Question about Gift of Prophecy

[swordsman1]

Yes, there were foundational apostles. However, we know there were more apostles in the early church than foundational apostles. If we read the context of 1 Cor 15:8, we know that there were more than the foundational 12 apostles:

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

It doesn't say those unnamed apostles were any different from the other apostles. No doubt Barnabas was one of those unnamed apostles, but he was put on a par with Paul (Acts 14:14, 1 Cor 9:5-6 ). One of their essential qualification was they were all eye-witnesses of the risen Lord Jesus, of whom Paul said he was the last. So how can there be any further apostles after Paul? Why wasn't the apostle James replaced like Judas was, when he was killed in Acts 12:1-2?

 

[swordsman1]

Tainted spectacles. You can't even SEE that your statement was an argument from experience. To claim, as you did (to paraphrase), that, 'Cessationism is correct doctrine because I don't see the gifts manifesting after the initial apostles died and still don't see them right now' is an argument from experience. That's simply what it is. It is not an analysis of what Paul actually wrote.

I said nothing of the sort. Again you are disingenuously putting words into my mouth. But then such underhand techniques are only to be expected when people are desperately trying to uphold a discredited theological system. I said cessationist arguments are drawn from scripture and confirmed by history. Unlike charismatic eisogesis, there is no personal experience (or lack thereof) involved in any of my arguments.

 

[JAL]

Thoughts popping into your head is not God giving you a prophecy. Prophecy is God speaking actual words to the prophet. It is "Thus says the Lord:<message>". There is never any doubt it was God who spoke. There wasn't some sliding scale of certainty where the prophet would deliberate as to whether God actually spoke to him or not. Nowhere in scripture does a prophet say "I think the Lord is saying". Anything given as a prophecy that originates from the prophet's own mind was a false prophecy:

Jeremiah 23:16. This is what the Lord Almighty says: “Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord."

But isn't this essentially my position? You object to a sliding scale of certainty. Didn't I do the same? I insisted on 100% certainty for a bona fide prophecy. You're correct, there's no room here for deliberation or second-guessing.

But not all REVELATION qualifies as prophecy. For example when the Holy Spirit convicts an unbeliever during the preaching of the gospel, giving him a feeling of certainty that Jesus is Lord, it's usually not 100% certainty. (It probably WOULD be 100%, admittedly, if we had real prophets today doing real evangelism). These days, it's usually just enough certainty to morally obligate the conscience to convert. Meaning, when your conscience is faced with two choices (convert or don't convert), you are morally obligated to the one you feel MOST certain about, even if it's less than 100% certainty.

Thus he has now received revelation, but it's filled with AMBIGUITIES. He might have some inkling of the Trinity at this point, for example, but it's probably fuzzy at best and his mind, as it attempts to make sense of it, is susceptible to any number of ERRORS. I refer to this scenario - ordinary revelation - as fallible revelation. Even prophets experienced ordinary revelation at times, in my opinion. You're correct, it's not prophecy.

Also, there are different levels of CLARITY even for bona fide prophecies. Num 12:6-8 contrasts ordinary prophets who received puzzling dreams and visions, with Moses who heard God speak with much clarity and face to face. Therefore even though an ordinary prophet accurately REPEATED what God said (he prophesied infallibly), he would likely be fallible in any subsequent self-initiated efforts to fully COMPREHEND it and RAMIFY it. This is because a lack of clarity means a degree of ambiguity. Even here I'm inclined to lump the ambiguities under the general category of 'fallible revelation.'

You'll continue to object to my choice of terminology I suppose, but I don't think the nomenclature is much worth debatiing.

And yes a thought popping into your head is NEITHER prophetic revelation NOR even ordinary revelation, if the Spirit didn't trigger it somehow.

 

[swordsman1]

Consider this ambiguity: "A church built on the fruit of faith." Two possibilities:

(1) Faith is a fruit of the Spirit. Faith is thus the fruit in question. It means 'a church built on faith'.
(2) Faith PROVIDES or PRODUCES good fruit (such as hard work). It means a 'church built on fruit (hard work) provided by faith'.

So the choice here is:
(1) A church built on the apostles and prophets (as foundation)
(2) A church built on a foundation provided by (laid down by) the apostles and prophets.

That is a lousy comparison. The 'fruit of faith' is an ambiguous expression because of the number of different meanings of the words 'faith' and 'fruit'. There is no such ambiguity with "the apostles and prophets".

The following is from a commentary called the Expositor's Greek New Testament. Option 1 below corresponds to option 1 above. Ditto of 2. You'll note the commentator's observation that option #2 (MY position) is the majority position among MODERN scholars (at least).

"The gen. is variously understood as (1) the gen. of apposition = the foundation which is or consists in the Apostles; (2) the gen. of originating cause = the foundation laid by them; (3) the possess. gen. = “the Apostles’ foundation”—in the sense of that on which they built (Anselm, Beza, etc.), or as = that on which they also were built (Alf.). The choice seems to be between (1) and (2). The former has been the view of many from Chrys. down to Von Soden and Abbott, and is favoured so far by Revelation 21:14. But the second has the suffrages of the majority of modern exegetes (Rück., Harl., Bleek, Mey., Ell., etc.). It is more in accordance with 1 Corinthians 3:10 (although it is the worth of teachers that is immediately in view there), and more especially with Romans 15:20, where the Gospel as preached by Paul appears to be the “foundation”. Here, therefore, it seems best on the whole to understand the Gospel of Christ as preached by the Apostles to be the “foundation” on which their converts were built up into the spiritual house."

The fact that other commentators also put words into Paul's mouth is no excuse for you doing so.

 

[Episaw]

"The Pastor presented an inspired message today. It was a blessing to all of us."

The number of times I have read this as a substitute for real prophecy is amazing and the mind boggles at such inaccurate understanding of scripture.

 

[Episaw]

When people get ideas while praying and studying the bible, is there an outlet to share such things with the congregation?

Yes. When you come together each one has.......the church has deleted this from their bible.

 

[LostMarbels]

So how can there be any further apostles after Paul? Why wasn't the apostle James replaced like Judas was, when he was killed in Acts 12:1-2?

ἀπόστολος apóstolos, ap-os'-tol-os; from G649; a delegate; specially an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ

In Corinthians, Paul discusses the ministry of reconciliation, and he uses the term “ambassadors” for Christ: “All this is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making His appeal through us” 2 Corinthians 5:18-20.

Generally speaking, an ambassador is a respected official acting as a representative of a nation. Sent to a foreign land, the ambassador’s role is to reflect the official position of the sovereign body that gave him authority. Writing to the Corinthians, Paul likens his own calling to that of an ambassador, and he urges all Christians to consider themselves ambassadors for Christ. The gospel of reconciliation was always at the heart of Paul’s preaching: “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel” 1 Corinthians 1:17.

Our reconciliation with God is possible only because Christ went to the cross and received the punishment due for our sin. When our Savior cried out, “It is finished,” the barrier between sinful man and Holy God was removed, making all those who trust in Him “holy in His sight, without blemish and free from accusation” Colossians 1:22. Our reconciliation is based on the salvation Jesus provides, and it is accepted by faith John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9.

Christians are God’s ambassadors in that they have been “approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel” 1 Thessalonians 2:4.

As we go through this world, we represent another Kingdom John 18:36, and it is our responsibility to reflect the “official position” of heaven.

We are in this world, but not of it John 17:16.

God’s ambassadors are to be “as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” Matthew 10:16

Empowered by the Holy Spirit, we must take the message of our King to the “ends of the earth” Acts 1:8, imploring men and women everywhere to be reconciled to God.

 

[Episaw]

Your a cessationalist? I am one myself

Sorry to hear you have deleted many things taught in scripture.

 

[Episaw]

1 Corinthians 13:8-10

"that which is perfect" refers to the completion of the bible. Some people will say it speaks of Jesus, but this is false and wrong. Jesus is not a "that" or an "it". It is talking about the gospel, "that which is perfect", then all those miracle gifts will cease.

Sorry mate but that which is perfect does not refer to the bible as it is still being revised because it is imperfect.

And if you care to pull your head out of the sand you will see miracles happening every day.

 

[Episaw]

Thanks for explaining this

Is the gift of Prophesy a miracle gift? and how was the gift of Prophesy used in the NT prior to the completion of the Bible...

The same as it is being used today, all over the world.

 

[JAL]

I said:

Tainted spectacles. You can't even SEE that your statement was an argument from experience. To claim, as you did (to paraphrase), that, 'Cessationism is correct doctrine because I don't see the gifts manifesting after the initial apostles died and still don't see them right now' is an argument from experience. That's simply what it is. It is not an analysis of what Paul actually wrote.

You responded.

I said nothing of the sort. Again you are disingenuously putting words into my mouth. But then such underhand techniques are only to be expected when people are desperately trying to uphold a discredited theological system. I said cessationist arguments are drawn from scripture and confirmed by history. Unlike charismatic eisogesis, there is no personal experience (or lack thereof) involved in any of my arguments.

You said nothing of the sort? Here's what you said;

The fact that history demonstrates that the miraculous and revelatory gifts did indeed cease is proof that the cessationist interpretation is correct.

I just took your words at face value. That's what you said. If that's not what you meant, then you'll need to be more clear.

 

[Episaw]

I'm a cessationist myself. The way God speaks to us today is primarily through His written word, and the Spirit's leading through the reading of it.

1 Corinthians 14 is an entirely relevant chapter for this thread's content.

Only because we won't let him speak to us in any other way. I find that God speaks to me in any one of seven different ways. I guess that happens when God is your father.

 

[swordsman1]

I think you missed the posts where I dismissed 'new revelation' as a meaningless term. (My earliest posts on this thread). ALL revelation is merely furrther clarification and exposition of original revelations given to Adam and subsequent revelations thereafter, by the very nature of the case. Paul didn't see himself as teaching anything new, for example. He cites the OT to prove that his teachings represent what the OT had already said.

Yes, you do seem to have a lot of unorthodox theories up your sleeve.

Duh. MOST Continuationist views persist the gifts UNTIL HEAVEN. How that does that fact support cessationism? Seems like you're struggling to make a show of discrediting all my citations, without having much to go on.

My point is they are hardly likely to say prophecy has ceased when they consider the gift to be inspired preaching. If they instead held the (now) commonly accepted view that prophecy was speaking new revelations I expect they would give it the same treatment as they did tongues.

This assessment is too superficial. I argued:
(1) Cessationists start off with a set of assumptions and assertions that I agree with.
(2) Then at the last moment they backpedal, drawing FINAL CONCLUSIONS that contradict their original assertions and assumptions.

You then follow up with, "See, you're misrepresenting them. Their FINAL CONCLUSIONS do not confirm your position." Duh. That's the whole point of 1 and 2. Otherwise they would be continuationists, not cessationists. Again, duh. You then go onto to cite entire articles to 'prove' that these cessationists did indeed teach cessationism. Golly - thanks! I would never have guessed! Conspicuously absent is a discussion of the actual words of those writers that I MYSELF cited of them. In your next post, could you perhaps try NOT wasting everyone's time? Ironically you then accuse ME of wasting everyone's time:

I do not agree with your assertion that they are 'backpedalling' so I quoted them more extensively so that others could judge their expositions for themselves rather than relying on your opinion and a couple of snippets.

 

[Episaw]

The Canon of scripture is closed, so there is no new prophecy today.

Sorry mate but you are talking through your hat.

 

[Episaw]

People often think prophesying or prophecy means predicting that some future event will happen. Prophecy does have its future fulfillment component because the gospel has a future aspect included in it, but prophecy is really about sharing the gospel, which is the word of God (The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy). The two witnesses in Rev 11 prophesy, and these 'two witnesses' are symbolic language for true believers generally. It means that the true believers share the gospel. If anyone rejects the gospel which they share, then the Bible uses the symbolic language of fire coming out of their mouths. This does not mean that literal fire comes out of their mouths but rather that the unsaved condition (judgment) is in store for those that reject the gospel. There appears to be a time period when the gospel is not heard in a saving way in the congregations (the congregations being called Jerusalem in Rev 11). It is a time when the true believers who have the true gospel are effectively dead to the congregations (Rev 11:8; the congregations cannot hear their true gospel in a saving way) - in the streets of Jerusalem (meaning the ways to walk in the Lord in respect to the congregations, not meaning Jerusalem on a map). This colors what might be meant by your question 'in the church today'. If you believe that God is still operating in the formal church congregations and that God is still being heard in a saving way there, then the true gospel is still to be used there effective to salvation. If you believe that the congregations of today have fallen away from the true gospel and rejected those true believers whom God sends to them, then the true gospel may be used but not heard there. Paul wrote: "Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." 'In the church' is a phrase here meaning 'among true believers', not necessarily a formal 'church event'. Paul is showing that the phrase 'unknown tongue' does not mean babbling in an alternative language. Rather, it means that the true believer shares the gospel but that the listeners are not saved and therefore they cannot receive the gospel being told. The gospel is in effect 'an unknown tongue' because of their spiritual condition. The solution is this: "Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret." The term 'interpret' here means that we pray that the hearer becomes converted and so can receive the message. At that point the message is no longer an unknown tongue to the hearer but becomes prophecy (the gospel), and that gospel can be received in their spirit unto edification. The term 'prophesy' in the Bible usually seems to involve the hearer being able to receive the message. Ezekiel and the dry bones is a good example: "Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD."
In this case as in most, prophesy means to have the hearer hear unto life and salvation. When the bones hear, figuratively speaking, life comes upon them.

Try using parpagraphs. Apart from being grammatically correct, it makes it easier to read.

 

[Episaw]

Two Views on the Sign Gifts: Continuity Vs. Discontinuity
Daniel B. Wallace

Quote
I belong to the latter group. That is, I believe in a sufficient amount of discontinuity to warrant speaking of the sign gifts as having ceased. I will argue, in fact, that every true Christian has to belong to this latter category to some degree. I will offer two theses below, followed by several specific arguments backing them up.

Thesis One: To the extent that we see discontinuity between the first century and the twentieth in terms of the sign gifts, to that extent we are cessationists.

Thesis Two: The more we see discontinuity, the more we affirm that the purpose of the sign gifts was authentication rather than a display of normative Christianity.

All Christians hold to some measure of discontinuity, just as all Christians hold to some measure of continuity. But that there is any discontinuity at all is most significant: it indicates the Spirit of God is not working in exactly the same way today as he was in the first century. If so, then we must immediately ask: How normative is the book of Acts? Indeed, how normative are the sign gifts?

1. The Argument from the Close of the Canon
Only the radical fringe thinks that Scripture is still being written.2 Virtually all cessationists and non-cessationists agree that Scripture ceased to be produced with the death of the last apostle. With the death of John, the canon closed. What is the significance of this? Three things: (1) It is evident that the Spirit of God no longer is inspiring people to write Scripture. Hence, there is a measure of discontinuity between the first century and the twentieth. (2) Much of Scripture is prophetic in nature. In the least, a certain kind of prophecy apparently ceased in the first century (the kind that was of universal value to the Church). So one cannot simply say that prophecy continues today just as it did in the first century. (3) Significantly, many folks say that the biblical argument for the cessation of the sign gifts is inadequate. Ironically, these same folks are adamant that Scripture ceased in the first century. Yet the biblical arguments that the sign gifts have ceased are stronger than the arguments that the canon is closed. There is a certain inconsistency in their position. To be consistent, they should either affirm both the sufficiency of Scripture and the cessation of the sign gifts, orthe inadequacy and incompleteness of Scripture and the continuation of the gifts. In fact, every time someone prophesies, they should have a discussion about whether such an utterance belongs in the Bible. That they don't do this implicitly argues that they, too, are in some measure cessationists.

Two Views on the "Sign Gifts": Continuity Vs. Discontinuity

The writer seems to equate prophecy with Scripture.

However, Scripture itself needs interpretation, explanation. commentary. Talmud is mostly commentary, explanation or expansion about Torah, Instruction.

That's why I say prophecy is explanation of Scripture.

You have different hermeneutical methods . And then, you have prophecy.

Depends on where you live. In none western countries, the supernatural is evidence of normal Christianity. In fact, without it you won't get anywhere.

 

[Episaw]

In the New Testament sense "prophecy" is probably better understood in the sense of "preaching" or "proclamation"; even in the Old Testament prophecy was about declaring the word of the Lord, rather than what we typically conceive of as "prophecy" (i.e. making predictions about the future, or conveying special revelation).

In that sense, then, the gift of prophecy has never ceased, because the Church has always preached God's word, that is one of the chief callings of the pastoral ministry--to preach the word of God.

As for "prophets" in the more "revolutionary" sense, there have always been people who challenged the powerful with the truth. The Russian Orthodox, for example, have a tradition of the yurodivy or holy fool, the West has sometimes also recognized certain "holy fools", for example St. Francis of Assisi who gave up wealth and all worldly possessions to follow a strict lifestyle of apostolic poverty, Francis is fondly remembered today, but in his own time he was a radical whose vocation was seen as threatening to the established social order. In more recent times we have the example of people such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther King, Jr.

But if by "prophet" we mean self-styled "prophets" going around claiming to have revelation from God, then no. That isn't something that exists in the Church.

-CryptoLutheran

Prophecy has nothing at all to do with preaching.

 

[Episaw]

In the New Testament sense "prophecy" is probably better understood in the sense of "preaching" or "proclamation"; even in the Old Testament prophecy was about declaring the word of the Lord, rather than what we typically conceive of as "prophecy" (i.e. making predictions about the future, or conveying special revelation).

In that sense, then, the gift of prophecy has never ceased, because the Church has always preached God's word, that is one of the chief callings of the pastoral ministry--to preach the word of God.

As for "prophets" in the more "revolutionary" sense, there have always been people who challenged the powerful with the truth. The Russian Orthodox, for example, have a tradition of the yurodivy or holy fool, the West has sometimes also recognized certain "holy fools", for example St. Francis of Assisi who gave up wealth and all worldly possessions to follow a strict lifestyle of apostolic poverty, Francis is fondly remembered today, but in his own time he was a radical whose vocation was seen as threatening to the established social order. In more recent times we have the example of people such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther King, Jr.

But if by "prophet" we mean self-styled "prophets" going around claiming to have revelation from God, then no. That isn't something that exists in the Church.

-CryptoLutheran

The pastoral ministry had nothing at all to do with preaching. The word pastor is Latin for shepherd. Shepherds don't preach. They care for the flock. And don't tell me they care for the flock by preaching as I can assure you that sheep do not grow and produce wool by being talked to.

 

[JAL]

That is a lousy comparison. The 'fruit of faith' is an ambiguous expression because of the number of different meanings of the words 'faith' and 'fruit'. There is no such ambiguity with "the apostles and prophets".

You're focusing on the wrong aspect of the comparison. The point is that the preposition 'of' can be, for example, possessive, but need not be.

The fact that other commentators also put words into Paul's mouth is no excuse for you doing so.

Not just other commentators. He pointed out that the majority of modern commentators read the verse the same way that I do. And it's not putting words in Paul's mouth. These scholars were merely reflecting on the various possible functions of the preposition 'of'. If you don't like the Greek language, your issue is with God, not with me.

 

[Episaw]

If a "prophecy" comes out wrong, than it was not from God and should be completely disregarded, as it was not a prophecy at all. And a person who claims such "prophecy" should be exhorted to repentance. If that person does not repent for a wrong prophecy, he or she needs to come under church discipline.

Prophecy is subject to the spirit of the prophet so it will come out wrong sometimes.