Epistemology and Prophetic Status

[topher694]

ok. So by this line of reasoning, are you're indicating that if we are indeed a true prophet of God we'll only "know" this fact after we've prophesied but not before?

Or do you mean something else?

Well that would be a requirement at some point in the process, wouldn't it? But, I'm more referring to those who give advice but have no qualifications to give such advice... not pointing fingers, just wondering.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well that would be a requirement at some point in the process, wouldn't it?

Personally where the concept of prophetic status is concerned, I lean toward the direction of the adage "know before you go ..." But I could be wrong.

But, I'm more referring to those who give advice but have no qualifications to give such advice... not pointing fingers, just wondering.

Sure, I agree. But I'm not giving advice here. I'm questioning.

Secondly, who in the Church is qualified to say that another person isn't qualified to say?

 

[topher694]

Personally where the concept of prophetic status is concerned, I lean toward the direction of the adage "know before you go ..." But I could be wrong.



Sure, I agree. But I'm not giving advice here. I'm questioning.

Secondly, who in the Church is qualified to say that another person isn't qualified to say?

The spirit of prophecy is subject to Prophets. You learn to be prophetic by being around prophetic people and prophetic teaching. If you want to produce prophetic fruit you have to be planted in prophetic soil.

 

[Clare73]

The question for this thread is straightforward and simple:

Keeping the concept of Epistemology in mind which has to do with the way(s) we justify our claims of knowledge, how and by what method does a Christian "know" when he or she qualifies as, or has been given the status of, an authentic prophet or prophetess from God ?

There is a test for a prophet. . .if what he says does or does not occur.

 

[topher694]

There is a test for a prophet. . .if what he says does or does not occur.

Nope, that's not the test

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There is a test for a prophet. . .if what he says does or does not occur.

Ok. So then, if you predict something and it comes to pass then that means you're a prophet?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The spirit of prophecy is subject to Prophets. You learn to be prophetic by being around prophetic people and prophetic teaching. If you want to produce prophetic fruit you have to be planted in prophetic soil.

Ok. In my attempt to understand what you're saying, I'm thinking that if I want to become a prophet I don't have to wait for God to show up in person and authorize me to be His prophet. Instead, I can simply hang out with those Christians who are already prophets and then I, too, can become a prophet. Is this right?

 

[Clare73]

Ok. So then, if you predict something and it comes to pass then that means you're a prophet?

Well I guess not. . .that test reveals only false prophets.

Picky, picky. . .

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well I guess not, that test reveals only false prophets.

Picky, picky. . .

No one has mentioned 'false prophets' in relation to epistemology yet in this thread. But now that you bring it up...

 

[Clare73]

No one has mentioned 'false prophets' in relation to epistemology yet in this thread. But now that you bring it up...

Do I get a gold star for such penetrating insight?

Post #4?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do I get a gold star for such penetrating insight?

Post #4?

Yes, in a way it's alluded to in post #4. But he didn't actually use the qualifier 'false'; and even if he did refer to inauthentic prophesying, it wasn't inferred in relation to one's own, personal epistemology.

 

[topher694]

Ok. In my attempt to understand what you're saying, I'm thinking that if I want to become a prophet I don't have to wait for God to show up in person and authorize me to be His prophet. Instead, I can simply hang out with those Christians who are already prophets and then I, too, can become a prophet. Is this right?

Not exactly.

1) God should call you to the office personally in some way.

2) Being called is not the same as being commissioned.

3) Connecting with a prophetic ministry will help train you and grow you and IF you are truly called to the office other prophetic or apostolic voices will eventually confirm what you heard in #1 and commission you.

Note: #3 can look very different from person to person and ministry to ministry.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, in a way it's alluded to in post #4. But he didn't actually use the qualifier 'false'; and even if he did refer to inauthentic prophesying, it wasn't inferred in relation to one's own, personal epistemology.

Picky. . .picky. . .

 

[public hermit]

Not exactly.

1) God should call you to the office personally in some way.

2) Being called is not the same as being commissioned.

3) Connecting with a prophetic ministry will help train you and grow you and IF you are truly called to the office other prophetic or apostolic voices will eventually confirm what you heard in #1 and commission you.

Note: #3 can look very different from person to person and ministry to ministry.

I've never seen the distinction between being called to be a prophet and being commissioned, but it certainly has parallels in some traditional models of ordination. Do you think there are scriptural models of prophets that fit the distinction? Who might be one? Jeremiah, maybe?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Picky. . .picky. . .

I am rather picky.

In fact, I'm so analytically picky, I can say that I "know" that I'm not a prophet of God. And I often wonder about those individuals today who claim that they "are."

 

[topher694]

I've never seen the distinction between being called to be a prophet and being commissioned, but it certainly has parallels in some traditional models of ordination. Do you think there are scriptural models of prophets that fit the distinction? Who might be one? Jeremiah, maybe?

Samuel and Elisha are good examples. All of the original Apostles and Paul as well.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

Epistemology happens to be one of my pet areas of interest.

Even in OT times, we have no idea how many people claimed to be, or thought they were, prophets of God but were never recognized or accepted as such by the Israelites. Ditto for today.

Self-understanding is clearly not an adequate epistemology. Far too many characters across history have sincerely thought they were inspired by or speaking for God but clearly were not, as demonstrated by their unbiblical theology or the failure of their ostensible prophecies. I'd go so far as to say that self-understanding is more typically the road to Satanic deception and self-delusion.

To understand the epistemology of a genuine prophet would, I believe, require one to be a genuine prophet. I believe there is a genuine "knowing" to which those of us who aren't prophets can't relate. We can, however, recognize the delusional pseudo-prophets by their unbiblical theology or the failure of their prophecies - that's our epistemology. (Plenty of prophecies and predictions that didn't even pretend to be from God have proven accurate, so I think a genuine prophet of God is one who speaks both biblically and accurately.)

My guess would be that for a genuine prophet there is a "sensus prophetatis" that corresponds to the sensus divinitatis. (It's probably considerably more tangible than a mere "sensus," but you get the idea.)

There is a fascinating old book called When Prophecy Fails that deals with a UFO cult. The authors demonstrated that when the Great Arrival failed to occur as prophesied, large numbers of the cult members remained in the cult and simply shifted to Plan B. False prophets will always have their followers, in Christianity and elsewhere, and I have no doubt a fair percentage of them are sincere.

 

[zippy2006]

That's an excellent point, topher! But at the same time, I'm more concerned with how individuals today who claim to know that he/she is a modern prophet of the Lord mentally structure epistemologically what they claim to be certain about.

The Hebrew community of the Old Testament judged prophets retrospectively by determining whether their prophecies came to pass. That's actually a pretty helpful and concrete criterion, at least if you have time to observe the validation of the prophecy.

Another thing that comes to mind is whether the person's prophecy is self-serving, for it is precisely the false prophets who were self-serving. For example, genuine prophets never sold their services. They would only accept small payments in the form of perishable food, their "daily bread."

The approach to verifying prophets and prophecy tends to follow the via negativa. I suppose miracles constitute another useful criterion. If you are, say, raised from the dead there is a good chance that God is with you.

 

[topher694]

The Hebrew community of the Old Testament judged prophets retrospectively by determining whether their prophecies came to pass. That's actually a pretty helpful and concrete criterion, at least if you have time to observe the validation of the prophecy.

No they didn't. This was the test for a false prophet in one specific situation that came through a specific prophetic word from an established prophet. The rest of the OT did not follow that pattern.

 

[zippy2006]

No they didn't. This was the test for a false prophet in one specific situation that came through a specific prophetic word from an established prophet. The rest of the OT did not follow that pattern.

You are mistaken here as well as in your posts above. No further comment necessary.

If you want to learn more about why you are mistaken, try a book, such as Themes and Transformations in Old Testament Prophecy.