You're not a prophet? Then you're not mature!

A_Thinker said:

Once again, Paul speaks much more holistically than you do. He certainly encompasses the whole of the Christian experience in his teachings (i.e. justification, sanctification, and glorification). He also focuses much more on other elements of spirituality rather than just on giftedness.

As a general note ... God speaks to men (and women). That God does so does not automatically make those men (and women) prophets ... or even apostles.

God spoke to Adam/Eve.
He spoke to Cain.
He spoke to Beshazzar, king of Persia.
He spoke to Judas.

Were any of these prophets/apostles ?

Click to expand...

You're responding to a caricature of my view. Ignored.

A_Thinker said:

Moses didn't live a particularly virtuous life.

He didn't start following God until he was 80 ...

Click to expand...

This isn't a debate about the early part of his life. It's a debate about the constituent parts of his later maturity. Num 12 makes it perfectly clear that his superlative degree of direct revelation was closely bound up with his sanctified character.

But you don't believe Numbers 12 - and you certainly don't believe Paul. You still haven't provided a plausible definition of the solid food germane to 1Cor 3, nor have you addressed my arguments based on chapter 13. And why should you? Much easier to create caricatures of my position and then knock down those strawmen.

A_Thinker said:

Then ... it's not a gift.

Nothing in the scriptures indicates that any spiritual gifts are "awards" ... which is why the very spiritually immature Corinthian christians possessed an array of them.

Click to expand...

Firstly, you conveniently ignored the latter part of that post indicating an ambiguity in the word gift.

Secondly, the Corinthians were spiritually immature. Therefore they are not a counterexample to my thesis. Right? Again, my thesis is: (1) All mature men are prophets.
You're objecting to, (2) "All prophets are mature" - but I have continually disavowed #2.

Thirdly, whence the apodictic, "Nothing in the scriptures indicates that any spiritual gifts are "awards"'? But nothing in Scripture rules it out either. This is the argument from silence, viz, 'If you can't prove YOUR position, then MINE is true by default." And in fact it's not even silence. Num 12 makes it pretty clear that Moses' superlative degree of revelation (his level of giftedness) was AWARDED to his excellency of character. Like I said before, it's pretty clear that you don't believe Num 12.

A_Thinker said:

Jesus referenced a lot of scripture, so, obviously, scriptural study has its place.

OTOH, Joseph Smith cried out to God for direct revelation (according to his testimony) ... and we ended up with the Mormons ...

Click to expand...

Well then, I guess we can't trust direct revelation. It's not reliable. Too bad. I guess we'd better throw out our bible, since it was written by direct revelation.

Sorry, but to avoid self-contradiction, you'll need to do better than that. You've raised an important epistemological issue. I've provided a coherent epistemology on another thread.

A_Thinker said:

It doesn't work that way.

The idea that gifts are awards is a contention of yours. YOU must find adequate scriptural support for your contention.

Click to expand...

But you keep ignoring Num 12. Convenient, right? Again, your position is NOT the default. There is no burden of proof on me.

A_Thinker said:

So ... Mary was a prophet ?
Job was a prophet ?
Zacharias was a prophet ?
Elizabeth was a prophet ?
Dorcas was a prophet ?
Esther was a prophet ?
Ruth was a prophet ?

Click to expand...

I don't believe this. I just wrote about 5 posts in the last few minutes explaining why this objection is based upon the converse of my position.

Do you have any objections to MY position? When you do, I'll be happy to reply.

@A_Thinker,

The irony of the way you ignore Num 12 is that it seems clearly echoed in the discussion of maturity at 1Cor 13:8-12, as some scholars have noted.

"For we [in our immaturity] know only in part, and prophesy only in part, but when maturity comes, the immature disappears..For now [in our immaturity] we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then [in maturity] we shall see [God] face to face" (13:9-12).

Thus the mature see God face to face just like Moses did. Actually I can prove this fact logically without recourse to Scripture. Here too, Scripture is just icing on the cake. I could show you that logic, but why bother? From what I've seen, you'll probably just ignore the arguments.

Heck even the immature see God's face, just too distantly/vaguely to even realize it's on their horizon. For example Gordon Fee considered 2Cor 3:18 to be an undeniable literal beholding of Christ by all believers. Calvin can be cited here too, as well as Vincent, and others.

The difference, then, between the mature and immature? One is this - the mature REALLY see God's face (see John 5:37), not unrecognizably/unwittingly in the far distance but actually face to face like Moses did.

@A_Thinker,

What do you think of blindnesss? Is that a healthy condition? A desirable condition? Normative? When Scripture characterizes someone as somewhat blind to the things of God, it would mean:
(1) He is probably an unbeliever.
(2) Or perhaps a believer but certainly not a mature believer. Blindness is NOT normative. It's unhealthy.

Right? I believe so. Now let's extrapolate further. The mature are not blind. They can see both God and angels.

When Isaiah saw God face to face in the temple, what was his immediate reaction? He suddenly realized that all his fellow believers were spiritually blind!

Now for the argument. When Elisha's servant couldn't see the angels of God (the armies of God), Elisha characterized him as spiritually blind. "Open his eyes, Lord, that he may see."

Do you see the point? A healthy, mature Christian (a Christian who is not spiritually blind) will see the same kinds of visions that prophets see. Effectively, this makes him a prophet (a seer) because seer means see-er of visions.

That's further evidence that spiritual maturity/health coincides with prophetic maturity.

But you seem to care little about the evidence. "I'm already convinced. Don't confuse me with the facts!"

A_Thinker said:

The Apostles received EVERYTHING by direct revelation (i.e. from Christ Himself).

Click to expand...

Excellent point. The apostles abounded in direct revelation. Note Paul's definition of a church (all other definitions are man-made):

"And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues" ( 12:28).

The leaders of the church are apostles and prophets - people who abounded in direct revelation. Now whom does God appoint as leaders? The most mature? Or the most immature? Here too, as everywhere, there is a clear association between spiritual maturity and superlative revelation.

@A_Thinker,

Paul's petition for the Ephesians provides a few tidbits of further confirmation of my position:

"I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints" (1:17-18).

How are to we to know God better, i .e. how are we to mature? Primarily by seminary? Principally by tons and tons of exegesis? Paul doesn't seem to think so. He's focused on direct revelation. To what end? Eradication of blindness!

Notice the words "know the hope". How can you really know the nature of our eternal hope? How can you really know what heaven is actually going to be like? You've got to see and experience it for yourself - in visions! Take the whole book of Revelation for example, or consider Paul's anecdote about being caught up to the third heaven in "surpassing revelations". Or Abraham who "looked forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God" (Heb 11). How exactly did Abraham manage to envisage that city? Simple. He was a prophet - he saw it in visions just like he saw God face to face!

Maturity, then, means you'll see the same kinds of visions seen by the prophets. That means you'll be a seer (a prophet) - a see-er of visions.

@A_Thinker,

A perennial insanity in traditional preaching is the notion that walking in faith entails leaps of faith - a kind of blind faith - that steps out on dangerous waters despite some degree of uncertainty as to whether it is the appropriate course of action.

Admittedly, since conscience is authoritative, you are obligated to step out in uncertainty whenever your conscience absolutely demands such of you - but only then. But to recommend potentially dangerous leaps of faith as a general best-practice is total insanity. A rational God cannot sanction irrational behavior.

And yet Hebrews 11:1 is oft-adduced in 'support' of said ideology. It's actually teaching the opposite. Faith there isn't uncertainty - it is an absolute certainty based on having seen and heard the unseen realm (notably God Himself) in revelatory visions.

First of all, faith is not a substance contrary to the KJV translation (the Greek word there can mean either substance or certainty) because I can't pour you a glass of faith. Faith is a state of mind. The proper translation, then, is:

"Faith is the confident assurance of things hoped for, the certainty about things unseen [by the spiritually blind]" (Heb 11:1).

Let's consider some examples, shall we? I already mentioned verse 10 where Abraham's faith was based on his visions of the heavenly city. At verse 27, Moses' faith was based on seeing He who is unseen. Look at verse 7, "By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen". That warning was by direct revelation - which formed in his mind a clear mental picture (a vision) of the ark and impending rain. In their lifetime these men did not receive the eternal things promised but only saw them from a distance (vs 13) - in visions!

How is this relevant? Maturity is all about faith. But the biblical definition of mature faith - enough already of man-made definitions - is grounded in the kinds of direct revelations definitive of prophethood. You cannot be mature, by biblical standards, without being a prophet.

A_Thinker said:

The Biblical definition of a prophet is one who forth-tells. You cannot be a prophet if you do not perform this role.

Click to expand...

I read this to quickly and edited this post. I thought you said 'foretells'.

Are you saying that my association of copious revelation with maturity might be correct, except perhaps he doesn't share his revelations with anyone? He keeps it all to himself? Given that evangelism is prophetic utterance, I can't fathom why God wouldn't want to use such a man to save people, but if you insist, that's a compromise I can diplomatically entertain in this debate.

And yet, you can still be spiritually mature.

Click to expand...

Without copious revelation? Man-made assertion without any proof. I've provided plenty of Scripture to refute that assumption, about 90% of it ignored by you. And I can even refute it on a purely logical basis without recourse to Scripture. But why should I? You won't even address Scripture.



You don't much care what Paul's definition of maturity is. You've already formed your own.

And why should this surprise me? The churches of today are not aligned with Paul's definition of a church as given at 1Cor 12:28. They've formed their own definition. But will they admit, for one moment, that such isn't Paul's definition? Never!

Why should I expect you to treat Paul any differently than all these churches?

You are making the mistake (as did the Corinthians ... of focusing upon one particular calling/gift ... to the exclusion of others.

Click to expand...

Nope. It's funny how you keep saying that 'it's all a mistake' while remaining silent on my key arguments developed at 1Cor 2 and 13. (Sigh) For the millionth time, I'm not 'excluding' anything. There may indeed be multiple other charismata involved in maturity. That's not my main concern. At minimum there will be copious amounts of direct revelation. THAT'S my core concern. And if 1Cor 13:8-12 has anything to say about maturity, there will specifically be what Paul refers to as 'prophesying' (to use HIS terminology).

The Corinthians were more excited about the gift of speaking in tongues, and had become divided over who had the gift ... and who didn't have the gift, among other things. Paul used his first letter to the Corinthians ... to instruct/corral them onto a better path.

Click to expand...

Where was all this recorded? You mean in that same chapter where Paul, at verse 1, prioritized prophecy above all the other 'spiritual things' and associated it with direct revelation? Is that the chapter you are referring to?

Your logic is atrocious. It's completely non-sequitur. It goes like this:
(1) Paul pointed out some defects in the way the Corinthians were handling the gift of tongues.
(2) Therefore the primacy of prophecy cannot possibly be true.
Huh? Clearly point #2 isn't an implicate of #1. So why do you keep bringing it up?

What's hilarious about that is even the leading Pentecostal theologian Howard Ervin (a big fan of the gift of tongues) admitted that Paul asserted the supremacy of prophecy over tongues (unless of course there's an interpretation, which is thereby what I would call prophecy, and Paul concurs).

"I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified" (14:5).

This parallels the command expressed at 12:31, "eagerly desire the greater gifts." How does that NOT support my thesis? This is bewildering.

A rough outline of the letter is presented below ...

Click to expand...

Sorry rough outlines don't clearly address Paul's specific points. That's not sufficient here.

...So, out of 16 chapters of the Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, we have (2) mentionings of prophecy....

Click to expand...

Funny how you glossed over 13:8-12. I mean, you've only had, say, 175 opportunities on this thread to address it, right?

You also skated lightly over the discussion of solid food in chapters 2 and 3, where Paul identified premium direct revelation as a mark of distinction between the immature
Corinthian babes vs mature apostles like himself - and Chrysostom confirmed this reading.

This is what I mean when I say that Paul's ministry is holistic in nature. He doesn't just focus on one issue, ... but addresses the needs of the church in a variety of areas.

Click to expand...

(Sigh). Strawman. For the 15-millionth time, my definition of maturity doesn't EXCLUDE any of these holistic aspects. At core, it merely asserts that premium revelation will always be present as ONE of the aspects of maturity.

I'm not terribly focused on those other aspects in this discussion. That's doesn't mean I EXCLUDED them. As a matter of fact,I've probably asserted at least 20 times that the other aspects will TEMPORALLY COINCIDE with superlative revelation. (I challenge anyone to do a search on this thread for the words 'temporally' and 'coincide').

Why do you keep erecting a strawman that I've repudiated at least 20 times? Clearly, that's all you've got.

A_Thinker said:

As to Numbers 12, to which you have consistently alluded, ... God does affirm the effective servant-hood of Moses here, in defense of accusations against him by his sister Miriam and brother Aaron. But I don't understand how such supports your contention ... that one MUST be a prophet to be spiritually mature.

Click to expand...

Because I find it impossible to believe that a person who receives copious amounts of revelation will never share any of them with others. The church need instruction, direction, evangelists, encouragement, etc. But again,I'm willing to compromise diplomatically on this aspect of the debate.

...I would propose that the key is spiritual intimacy with God, which occurs in many ways, ... through study of the scriptures, prayer, fellowship with the brethren, faithful service, and yes, at times, through direct revelation from God (which will never contradict His prior revelation)...

Click to expand...

(Sigh) Again, I'm not excluding ANY of those things. I'm merely pointing out that no one reaches maturity - BY PAULS' STANDARDS OF MATURITY - without premium revelation. You're telling me you can know God intimately face to face as Moses did, without premium revelation? You do realize that's a contradiction in terms right? Because such a face-to-face experience would only be an EXAMPLE of premium revelation. Thus my position is fundamentally tautological (I love tautologies, and most of my doctrine is based on them).

Are we actually going to sit here and continue debating a tautology?

...John said that we always test such direct revelation ... to confirm (or not) that it is of God.

Click to expand...

You conveniently overlook that John's test for false revelation - was direct revelation! He says nothing about exegesis there. Here's his advice to those trying to lead us astray:

"I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him" (1Jn 2).

In other words, if someone comes along contradicting that which the Inward Witness already taught you by direct revelation, you should reject it. You might object, but how then do we recognize the Inward Witness? Again, I have a whole thread dedicated to epistemology.

I would argue that such revelation is more often the exception, rather than the norm, in the believer's life....

Click to expand...

Thanks for your man-made opinion. Unfortunately it flatly contradicts the description of maturity provided at 1Cor 2:10-16 and Numbers 12 to name a few.

... Which would explain why such revelations are presented in the scriptures as a gifting...

Click to expand...

Conveniently overlooking the point made in the OP (and a dozen times since) that Paul's larger classification for the charismata was not spiritual gifts but spiritual things. Was Paul trying to mislead the Corinthians? He called them immature/unspiritual. How was he going to correct that? He gave them a list of 'spiritual things' (see 12:1 and 14:1 which omit the words 'gifts') and classified prophecy as chief priority among them (14:1).

The LAST thing that Paul wanted to do was mislead them. His choice of terminology insinuates a strong link between what they NEEDED TO MATURE (they needed to become spiritual) and prophecy. Why this choice of terminology if my thesis isn't correct? Is Paul a lousy instructor? Is God a horrible pedagogue?

... rather than the typical occurrence.

Click to expand...

Premium revelation isn't supposed to be the norm? But that's just a man-made assumption! Why should I believe you? For the moment, I'll follow Paul.

This explains how some servants of God we read of in scripture, ... are presented as shining examples of those who are close to God, ... though they are not presented as those having the calling/gift of prophecy. We all have our God-given role(s).

Click to expand...

This is sort of like entering a corporation at the lowest rung of the ladder. Is that where you want to stay? Paul commanded us to "eagerly desire the greater gifts"(12:31) and "especially the gift of prophecy" (14:1).

@A_Thinker,
I thought you said 'fore-telling' instead of forth-telling.
I'm making some edits.
I