A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church



Message

BlackSabbath -> A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/17/2007 4:58:34 AM)

Hi everybody. In all the years I was in the Pentecostal/charismatic church, I was taught this rather strange doctrine, IMO, that a genuine OT prophet was 100 % correct in his prophecies, but a genuine NT prophet is not necessarily 100% correct.

How on earth is this bizarre doctrine justifed is beyond me, but it had something to do with the OT prophet being under the law, whilst the NT prophet was under grace. Whoopee I say. Big deal. It's the same Holy Spirit that uttered prophecies whether in the OT or NT. I don't see how the Holy Spirit can get it wrong now sometimes because we're in the era of grace.

Personally, I think it's all baloney so that every man and his dog could make outlandish "propehecies" that didn't have to be accountable by any test. I'm sorry if I'm coming across cynical, but that's the way I see it. I think it's ridiculous that a real prophet can get it wrong. I think it's just a con job for people to proclaim themselves "prophets" without meeting the test.

If someone could clarify this bizarre doctrine for me, I'd greatly appreciate it.

[edited by moderator]



Soxfan -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/17/2007 8:16:12 AM)

That is an easy one.

Since the canon of Scripture was closed in the first century, there is NO need for NT prophets and apostles. The offices no longer exist.



lw9 -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/17/2007 10:21:46 AM)

quote:

How on earth is this bizarre doctrine justifed is beyond me...


It's beyond me, as well, and it's most definitely beyond the Bible, but you're about to find out how far some people will go to justify that doctrine when they discover this thread. I've heard it all -

1. We're under grace. Mistakes are okay.

2. Today's prophecy is God's word mixed in with human error, so we can't always be sure which is which.

3. The OT prophets were trained and must have had errors along the way just like today's prophets. They were taught the 'gift' and eventually worked into perfect accuracy.

4. We prophesy but we're not prophets so we can't be held to the OT standard.

5. And the old standby: The OT prophets made errors, too!

ALL of these responses are the result of ignoring scripture, perverting scripture, or adding to scripture. It's very dangerous grounds to be treading on and people choosing this path have set themselves up for great deception. When 'inaccurate' prophets start leading people away from Christ completely through their increasingly bold lies [because that's exactly what false prophets do], those who have defended them along the way will have no standard to measure the lies against the truth because they've already compromised the standard and flat out ignored it. It's a house built on sand.



blue1914 -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/17/2007 1:38:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lw9

1. We're under grace. Mistakes are okay.

2. Today's prophecy is God's word mixed in with human error, so we can't always be sure which is which.

3. The OT prophets were trained and must have had errors along the way just like today's prophets. They were taught the 'gift' and eventually worked into perfect accuracy.

4. We prophesy but we're not prophets so we can't be held to the OT standard.

5. And the old standby: The OT prophets made errors, too!

ALL of these responses are the result of ignoring scripture, perverting scripture, or adding to scripture.


If this is the case, can you explain how in light of 1 Corinthians 14 you draw this conclusion?

Thanks!



DaveW -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/17/2007 2:01:47 PM)

The idea that prophecy died out dates back to the proper exclusion of the heretical prophetic movement called the Montanists. They started in the 2nd century and started embracing false doctrines circa 200 ad. They were declared heretics and the church started discouraging the use of prophetic gifting in order to keep a lid on false teachings. It was not until the turn of the last century that prophetic giftings started re-appearing in the church.

The idea that NT prophecy is ONLY for writing scripture cannot be scripturally supported.



earthless -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/17/2007 2:04:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blue1914

quote:

ORIGINAL: lw9

1. We're under grace. Mistakes are okay.

2. Today's prophecy is God's word mixed in with human error, so we can't always be sure which is which.

3. The OT prophets were trained and must have had errors along the way just like today's prophets. They were taught the 'gift' and eventually worked into perfect accuracy.

4. We prophesy but we're not prophets so we can't be held to the OT standard.

5. And the old standby: The OT prophets made errors, too!

ALL of these responses are the result of ignoring scripture, perverting scripture, or adding to scripture.


If this is the case, can you explain how in light of 1 Corinthians 14 you draw this conclusion?

Thanks!



The books of Corinthians was for the church of Corinth. A church that had some major issues when it came to the gifts of the Spirit. I am sure you see how they were rebuked for their abuse of gifts, for their making up of gifts, for the chaos in the church services, etc..

Much of what is seen to this day in a lot of church circles.

Also, we need to keep in mind that the word 'prophet' is also reserved for those that preach the Word.



blue1914 -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/17/2007 2:26:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

The books of Corinthians was for the church of Corinth. A church that had some major issues when it came to the gifts of the Spirit. I am sure you see how they were rebuked for their abuse of gifts, for their making up of gifts, for the chaos in the church services, etc..

Much of what is seen to this day in a lot of church circles.

Also, we need to keep in mind that the word 'prophet' is also reserved for those that preach the Word.


While I do think that I understand your point, I've got to ask-if we accept what you are saying, aren't we trying to have it both ways?

If the books of the Corinthians were for the Corinthian church, then why were they included in the canon of scripture (as the word of God)? IF, instead, these are universal truths that exist to this day as the word of God, are we able to ignore what the Lord says because it does not fit into our theological construct? It's clear in 1 Corinthians 14 that Paul gives clear teaching on the gift of prophecy and how we should all desire it.



rcjames -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/17/2007 2:30:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

The books of Corinthians was for the church of Corinth. A church that had some major issues when it came to the gifts of the Spirit. I am sure you see how they were rebuked for their abuse of gifts, for their making up of gifts, for the chaos in the church services, etc..


What are you referring to?

Thanks
RC



earthless -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/17/2007 2:42:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blue1914

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

The books of Corinthians was for the church of Corinth. A church that had some major issues when it came to the gifts of the Spirit. I am sure you see how they were rebuked for their abuse of gifts, for their making up of gifts, for the chaos in the church services, etc..

Much of what is seen to this day in a lot of church circles.

Also, we need to keep in mind that the word 'prophet' is also reserved for those that preach the Word.


While I do think that I understand your point, I've got to ask-if we accept what you are saying, aren't we trying to have it both ways?

If the books of the Corinthians were for the Corinthian church, then why were they included in the canon of scripture (as the word of God)? IF, instead, these are universal truths that exist to this day as the word of God, are we able to ignore what the Lord says because it does not fit into our theological construct? It's clear in 1 Corinthians 14 that Paul gives clear teaching on the gift of prophecy and how we should all desire it.


Two things:

Firstly, it serves as an example of what a church should not be.

Secondly, in addressing the question of apostles and prophets today, we must carefully define our terms.

Certainly the church today needs church planters, missionaries, or leaders who act as pastors over other pastors. Fortunately, when some people say that the church needs "apostles" today, that's all that they mean. And while the usage of the term "apostle" is not biblical, certainly the church does need such persons.

Likewise, when some people say that the church needs "prophets" today, they mean that the church needs Spirit-filled leaders who can inspire the church with a vision for its mission, or who can challenge the church to deeper commitment to Christ.

And again, while this many not be the most biblical use of the term "prophet," there can be no doubt that the church does need such persons.

On the other hand, if by "apostles" and "prophets" one means Christian leaders of the same kind as the twelve apostles or the apostle Paul, they are clearly mistaken.

There are no church leaders today whose authority cannot be questioned, or through whom new doctrinal revelations are given to the church, or whose teachings must be accepted by all Christians.

The New Testament teaches that the apostles of Christ were persons to whom Christ appeared after His resurrection and whom He commissioned to be His personal spokesmen (Acts 1:21-26; 5:32; 1 Corinthians. 9:1; 15:8).

Ephesians 2:20 and 3:5 teach that the apostles and prophets had foundational offices through which Christ established the church as the newly constituted people of God, a church in which both Jews and Gentiles make up the singular body of Christ.

Clearly many men today who claim to be apostles have taken upon themselves authority over other people which has not been given to them by God.

Additionally, they are making prophetic utterances which they falsely claim to be divinely inspired.

And the most interesting piece of this entire puzzle? If we're going to humor the notion that there are indeed Prophets today like those from the OT - then why aren't their writings being applied to Scripture for all Christians - and why is it that not one single person living today that people claim to be that kind of prophet has a perfect track record with their prophecies, which God says is one of the marks of a true prophet.

People name names and then we find that they have a faulty track record.



earthless -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/17/2007 2:53:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

The books of Corinthians was for the church of Corinth. A church that had some major issues when it came to the gifts of the Spirit. I am sure you see how they were rebuked for their abuse of gifts, for their making up of gifts, for the chaos in the church services, etc..


What are you referring to?

Thanks
RC


Practices and or antics which are labeled as "gifts" or "works" of the Holy Spirit yet have absolutely no foundation for such in Scripture.



blue1914 -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/17/2007 3:11:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

Certainly the church today needs church planters, missionaries, or leaders who act as pastors over other pastors. Fortunately, when some people say that the church needs "apostles" today, that's all that they mean. And while the usage of the term "apostle" is not biblical, certainly the church does need such persons.

Likewise, when some people say that the church needs "prophets" today, they mean that the church needs Spirit-filled leaders who can inspire the church with a vision for its mission, or who can challenge the church to deeper commitment to Christ.



To be honest, this may be the issue right here-semantics in definition of what is a "prophet" and what is a "prophecy". I do see that many today believe that a prophet must always come with a significant supernatural pronouncement and I don't know that I see that exhibited in scripture as the gift-though at times of course that is true.

Likewise, I do not see in scripture where ANY human was above reproach-Paul (one of the greatest apostles) took issues of dispute to the council in Jerusalem. Anyone who feels him/herself to be above reproach does need to study the Word a little more to understand the example of those who went before.

All of that said-I have a hard time making the leap that the gift is not extant today, though the gift as I interpret it from the Word of God it may differ from the current general preconceptions about it.



rcjames -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/17/2007 3:11:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless
Practices and or antics which are labeled as "gifts" or "works" of the Holy Spirit yet have absolutely no foundation for such in Scripture.


Where in Corinthians does Paul address "The making up of gifts"?


Thsnks
RC



earthless -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/17/2007 3:34:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless
Practices and or antics which are labeled as "gifts" or "works" of the Holy Spirit yet have absolutely no foundation for such in Scripture.


Where in Corinthians does Paul address "The making up of gifts"?


Thsnks
RC


Certainly we can say that when Paul said everyone was speaking in tongues - it was not legit. Also, chaos was the norm in their services - which is rather fascinating to read more in depth from 1st century historians, etc.

I have to run for an appointment, will add more to my answer later.



HY4Him -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/17/2007 3:59:55 PM)

quote:


Certainly we can say that when Paul said everyone was speaking in tongues - it was not legit.


Why? Was he lying?



rcjames -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/17/2007 4:02:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames
Where in Corinthians does Paul address "The making up of gifts"?


Certainly we can say that when Paul said everyone was speaking in tongues - it was not legit. Also, chaos was the norm in their services - which is rather fascinating to read more in depth from 1st century historians, etc.

I have to run for an appointment, will add more to my answer later.


I think that is really a stretch to go from there to "Making up gifts". I mean it might fit our conclusion that "Modern" tongues are made up, but I think you lose credibillity to say that is what Paul is referring to in 1 Corinthians 14.

I just don't think that rubber band will stretch that far.

Thsnks
RC



SD456 -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/17/2007 7:46:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blue
Likewise, I do not see in scripture where ANY human was above reproach-Paul (one of the greatest apostles) took issues of dispute to the council in Jerusalem.


Correct. And Peter and Paul had a bit of a row where one rebuked the other, so not even they were above reproach.

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless
Certainly we can say that when Paul said everyone was speaking in tongues - it was not legit.


I must agree with RC on this one. That is a great leap to make and it would also be calling Paul a liar.



earthless -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/18/2007 8:08:29 AM)

Wasn't Paul coming against the practice of the Corinth church of mass crowd speaking in tongues?



rcjames -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/18/2007 8:54:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

Wasn't Paul coming against the practice of the Corinth church of mass crowd speaking in tongues?


He corrected the idea that all could speak in tongues at once as it would confuse unbelievers and unlearned. Unbelievers being unbeleivers and unlearned being believers that did not have the maturity to understand the Gifts of the Spirit.

(1Co 14:23) If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

Paul showed them that if they wanted to speak that they could wait until an appropriate time;

(1Co 14:31) For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

(1Co 14:32) And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

This is a lesson that could be relearned by the Church today as many folks feel that when God gives them something to say; that they must blurt it out then and there, this is not the case according to Paul.

Thanks
RC



earthless -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/18/2007 9:01:58 AM)

Amen, RC. Thanks for the input.



lw9 -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/19/2007 9:37:42 AM)

quote:

blue1914: If this is the case, can you explain how in light of 1 Corinthians 14 you draw this conclusion?


Where specifically does 1 Cor 14 support false prophecy?



blue1914 -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/19/2007 10:57:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lw9

quote:

blue1914: If this is the case, can you explain how in light of 1 Corinthians 14 you draw this conclusion?


Where specifically does 1 Cor 14 support false prophecy?


Originally when I wrote the statement I did, I was responding to what I felt was the spirit of the message you wrote with the 5 excuses you have found for false prophecy.

In review of your message, I see that I did respond as if you were attacking prophecy in general-I apologize-that was innacurate of me as upon review of your message, you were instead expositing on false prophecy in particular-please accept my apology for taking your words out of context.

More to the point, I really should have asked what your feelings on legitimate prophecy as described in I Corinthians 14 are-can you please expound, thanks!



lw9 -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/19/2007 12:05:37 PM)

blue1914:

quote:

I apologize-that was innacurate of me as upon review of your message, you were instead expositing on false prophecy in particular-please accept my apology for taking your words out of context.


No problem at all. [:D] I've misread other posts myself when in a hurry. It's easy to do.

quote:

More to the point, I really should have asked what your feelings on legitimate prophecy as described in I Corinthians 14 are-can you please expound, thanks!


The answer greatly depends on how 'prophecy' is defined. Some believe it to mean simply bringing God's already revealed word [which would be preaching], while others believe it's of the OT-type prophecy [which means bringing new revelation, new 'words' of God, new 'things of God', foretelling future events, etc]. Either way, the Biblical standard must always be applied.

I completely rule out prophecy in regards to new revelation and 'new things of God' because God has revealed His truth in full and the scriptures are closed. Can a person bring a timely warning or message? Maybe, but I also keep in mind that all Christians today have the Holy Spirit to direct, warn, and guide them, and they all have God's word revealed in full. I have to be totally honest when I say that every person I've run across claiming to be a prophet or bring a prophecy has proven themselves to be false when put to the Biblical test. So, no, I don't know of any true prophets today.

For the person who is unsure as to whether prophets still exist or not, the Bible itself will sort this out for them. IF prophets exist today, the Bible will prove them true. IF prophets don't exist today, the Bible will prove those who claim to be prophets false. Problem solved.



earthless -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/19/2007 1:56:18 PM)

Amen.



HawkinsA -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/20/2007 2:20:25 AM)

1. Even in the last days, you'll see His Witnesses to be sent
2. Hope that you sound even logical that if by any chance you need to test the spirit of the false prophets, that means, prophet exists. Else you'll be told to say that whoever claimed to be a prophet will be a false prophet. (why do you even need a test at all)
3. A prophet is sent when God sees fit, not judged by you to say that "It's not needed..." etc.
4. A prophet will have "new revelations" (as I said, it boils down to how you define the term "new revelation"), what else do you think you can even identify a true prophet.
5. If you are willing to think even logically, you'll know how arrogant you are to say that prophets no longer exist.


Anyways, we shall meet when our Lord Jesus Christ comes. Just as Paul said, let our Lord be the judge, instead of a human pretenting to be in a judgement seat with his pride and arrogance.



HawkinsA -> RE: A question about OT prophets versus NT prophets (12/20/2007 3:14:00 AM)

And I suspect that your kind of behavior is well expected and foretold that one no longer needs to recognise a prophet as a prophet, a prophet now is thus a Witness.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI