A Debate on the Continuation of Prophecy

I hate to admit it, but every time I hear Wayne Grudem or see him speak, I like him a little bit more. He’s really quite congenial, which is funny, because when I read his books I always supply something of a maniacal voice in my head and I picture him speaking with with a torch in one hand and a pitchfork in the other. I’m going to have to start reading him in light of what I see and hear when I see him and hear him.

In any event, here’s a video of his debating/discussing the continuation of prophecy with Ian Hamilton. Justin Taylor has more information about the debate/discussion for those interested. I’ll just say that I already know from the first few minutes of Grudem’s presentation that I’m on his side. He’s made some great points really quickly.

EMA 2010: discussion about prophecy from The Proclamation Trust on Vimeo.



11 thoughts on “A Debate on the Continuation of Prophecy

  1. LOL. He’s like one of the nicest guys you’re ever going to meet. I remember a debate he had at Trinity, and he was so nice and non-forceful in his arguments (when he really could have been) all of us left thinking, “Was that a debate?”

  2. His whole mission in life appears to be to confirm every evangelical presupposition about the Bible, the world, and politics. Nice or not, I’ll pass on his future writings.

  3. Nick, no, this was well over a decade ago in a debate he had with Osborne. I think it was over Calvinism/Arminian theology, but it could have been over egal/comp. It was just funny that he was so nice, no one could figure out where he disagreed. My wife had him as her advisor, and she also commented that he was so encouraging and nice, she couldn’t really tell if he liked her thesis or not. In the end, it seems he did, as he gave her a great grade.


    I don’t agree with him on some issues, but I don’t use that as an excuse to not read someone’s arguments. The only presuppositions that get in the way of real scholarship are the ones that dismiss the person arguing because of his stances. My advice to you would be to read everything, and consider its truth or falsity on its own merit, regardless of who says it. As the saying goes, even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

  4. I’m with Hamilton on this one, simply (well, not simply) because he is on the board here are Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, is a real nice guy, and a great preacher.

  5. Jeremiah: So I take it that you see that as a bad mission in life. I guess I can’t really find the fault in someone writing and arguing according to their worldview (I can’t imagine how else they’d do it, other than adopting another worldview for the sake of argument).

    Hodge: Gotcha. That’s hilarious!

    Stephen: Well there’s your problem; you listened to the Islamic Jibrail. He’s an imposter!

    Jeff: Thanks for the link to the audio. I went to his church’s website and started listening to one of his sermons on Isaiah. It was pretty good but I had to leave the house so I didn’t finish it.

  6. Nick, I think you know there is a difference between an opinion you think is valid for someone to hold and an opinion with specific biblical warrant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s