A review of "The Fallible Prophets of New Calvinism: An Analysis, Critique, and Exhortation Concerning the Contemporary Doctrine of `Fallible Prophecy´(Kindle Edition)"
First, the problem.
The following story is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament (Acts 21:10-11): “As we were staying there for some days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, “This is what the Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’ ” The next two verses (12-13) shows that both Paul and his companions interpreted the prophecy literally: “When we had heard this, we as well as the local residents began begging him not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, `What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but even to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.'”
But what actually happened in Jerusalem? Acts 21:30-33 tells the story: “Then all the city was provoked, and the people rushed together, and taking hold of Paul they dragged him out of the temple, and immediately the doors were shut. While they were seeking to kill him, a report came up to the commander of the Roman cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion. At once he took along some soldiers and centurions and ran down to them; and when they saw the commander and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. Then the commander came up and took hold of him, and ordered him to be bound with two chains; and he began asking who he was and what he had done.”
In other words, the Jews didn't bind Paul hand and foot, certainly not with his own belt, nor did they deliver him up to the Romans. Quite the contrary, the angry mob tried to dispose of Paul right then and there, being *forced* to hand him over to the Romans, who bound Paul in chains. If the prophecy of Agabus is interpreted literally, he was therefore a false prophet. According to the Old Testament, false prophets should be put to death! Of course, few people would interpret a prophecy in this super-literalist fashion, right? I mean, the Old Testament prophets often carried out symbolic acts to dramatize their prophecies.
Well, wrong. The strong Biblicism typical of American fundamentalism apparently makes *any* non-literal expression problematic. Hence, this book. Michael John Beasley is an orthodox Calvinist previously associated with The Master's Seminary who argues at length that Agabus' prophecy really was literal. He doesn't succeed, of course. In fact, if Agabus' prophecy was plain and perspicacious, why would an entire theological tract be needed to demonstrate this?
Beasley's opponents are a group of charismatic Reformed theologians (“charismatic” in the Christian sense), known as the New Calvinists, who make the opposite error: since prophecy has to be literally true, and since Agabus wasn't, some prophecy must be fallible. In fact, most prophecy during the New Testament period is fallible, since only Jesus and the original apostles were unfallible prophets. However, since the New Calvinists don't want to give up charismatic gifts, they *accept* fallible prophecy, at least within certain (fallible?) limits.
This seems to be one of those debates were both sides are wrong!
I must say that the author's Bibliolatry goes very far, since he believes that the expression “Word” in the Gospel of John refers to God's word as expressed in the Bible (presumably the Geneva Bible). Ahem, no, it's the Logos, actually. The Logos incarnated as Jesus, not as the Gospel stories of Jesus. Of course, the author must know this, yet he de facto reasons as if the Bible is a divine incarnation. That's confessionalist Calvinism for you, right there.
I wonder what Beasley and his New Calvinist protagonist would make of, say, the Old Testament prophecies of Jesus or Jesus' own statements about the end of the world… Frankly, that seems like a harder nut to crack!
No comments:
Post a Comment