpretation? Do you suppose that any of those dreams or visions were ever interpreted and/or delivered wrongly?
On the other hand, if Todd doesn't believe that imperspicuous dreams and visions were a problem for the people living during the time when the Old and New Testaments were being written, then he has no legitimate reason to believe that they exist as a problem for the Spirit-filled Church today.
