Question about Gift of Prophecy

[Episaw]

The Bible in discussing the gifts of the Spirit notes that prophets and prophecy is a gift. It tells us to seek the better gifts. Prophecy is not always predicting the future but telling forth Gods word. If you share scripture and speak them as the authoritative word of God you are being a prophet. As for people getting a word from God about the future sometimes a word of knowledge is a bit like prophecy. In the 70's when the Jesus people movement was getting its start a man named Chuck Smith was coming in to a small congregation that was on the verge of collapse. They had a prayer meeting and one stood up and said that Smith would come and be a pastor of pastors and that he would not like the set up of the stage and that they should let him set it up however he liked. Well Smith came and the 1st thing he noted was he did not like the stage. This discouraged group was given great encouragement by this word. Shortly after they started preaching to the youth and hippies and the Jesus movement was on. Smith died recently and he had become a pastor to over 5000 churches that came out of this work. This is an example of how today a word from God can come. We are to test those things and beware of any who seek to put themselves as the mediator or the only one who hears from God. The true prophet will never contradict what is already written in scripture.

Paragraphs please!!

 

[Episaw]

Yes, it's gone. No prophets speaking "The word of the LORD" in any church now. No new revelations from God. But a lot of people claiming to be prophets and seers and apostles and who knows what else. Just keep in mind that many false prophets are gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1).

No it hasn't. Plenty of prophets are speaking the word of the Lord in churches today.

You need to realise that the world is not how you would like it to be but as it really is.

 

[JoeP222w]

Sorry mate but you are talking through your hat.

Demonstrate, from scripture, where I am wrong.

 

[JoeP222w]

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

Can you show one Prophecy from the Bible that came out wrong because it was subject to the prophet?

 

[swordsman1]

Sorry that just doesn't work. If they are the foundation, and are forever removed from us, it results in a building without a foundation. Also, since Paul suggested that each new planted church needs a foundation laid, it doesn't make sense to postulate an ecclesiology devoid of apostles and prophets (if they are the foundation).

No, the apostles and prophets were the HISTORIC foundation of the church. Did you not notice the past tense in Eph 2:20? The Church was 'built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets'. It doesn't say "is being built" or "will be built". History doesn't change. The apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church. That is as true today as much as it was when Paul wrote it. And once a foundation is laid you don't lay another.

One thing you seem to have in common with most cessationists - you can't seem to make up your mind whether the foundation is:
(A) The apostles and prophets themselves OR
(B) Something laid down by them.

So the foundation is the teaching that they laid down, such as the NT? Ok, but then you also state:

So the teaching that they laid down is NOT the foundation? Isn't this the exact opposite of the previous assertion? I can't address a moving target. Please make up your mind.

I have a habit of falsely misrepresenting me. I made that comment in relation to Eph 4:11 not Eph 2:20! Yes their teaching was also foundational, but that is not what Eph 2:20 is referring to.

My own view seems more plausible - that the foundation of any new church being planted is Christ descending as a reviving outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

If Christ alone was the foundation, then Paul was lying in Eph 2:20.

 

[GingerBeer]

No it hasn't. Plenty of

Plenty of fake prophets are speaking a fake word of the lord in churches today. No real prophets. No one like Jeremiah or Isaiah and no one like John the Baptist or Peter the apostle. But there are lots and lots of false prophets around. Making predictions that never come true saying things that ought to be rejected as heresy and nonsense. Heaps of people passing themselves off as God's messengers when in fact all they are is people seeking fame and maybe fortune.

prophets are speaking the word of the Lord in churches today.

You need to realise that the world is not how you would like it to be but as it really is.

 

[LostMarbels]

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

WOW!.... Is that scriptural?

Does God condone false, or errant prophecy? And the profit is beholden to his own spirit?

Your scriptural basis?

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.

And in that flippant response, you judge those you're responding to as not being children of God? By whose authority do you make such a judgment?

Sorry mate but you are talking through your hat.

What if any value at all, does this comment have in this conversation?

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.

Supernatural? “Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.”

1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 4Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 5They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 6We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

How about you explain "supernatural".

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.

Can you scripturally back up your currently, unsubstantiated, subjective opinion on this matter?

Paragraphs please!!

Your arrogance is astounding.... You are just all that, aren't you? And a bag of chips. Pride much?

Ask your father how he feels about such judgmental boasting. You feel you are so vastly superior you need to denigrate a post to meet your high standards?

 

[swordsman1]

The gospels are FULL of charismatic allusions. Are your spectacles really that tainted? Is it really possible for a student of Scripture to be that blind? Luke is probably the most charismatic of them all, but let's just look at Mark 1. ONE CHAPTER. Verse 1 begins like this:

“I will send my messenger ahead of you" (a reference understood to possibly refer to the PROPHET Elijah but at least here to the PROPHET John the Baptist). So in this first verse prophethood is already alluded to. Need I continue? Moving on to verse 8:

"I baptize you withe water, but he will baptize you withf the Holy Spirit.”

You have created a strawman argument. We were not talking about charismatic "allusions", which you regard as anything miraculous that Jesus did. We are talking about the scriptures that refer to the charismatic gifts, you know prophecy, tongues etc, given to the Church and whether a new Christian reading the NT would conclude those gifts have ceased.

 

[swordsman1]

then (when we fully know) we shall know even as also I am known. can you look at yourself with surety and say "yeah, I exist, no question about it" that's the level of understanding he's talking about. if someone meets you, they can't argue your existence, you yourself can acknowledge your own existence without argument or doubt. your existence can not be debated. mind you also he used the word "fully". if I had a cup that was 99% full, it is not full, it is partial. in order for it to be full means there is no empty space inside. when you eat, if you eat too much, you get full and can't fit anymore. full means complete, no room for anything else. he uses the words complete, perfect and full to describe this stage, none of these words are partial in any way. so the question still remains, only with more qualifiers, those being perfect, complete and fully. these are the words used to describe it, anything else is not in the text.

When Paul speaks of 'knowing' he isn't talking about general knowledge, or knowledge of the scriptures, he is referring to revelatory knowledge (revealed doctrine). The spiritual gift of 'word of knowledge' (v8) was "in part" (v9) and would cease when 'completeness comes' (v10) and be replaced by a full revelatory knowledge (v12).

 

[LostMarbels]

@swordsman1

Excuse me, please. I have responded to a post you responded to, and addressed a post of yours. Neither of which have been responded back to in kind. You may have missed my posts in your attempts to respond to the multible posts others have made, so I am linking them. If you wish to continue the conversation I am most definitely looking forward to your response. Thank you for your time.

Question about Gift of Prophecy

Question about Gift of Prophecy

 

[Senkaku]

When Paul speaks of 'knowing' he isn't talking about general knowledge, or knowledge of the scriptures, he is referring to revelatory knowledge (revealed doctrine). The spiritual gift of 'word of knowledge' (v8) was "in part" (v9) and would cease when 'completeness comes' (v10) and be replaced by a full revelatory knowledge (v12).

I'm not dealing with knowledge here, as that can also be debated, considering the context of this passage is about love, gifts and maturity and not the written Word of God. the knowledge here could be anything. it could be sourced by the gifts, learned by maturity, revelation, etc. what is clear is the description we have of the time frames, that's what I'm dealing with. since he describes it clearly, it's not something complicated to understand. His example is clear, don't get caught up in the vague things that we can only barely interpret, pay attention to what has been given that is clear.

this is literally the only passage that specifically deals with the gifts ceasing and it's not even all the gifts, only 3 of them. its only like 5 verses of 13 that deal with this, it shouldn't be that hard to understand. 13 verses in total, context is clear; love, maturity and gifts, no written Word of God here unless you imply it. We have a clear description of the time frame. Paul gave us a clear illustration with qualifying absolute words. those 3 specific gifts (if you want to get super specific) will cease as a side effect of reaching the moment where we know fully, completely, known just as clear and undeniable as your existence, it is not the other way around. I feel like people are reading this backwards, it is not saying here that "because gifts have ceased (as I perceive it) then that means we have reached the perfect", that's not what is being said here, at all....anything beyond this is implied, opinionated and denominational.

 

[swordsman1]

Of course what is in part disappears. If I prophesied in part yesterday and, having matured, can now prophesy at a higher level, why would I continue to prophesy in part? And yes, the prophecies that I spoke yesterday have come to a cease, I certainly don't want to go back there, now that I've matured to prophesying maturely. You conveniently continue to ignore the cessationist statements I cited in support of this interpretation.

Oh, so every time a prophet finishes making a prophecy, this is what Paul is referring to when he says 'prophecies, they will cease'? What a ludicrous interpretation. You really are plumbing the depths of incredulity! It is not surprising your bizarre theory doesn't even come onto the radar of the scholars who have commented on this passage. It can safely be consigned to the theological dustbin. It deserves no further comment.

 

[swordsman1]

"When I became a man, I put away childish things" (1Cor 13:11). The cessationist claim is that the 'childish' things put away upon maturity are the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge, superseded by exegesis as MATURE knowledge. This implies that the prophetic anointing (such as Christ and Paul had), afforded childish knowledge. The position is a contradiction in terms, for starters, because if Paul (et. al.) wrote the gospels and epistles informed by childish/immature knowledge, then even the NT canon is childish/immature knowledge. Secondly, it insinuates that the holders of the canon have mature knowledge compared to Christ's childish prophetic anointing, which sounds like heresy to me. Thirdly the position is totally ludicrous. To suggest that fallible exegesis has more potential than infallible prophetic revelation to provide mature knowledge is so absurd and self-contradictory that only a preconceived agenda would even attempt to go there.

You are wrong yet again. Name one cessationist who says the gift of prophecy is childish. You are clearly oblivious to various cessationist arguments. The cessationist claim is that the CHURCH matures, not knowledge.

 

[swordsman1]

Huh, 'then', as in latter or future event. Not now but 'then'.

Yes, future as in sometime after Paul's writing.

At the point in time where we stand before God, "Face to face", all spiritual gifts will cease,

It doesn't say being face to face "before God" in 1 Cor 13:12. Seeing 'face to face' is referring to the analogy of a mirror. Before 'completeness' came prophecies were like looking at someone in a dim mirror - they only provided a partial picture of God's revelation to man. But afterwards the replacement would be like seeing someone 'face to face' - we would see God's revelation to man in a far clearer and complete way.

 

[swordsman1]

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.

But we don't call ambassadors 'apostles', we call them ambassadors. The word 'apostle' in the New Testament was used as a technical term for a first century, divinely appointed, eye witness of Christ's resurrection, miracle working, authoritative, apostle. Out of the 88 times the word 'apostle' appears in the NT it is used in this sense in all of them (apart from once where it refers to Christ in Heb 3:1). If the bible scholars who interpret our bibles saw this word as being an ambassador or a missionary in Eph 2:20 or Eph 4:11 they would have used those words, not the word we commonly associate with the twelve, Paul and a possibly a handful of others.

 

[swordsman1]

I said:

You responded.

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

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.

You didn't read my post properly and you quoted it out of context. I said:

Cessationism is firmly grounded in scripture. The fact that history demonstrates that the miraculous and revelatory gifts did indeed cease is proof that the cessationist interpretation is correct.​

And restated:

cessationist arguments are drawn from scripture and confirmed by history.​

I made no mention of my personal experience, nor is any involved.

 

[JAL]

No, the apostles and prophets were the HISTORIC foundation of the church. Did you not notice the past tense in Eph 2:20? The Church was 'built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets'. It doesn't say "is being built" or "will be built". History doesn't change. The apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church. That is as true today as much as it was when Paul wrote it. And once a foundation is laid you don't lay another.

Um...except you do. For example every time a company adds a new building, expanding into a new region, a new foundation must be laid. Which is precisely how Paul described it (Rom 15:20). And the
past tense is a moot point, for to speak of a company "built on the foundation of concrete" (past tense) won't stop them from adding new buildings/foundations later on.

I have a habit of falsely misrepresenting me. I made that comment in relation to Eph 4:11 not Eph 2:20! Yes their teaching was also foundational, but that is not what Eph 2:20 is referring to.

Ok so the apostles and prophets THEMSELVES are the foundation. Again, doesn't work. If the foundation is GONE, then the building is collapsed or at least unstable. Your attempt to sustain a doctrine of expired apostleship - a notion that PAUL NEVER TAUGHT - is shattering Paul's building-based analogy. It's forced exegesis. No such conflict arises if you simply accept unqualified continuationism.

If Christ alone was the foundation, then Paul was lying in Eph 2:20.

That's silly. Christ IS the foundation of Eph 2:20, laid down by the apostles and prophets (1Cor 3:10-11), which is pretty much the majority view among modern scholars (well they might say that the 'gospel' rather than 'Christ' is the foundation but it's not a monumental distinction).

 

[JAL]

You are wrong yet again. Name one cessationist who says the gift of prophecy is childish. You are clearly oblivious to various cessationist arguments. The cessationist claim is that the CHURCH matures, not knowledge.

Ok you tell me. In the immediate context, what is Paul referring to in regard to the putting away of childish things?
"When I became a man, I put away childish things" (1Cor 13:11).

 

[JAL]

The unique historical narratives in Acts can not be taken as being didactic.

Time to discuss Acts. Luke-Acts defined evangelism as prophetic utterance. Two scholarly books on this are:
(1). The Prophethood of all Believers, by Roger Stronstad.
(2). Mighty in Word and Deed: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts, by James Shelton.

Below I'll mix their arguments with my own. (Obviously I can't cover all the arguments found in the two books).
(1) An evangelist needs to know with 100% certainty where to preach, when to preach, and what to preach, because too many souls are at stake for inferior evangelism. 100 billion people have existed to date.
(2) Self-evidently, evangelism is most effective when 100% certainty is transmitted to the audience.
(3) Jesus promised His apostles an outpouring of power for WITNESSING (Acts 1:8). Since the Holy Spirit was helping them to talk, isn't that prophecy? Certainly. Thus for example, “it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you” (Mat 10:20).
(4) The gospels including Luke-Acts were written after the OT tradition - which emphasized prophets.
(5) The first evangelist introduced in the gospels was the PROPHET John the Baptist understood to succeed the PROPHET Elijah (Lk 1:17).
(6) The expression "filled with the Spirit" is exclusive to Luke-Acts, about 14 times, save one mention by Paul. These fillings usually issued speeches reminiscient of the Spirit of prophecy falling upon OT saints. Also sundry outpourings in Luke-Acts, even when the word 'filled' isn't present, issue speeches, after the OT paradigm.
(7) Throughout the OT, marching out into battle without a clear sign from heaven (a sign presumably conferring 100% certainty) was foolish. Naturally, then, the saints in Acts defer evangelism, waiting in prayer until convincing signs appear (earthquakes, tongues of fire, mighty rushing wind, angels, dreams, visions, etc).
(8) With so many souls at stake, it was imperative for Acts to lay down, at the very outset of the book, the best possible strategy for evangelism. The strategy seen from Pentecost onward is simple: Prayer outpours a prophetic anointing for evangelism. Luke is the ONLY writer to record Christ's promise, "How much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him" (Lk 11:13). He was the ONLY writer to tie Christ's own prophetic anointing to prayer (Lk 3:21). In fact Luke has more verses on prayer than any NT writer. Moreover Pentecost was NOT the "gift of tongues" (as there was no interpreter) but rather PROPHECY, thus revealing prophecy's supernatural ability to overcome language barriers. After all, Peter deemed Pentecost a fullfilment of Joel's promised last-days prophetic anointings.
(9) Joel's promise says not, "They MIGHT prophesy" but rather "They SHALL prophesy". Any Christian who hasn't prophesied, therefore, has yet to partake of the evangelistic anointing of Acts. Promised land isn't always automatic. Typically one must go up and appropriate it. Thus even though Joel's promise is AVAILABLE to all believers (Acts 2:39), it is incumbent on them to obtain the Spirit of prophecy (via prayer).
(10) Forms of the word 'witness' appear some 120 times in the NT and parallel English usage. A witness in court, for example, is someone who has seen and heard a reality IN SUFFICIENT PROXIMITY AND CLARITY to accurately and reliably testify about it. Seen and heard what? Christ!!! "Ye shall be MY witnesses" (Acts 1:8).If the risen Christ has never appeared to a person face to face, he or she is not a witness of Christ, nor a witness of His resurrection. Thus Acts refers to the PROPHETS as witnesses (Acts 10:43). Two decisive passages define Paul's ongoing ministry as a witness in terms of him relaying to others things seen and heard from Christ. Thus God’s plan was that Paul visibly “see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard” (22:14-15). And again, “I have appeared [visibly and audibly] unto thee [Paul] for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in which I will [later] appear unto thee” (26:16). Verses alluding to being witnesses of Christ's resurrection include Lk 1:2; Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 4:33; 5:32; 10:39, 40-41; 13:31; 14:3; 23:11. Christ could very well have limited Himself to the term 'evangelist'. Instead He added the term 'witness'. Was He trying to mislead us? Is He an incompetent instructor? Or did He mean it literally? Clearly, He meant it literally. In both testaments, prophets saw Christ face to face. And since a prophet is the ideal evangelist, it only made sense for Him to characterize such an evangelist as a witness. "The testimony (witness in the Greek)of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy" (Rev 19:10).

 

[swordsman1]

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.

Seeing as that commentary you quoted from was published in 1897 it is hardly up to date. I will look up some modern commentaries of Eph 2:20 and post them here in due course and we shall see whether they agree with your interpretation of this passage.