Infallible prophets
Scott has some words about “prophets” in the church:
if you want to be an infallible prophet in my church then fine - let’s play by the biblical rules — if you are wrong we get to kill you. if you hear God’s voice sometimes and feel led to share what he has said to you in humility - that is a very different thing. if you feel you are a prophet you better develop some humility to go with that calling or you aren’t going to be of much use.
Perhaps it is not so strange that the people I know who like to model themselves or call themselves prophets are not the same people as those I consider to actually be prophets. Recently I have been engaging with an issue where a so-called “prophet” has opposed a change agenda, apparently because nobody else was entitled to encourage new thinking and creativity.
And yet I have had contact with the most unlikely prophets, that have had a profound impact on others in discerning and communicating the will of God for people, organisations, the community and government.
June 22nd, 2004 at 12:13 pm
Yeah, funny thing that. If most of the people who call themselves “prophets” took on the full biblical role, they wouldn’t want the job. Most of the true prophets were outcasts, shunned by society and those in power, except when they were currying favor with God. The prophets were led to act out prophecies, utter strange visions, and forecast doom for those who beheld them. They seemed to verge on the insane (thing Elijah running in fear from jezebel or Jeremiah, the weeping prophet).
No, today’s “prophets” are wont to lead a far different life, more like the professional “prophets” of Micaiah’s day, who prophesied whatever the king wanted to hear.
June 22nd, 2004 at 1:26 pm
given that the N/T gives us no understanding what a prophet is except they are edifying for a church and the only examples are prophets who saw the future I am sceptical about any prophets.
It seems to me that the hypothesis that prophets are a purely N/T phenonem
has a lot to it.
Bear in mind O/T prphets are enritely difeent to N/T prophets.
June 22nd, 2004 at 2:48 pm
“Bear in mind OT prophets are entirely different to NT prophets”
Ummmm - how so? why?
I assume the opposite - that the meaning of the word hadn’t radically changed from one testament to another. In fact now I think about it I can think of times the NT uses the word prophet to specifically refer to exactly the same thing as the OT: eg Luke 24:27.
June 22nd, 2004 at 9:12 pm
Nigel, O/T prophets were telling their people about the word of God and dare I say it to repent.
This is not the case in the N/T. We are unclear what exactly prophets do.It is clear they are not doinf the same thing as Jesus has come and the message is somewaht different.
As I said the only examples of prophets inthe N/T is that of foretelling history whther it be of a lack of food in Jerusalem or of timothy’s future.
June 23rd, 2004 at 1:51 am
Homer-
I can think of lots of instances of OT prophecy where prediction was the dominant thread more than repentence. Usually repentence had a role in it somewhere, but often the prophets would predict the downfall of a nation, much as Agabus predicted a famine in the NT.
June 24th, 2004 at 11:43 am
Justin,
I am not denying that however what was their main job?
The entrance of Jesus changes the dynamic.
We do not know what prophets do in the N/T.
We do know it is not a leadership position but they edify a church.
I suspect it is a position which was purely for N/T times just like the speaking of tongues.
June 24th, 2004 at 5:30 pm
a more dominant thread in OT prophecy than either repentance OR prediction was the capacity of the prophet to see the truth of a situation clearly and articulate the reality. Even some of the ‘prediction’ was only seeing what the inevitable outcome would be, given the present reality.
June 24th, 2004 at 7:55 pm
Homer - you think that speaking in tounges was purely a first century thing?
What do you dothen with churches that do use tounges, or with Christians that use tongues inprivate prayer/exhortation?
Steve
June 24th, 2004 at 8:00 pm
That makes sense to me maggie.
While i’m uncertain about calling anoyone ‘a prophet’, I know people who seem to have prophetic tendancies to speak God’s truth clearly into a situation - whether that message is liked or not. Havign said that they and everyone else would take their words and test them and give them a different weight to that whic the OT prophets seemed to have to their words. I believe it’s because of the way God speaks to us now, as opposed to how he spoke to the prophets of the OT.
June 26th, 2004 at 4:23 pm
Maggi, look at the bible.
speaking in tongues is very important in three events.
Pentecost, the realisation that samaratans can be part of the church and then gentiles can be too.
After that Paul says that speaking in tongues is silly because it does not edify.
O/T prophets were needed inthose times to tell the people of what God wanted.We have the bible.
June 27th, 2004 at 3:57 am
Let me make sure I understand what you are saying, Homer.
Your opinion is that the ONLY way for us to hear God today, the ONLY source of revelation, is the bible?
June 27th, 2004 at 4:08 pm
no, but why would you need O/T type prophets when you have the bible.
also the bible is an excellent way to examine whether people who claim to have had revelation from God are true,
If it is inconsistent with the bible they are not.
June 28th, 2004 at 12:27 pm
this also brings up the question
of how to differenciate(I know how to say it, not spell it)
between false and not false Prophets.
I mean like how many times did anyone, hear people say that they thought Y2k was the end, I have even heard people confidently say I have a dream that I beleieve symbolizes that the End is Near,
so, do we just just ignore everyone, and assume they are crazy. it seems to work for me.
or do we accept the purple koolaid.
June 28th, 2004 at 3:05 pm
You can add people with the gift of discernment on the list of people that the more they claim to have the gift, the more leery I am of it.
June 28th, 2004 at 3:14 pm
I think that prophets are one of those groups of people that can never claim positional authority. You can’t just say “I’m a prophet, so listen to me”. However, there are those that are recognised as prophets because they consistently reflect wisdom into a situation.
I also like the Jeremiah image of the prophet saying “don’t send me, what can I say to these people?” Prophecy is not an easy or a fun gift to have in my perception. If someone thinks that it is, then there is a problem.
June 28th, 2004 at 5:52 pm
Homer says: ‘but why would you need O/T type prophets when you have the bible.’
I would have thought that you need it for the exact reason that we are discussing here. That is, that the bible is open to interpretation. One group of Christians will claim that the Bible says X, another will say it means Y.
June 29th, 2004 at 7:39 am
The most encouraging prophetic people I know (and prophecy is for encouraging, right?) never need to announce themselves or their ‘words’ — they simply go about their business, and encourage people in a down-to-earth, non-hyped fashion, and if the ‘word’ is from the Lord, the recipient can usually tell.
People have referred to me at times as “prophetic”, but I prefer to simply say, “can I pray for you?” and if God gives some revelation in my prayer, great. At the very least, the person gets prayed for.
Or is that too simplistic?
June 29th, 2004 at 9:28 am
“I suspect it (being a prophet) is a position which was purely for N/T times just like the speaking of tongues.”
We still live in new testament times, right?
June 29th, 2004 at 10:02 am
congratulations nigel. I am caught out.
I should have said N/T period.
Phil whether you understand it or not essentially what you are saying is there is no point in reading the bible.
I naturally reject that post-modrnist intepretation pariclualary since inyour case you find industious ways of re-intrepreting black and white issues.
June 29th, 2004 at 10:53 am
That is not what I am saying at all Homer. Perhaps this is a good example.
I say something and you think your nterpretation is the only one, and the right way. Is it possible that your interpretation is not what the original writer (me) meant?
I said: “I would have thought that you need it for the exact reason that we are discussing here. That is, that the bible is open to interpretation. One group of Christians will claim that the Bible says X, another will say it means Y.” and you interpret this as me saying there is no point in reading the bible.
Can you see another interpretation of what I wrote?
June 30th, 2004 at 1:14 pm
Homer,
The words “period” or “times” don’t mean much difference to me but whatever distinction you intended I certainly wasn’t trying to catch you out.
It is quite ok to say something that you later wish to clarify, or to say something with which I disagree. No sense of victory on my part either way.
How about we don’t have a competition, just a conversation?
June 30th, 2004 at 1:38 pm
nigel. loosen up I was in a humourous vein.
I thought you were being technical. Its okay. I don’t see that as being competitive merely having a bit of fun.
Being entirely serious I suspect prophets and speaking in tongues was mainly for the times of the N/T ie after Acts to pre- Pauline letters.
Prophecy ,which we read is edifying, becomes obsolete thereafter.
June 30th, 2004 at 2:04 pm
I think that there is a tremendous need for prophets in the present day and post Paul. Prophecy is described as a gift, and this surely must have meaning in more than just the immediate biblical times.
July 1st, 2004 at 1:40 pm
Dan ,
the question you have to ask is what would a prophet tell you that is not in the bible?
It makes sense somewhat that Prophets were around at that time however the only times we read about them inthe N/T is to tell the church what will happen.
Paul rates them ahead of teachers however Apostles are rated higher still and they are no longer around either.
July 1st, 2004 at 2:26 pm
I am surprised to hear that you also don’t think that there are apostles any more. As you point out, Paul rates apostles and prophets as the two most important gifts - surely these continue to be important now?
I don’t see that the bible replaces the role of prophets or how it ever could. In fact, the idea that people are gifted as prophets and apostles is extremely biblical.
July 2nd, 2004 at 6:53 am
Dan, you asked “what would a prophet tell you that is not in the bible?”
How about an Amos, or Micah telling you that coniving with big companies to get cheap coffee and bananas while two-thirds world peasants who grow them can’t buy basic anti-biotics because of cost, or are poisoned by the antifungals used to keep the bananas “clean” (chemicals that are banned in the West…
I know what Amos would say if he lived in my world, the God who spoke to him has not changed. We need to listen to the prophets before it is too late. The “Christian” West is busy killing, oppressing and getting rich off the backs of the rest of the globe. “In times like these wise folk keep silent for they are evil times!”
July 2nd, 2004 at 8:54 am
Tim, I totally agree with you - it was Homer that asked that question of me, and I like your answer.
July 2nd, 2004 at 10:43 am
Tim,
You don’t seem to understand what I am saying.
Amos and Micah are part of the bible.
I agree that any christian should pay a lot of attention to them, particularly the point that governments major task is to ensure the lives of the fatherless, widows and the aliens ( refugees?).
I stated before I am quite sceptical that there xan be any modern day prophets.
I didn’t realise that Dan was a believer in Apostolic succession.
July 2nd, 2004 at 10:44 am
Tim,
You don’t seem to understand what I am saying.
Amos and Micah are part of the bible.
I agree that any christian should pay a lot of attention to them, particularly the point that governments major task is to ensure the lives of the fatherless, widows and the aliens ( refugees?) are to be enhanced.
I stated before I am quite sceptical that there xan be any modern day prophets.
I didn’t realise that Dan was a believer in Apostolic succession.
July 2nd, 2004 at 10:50 am
Homer, never said that I believe in apostolic succession, I just said that I believe that the apostleship is a role and a gift which exhibits itself in the contemporary church.
In doing so I don’t consider that Paul was simply talking about the original ‘apostles’ any more than he was talking about the then existing ‘prophets’, ‘teachers’ or ‘miracle workers’. An apostle is a missionary or church planter, one who is called forth to a new people to bring the message of christ.