Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?

[JAL]

Where exactly do you see the definition of a church? The word eklesia means a called out gathering. I think you're reading a lot into the Scriptures for your doctrine

This is the start of a long post that seems to be a lot of rambling and sidetracking. Paul wrote letters to the CHURCHES. Yes the Greek word was eklesia translated into the English word church. Now, today, if we want to have an eklesia, assembly, we can either go with Paul's definition (of eklesia) or make up our own definition. Clear enough? Let's not sidetrack here.

Maybe something is getting lost in transition. In a literal sense, are there apostles today? Yes. Because the word apostle is essentially an emissary, someone who represents another with the authority of the sender. For example, if a church sends out a missionary, that missionary is an apostle of that church. The missionary is authorized to speak on behalf of that church. However, the context in which we are using the word apostle, it's an apostle of Christ, one who has the authority to speak on behalf of Christ. In this context( which we've been using) there are ONLY 12 men who have been given this authority. Jesus gave the apostles authority to act on His behalf. He told them whatever sins you forgive on earth will be forgiven in Heaven and whatever you bind of earth will be bound in Heaven. He gave them authority of demons, etc. These 12 men had the authority to speak on behalf of Christ. No one other than those 12 have been given that authority. That's why I said there are no apostles today. There are no apostles of Jesus Christ. Are there apostles of this or that church? Sure, But, they are NOT the apostles of Jesus Christ.

You've made a ton of inferences here, right?
I mean, you seem to think you're an authority on the definition of an apostle. There's no lexicon-style definition in the NT, you have to infer it. Some would disagree with your inference, as they believe apostles DO exist today. I'm not aware of any, but I'm pretty tired of your insinuations that I'm doing the bulk of the inferring here.

Back to pastors and teachers, yes there are pastors and teachers. However, like apostles, there are not a pointed by Christ. In the beginning He gave some apostles, He gave some pastors and teachers. They're gone. There are no more pastors and teachers appointed by Christ.

Wow. So you've decided to go with your own man-made definition of pastors and teachers, based on inferences you've made, extra-biblically.

So you fault me for quoting and relying on Paul's definition of the church, and his explicit exhortation to seek prophecy, but you're okay with your own man-made definitions of ecclesiology. Are you the pope?

Firstly, I don't infer very much and when I do, I don't base doctrines on it.

I'm beginning think that you infer more than anyone I've seen on these forums to date.

Apparently you don't realize it. When you draw conclusions, you think they are highly factual, while everyone else is just inferring.

You'll accuse me of the same, but there's a pretty strong logical rigor to my conclusions. Typically they are remedies to logical contradictions in popular theology, and then I find further support in Scripture.
For example, it seems to be a logical impossibility, as Calvin noted, for Christianity to exist as a legitimate concept without the Inward Witness. Which involves direct revelation.

That kind of logical rigor is NOT what you get in a standard cessationist inference. Example:
(1) The gifts confirmed the apostles.
(2) It was God's PLAN to discontinue the apostles.
(3) Hence the gifts subsided.
I don't see any logical necessity there, do you? It's just an opinion, to which I would reply, 'Thanks for sharing'. It's not a logical necessity because God does not (and in my opinion did not ) NEED to opt for an irrevocable discontinuation of that office or ministry (whatever you want to call it).

Example of some logical rigor: I NEED direct revelation. Why? Because, if I care about the 100 billion souls at stake, I can't afford the risk of improper evangelism. Even if I God doesn't want me to have direct revelation, I NEED to be sure of this, so I still need a revelation from Him. I don't see how to escape this dilemma, if I really give a hoot about 100 billion souls. Now, if there's no logical rigor to the argument, tell me why. But most likely you'll just give me an opinion, and opinions CAN BE MISTAKEN. With 100 billion souls, I can't AFFORD to risk mistakes. I see no way out. And I challenged you on this point a while back, and you didn't SHOW me any way out. No one has, in all the years I've been on this forum.

However, your inferences aren't a problem. What is the problem is that you're using them as facts. If you tell me I'm wrong, that's definitive statement. It needs to be backed up with facts, not inferences.

Given our fallibility, for the most part no one can boast 'facts' (in an apodictic sense). EVERYONE who expresses an opinion on this forum is insinuating that the other guy is in the wrong. Isn't that what a debate is? You yourself have made a number of assertions on this thread. This involves inferences, largely because you're fallible.

An inference by nature can be wrong. Facts aren't wrong. An inference can change if one gets additional information.

Right all of us have inferences. YOU have the facts, because evidently you're the pope.

But you didn't address it. As far as I'm aware there's nothing in the Scriptures about an office of apostleship.

More semantic sidetracking. Call it a ministry, office, gifting, service, whatever you like. I don't think that's the meat of the debate.

I never argued for Sola Scriptura so I don't know why you're bringing up the arguments of others again. But, again, your argument doesn't follow. The Gospel message is complete. We don't need further revelation about it.

That sounds like Sola Scriptura. Ultimately you're just making superficial distinctions, as cessationists often do. They'll say, 'We don't believe in any NEW REVELATION, just in illumination'. What's the difference? There is none. You really think Paul saw himself as teaching new doctrine? Heck no. All the revelations given to him were clarifications of OT truths, and he often cited the OT to prove it.

The oxymoron 'new revelation' is just a nonsense-concept invented by cessationists as a convenient excuse to denounce direct revelation.

 

[JAL]

I agree with much if not most of what you say here. The exceptions that there are no more witnesses of Christ. He gave authority to 12 men. He didn't speak of appearing to people throughout history to be His witnesses. He spoke to the 12 and told THEM, 'you shall be my witnesses.' I see no valid reason to accept your idea that this is multi generational.

Here again I'm at a loss. Acts was NOT a paradigm of evangelism for future generations? So then, we have to concoct some extra-biblical, man-made definition of evangelism since the biblical example is now outmoded? Again, just how bad a teacher do you think God was, when He inspired the writers? And when we DO proceed to form our man-made definition of evangelism, how will it NOT be based on inferences?

The problem, sir, is strong evidence in the text to discredit your single-generation view of apostolic witnessing. Let's review that text.
(1) Jesus promised power to witness (power to speak, thus intimating Spirit-inspired speech and hence prophecy.
(2) When the Spirit fell, Luke says it was a Spirit-inspired utterance.
(3) Peter spoke saying it fulfilled Joel's promise, "I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and they shall prophesy"
(4) Peter consummated it with, "And this promise [of Joel] is to you, and to your children, and to all whom the Lord your God shall call."

If that's not a multi-generational promise, I don't know what is.

I don't find your argument that evangelism is prophesy valid. In the beginning when the apostles were learning, yes. However, as I've pointed out before Paul told the Ephesian elders that he had declared the whole council of God to them. That means there is no more. The Gospel was complete and there was no need for further revelation about it. I pointed out that Jude writes to contend for the faith that was once handed down to the saints. It was complete. People preaching today have the complete message. They may not understand it, but they have it.

Your words that the Gospel is complete paraphase the cessationist injunctions against 'New Revelation'. That's just an oxymoron. It has no meaning. We need people like Paul today, for the same reason we needed him back then - as humans we are fallible interpreters of Scripture, and therefore it is needed that at LEAST some of us walk in infallible revelation, helping to CLARIFY the truth for all of us (not bring us 'NEW' truth).

 

[JAL]

In order to establish that the gifts have ended it was necessary to show their purpose. What I presented is right there in the text. If wasn't inferred.

There it is again. YOUR reading is FACT, the rest of us are merely making inferences. Amazing the spectacles you wear. Yet, in reality, you had to infer having a valid Greek manuscript, translating the Greek correctly, and extrapolating it correctly. You just used the word 'purpose' in a singular sense. Why? Just because gifts confirmed the apostles (whose definition you inferred), why would you infer confirmatoin to be their ONLY purpose? That's not only an inference, it strikes me as an eggregiously erronious one to boot.

You claim that Scripture is the completed revelation. So Scripture would be our only doctrinal authority, right? In post 273:
Is Continuationism or Cessationism a hard doctrine to prove?
I demonstrated the singular authority of conscience. That's an example of logical rigor. I'll recapitulate a bit on conscience, here briefly.

Scripture cannot be your only doctrinal authority because it begs the question as to, by what authority did you accept Scripture to be inspired. THAT authority is a higher authority than Scripture (like it or not) because it DICTATES your willingness to accept or reject Scripture, in general it dictates which religion you subscribe to. What authority was it?

As argued in that post (237), it seems logically irresistible to acknowledge conscience as that authority (where conscience is defined as a feeling of certainty about what is morally obligatory for me to do or believe at the current moment). And since, as described on that post, direct revelatoin can (and does) influence conscience (viz. the Spirit convicting/convincing the sinner of the gospel), it's roughly on a PAR with conscience in terms of being a higher authority than Scripture. This Spirit-as-Inward-Witness is also responsible for SUSTAINING our saving faith after conversoin (to protect us from a lapse into unbelief and corresponding loss of salvation).

You might imagine I've fallen into an infinite regress here, viz., "By what authority, Jal, do you accept conscience as the highest authority?" My reponse would be twofold.
(1) My stance on this issue is a matter of inescapability. When I TRY to conceive an authority other than conscience, I find myself entrenched in logical contradictions. Until I can escape that dilemma, I'm STUCK with the stance.
(2) The stance appears to be tautological. It seems only tautological to say, "I must currently believe that which I currently feel certain about, until I can shake those feelings. Hence feelings of certainty are my highest authority".
Again, I place much stock in logical rigor. Whereas cessationists look to some pretty far-fetched inferences.

 

[Dave L]

So do you believe the OT prophets were "edifying" like the NT prophets and interpreted tongues?

Judgement prophecy always had blessing prophecy following it. So yes.

 

[Dave L]

I am saying that your definition is limited by ignoring the rhema aspect of the OT prophets (as evidenced by scripture) and ignoring the NT definition provided in 1Cor.14 which is all about NT prophecy.

Kenneth Hagin wanted things to go his way so he made a big deal out of rhema. But if we define NT terms by their OT originals, a prophet is no different in either covenant.

 

[Saint Steven]

Judgement prophecy always had blessing prophecy following it. So yes.

So you view the NT prophets as bringing judgement?

 

[Dave L]

So you view the NT prophets as bringing judgement?

If God calls for it. Remember, they spoke God's word.

 

[Saint Steven]

Kenneth Hagin wanted things to go his way so he made a big deal out of rhema. But if we define NT terms by their OT originals, a prophet is no different in either covenant.

It seems to me that every logos word was previously a rhema word. But not every rhema word is logos. In other words, the word of God in written form was first spoken. But not every prophecy (rhema) has been recorded to be read. (logos) Nor is every rhema intended to be logos.

 

[Dave L]

It seems to me that every logos word was previously a rhema word. But not every rhema word is logos. In other words, the word of God in written form was first spoken. But not every prophecy (rhema) has been recorded to be read. (logos) Nor is every rhema intended to be logos.

Hagin is cleaver. I avoid him and other like minded at all costs. Let the bible interpret the bible and you will know the truth of the matter.

 

[JAL]

What I presented is right there in the text. It wasn't inferred.

I don't think you've come to terms with how fallible exegesis really is. After 2,000 years, it seems the church doesn't even know the name of the Third Person (see posts 3 and 5 on that thread). Here too, I'm pretty sure they made the wrong inference.

Given this fallibility, I never really aspire to 'prove' something from Scripture, but rather to show my position exegetically stronger than competing positions. That's really the best I can do. But I guess this approach doesn't typically work well on you because, with a simple wave of the hand, you essentially dismiss huge portions of the NT as 1900 years old and therefore outmoded.

And you don't see the problem with this hermeneutic? Let's take another look at one of your arguments:
(1) The gifts confirmed the apostles. Scripture says so. (Of course this argument ignores men like Stephen who, not being apostle, did signs and wonders. Let's say I give you a pass on that contradiction).
(2) God planned to terminate apostleship.
(3) Therefore the gifts terminated as well.

Now #1, as you say, is based on your reading of Scripture. Fine. But that was 1900 years ago! How do you know that, the principles in force then are in force today? Meaning, even it were true BACK THEN that the only purpose of the gifts was to confirm the apostles, how do you know that the same gifts can't serve multiple other purposes today?

It wasn't inferred.

You've inferred a lot, actually.

On more thing on confirming the gifts. Why isn't it important to confirm the apostles of old, even today? Suppose I approach a Muslim with the gospel. He wants to know why I think he should accept the Bible . Who is Paul, he asks? And who is Peter? And Christ? Why should I believe those men?

If God found it useful to confirm the apostles back then, by that same logic it would be useful to confirm their message today. If you could back up your claims with miracles whenever you preach, the Muslim would be more likely to believe your claims about Christ, Peter, and Paul.

 

[Saint Steven]

If God calls for it. Remember, they spoke God's word.

Well, of course.
But do you see the NT prophets as PRIMARILY bringing judgement?
What do make of this? Not the controversy, but the methodology.

Acts 21:10-12
After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, “The Holy Spirit says, ‘In this way the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’” 12 When we heard this, we and the people there pleaded with Paul not to go up to Jerusalem.

 

[Dave L]

Well, of course.
But do you see the NT prophets as PRIMARILY bringing judgement?
What do make of this? Not the controversy, but the methodology.

Acts 21:10-12
After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, “The Holy Spirit says, ‘In this way the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’” 12 When we heard this, we and the people there pleaded with Paul not to go up to Jerusalem.

John was a prophet and Revelation is full of Judgement. Also Peter spoke judgement. The problem is there are no prophets today so we must make room for the counterfeits by redefining the term.

 

[Saint Steven]

John was a prophet and Revelation is full of Judgement. Also Peter spoke judgement. The problem is there are no prophets today so we must make room for the counterfeits by redefining the term.

Or perhaps you are discounting them due to your own doctrinal bias? And a limited definition of what a prophet is. (I have my own bias as well)

 

[Dave L]

Or perhaps you are discounting them due to your own doctrinal bias? And a limited definition of what a prophet is.

(I have my own bias as well) ​

I began thinking just like you. This resulted in years of objective study on the charismatic position among other denominational holdings.

 

[Saint Steven]

I began thinking just like you. This resulted in years of objective study on the charismatic position among other denominational holdings.

Yes. I notice that we grow ever farther apart doctrinally as time goes. When I "met" you on the forum you thought there was merit in both sides of the Cessationist vs Continuationist debate. You seem to have moved well away from that position. Which is fine. I still appreciate and respect you.

I have heard testimony both ways. Protestants becoming Catholic. And Catholics becoming Protestant. Sabbatarians becoming "Sunday-keepers" and vice versa. Cessationists becoming Pentecostal/Charismatic. I'm not likely to discount any of these testimonies unless something seems way off. God has some interesting ways of working. Ultimately, Jesus is the answer. Beyond that there seems to be a lot of other answers to rather minor issues. Things that matter not in the long run. Stuff we like to argue about. lol

 

[Dave L]

Yes. I notice that we grow ever farther apart doctrinally as time goes. When I "met" you on the forum you thought there was merit in both sides of the Cessationist vs Continuationist debate. You seem to have moved well away from that position. Which is fine. I still appreciate and respect you.

I have heard testimony both ways. Protestants becoming Catholic. And Catholics becoming Protestant. Sabbatarians becoming "Sunday-keepers" and vice versa. Cessationists becoming Pentecostal/Charismatic. I'm not likely to discount any of these testimonies unless something seems way off. God has some interesting ways of working. Ultimately, Jesus is the answer. Beyond that there seems to be a lot of other answers to rather minor issues. Things that matter not in the long run. Stuff we like to argue about. lol

I'm the complete opposite doctrinally from where I began with Christ. "I was a teenage Arminian Dispensationalist". Think "I was a teenage Werewolf", the 50's horror flick but worse. And then add Pentecostalism to this.

 

[Saint Steven]

I'm the complete opposite doctrinally from where I began with Christ. "I was a teenage Arminian Dispensationalist". Think "I was a teenage Werewolf", the 50's horror flick but worse. And then add Pentecostalism to this.

That's so funny. Thanks.
I think the best part of the forums is when believers share their personal stories and testimonies. --- I need to go to work. Have a great day!

 

[JAL]

I agree with much if not most of what you say here. The exceptions that there are no more witnesses of Christ. He gave authority to 12 men. He didn't speak of appearing to people throughout history to be His witnesses. He spoke to the 12 and told THEM, 'you shall be my witnesses.'

'Witnesses' actually included all the OT prophets, John who witnessed the Spirit descending like a dove (Jn 1:32), and all those who witnessed the risen Christ. See Lk 1:2; Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 4:33; 5:32; 10:39, 40-41, 43; 13:31; 14:3; 22:18; 23:11; 26:16, as these commentaries on Acts 2:32 confirm: Robertson’s Word Pictures, Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Albert Barnes Notes, and John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible.

How was Paul's evangelism effective enough to spread the gospel halfway around the planet without modern transportation, broadcasting, internet, digital media, and so on? Prophetic utterance. God typically authenticates a prophet's words by convincing the audience at 100% certainty. That's why He sent the prophet Jonah to preach the gospel to Nineheveh, and they repented. Today's television evangelists still have their head in the sand, compared to the prophets.

You were concerned hat Paul's command to seek prophecy (1Cor 14:1) might be 1900 years out of date. In Post 98, however, I argued that 1Cor 13 actually DEFINES spiritual maturity as prophetic maturity, thereby paraphrasing the same argument made at 1Cor 2 and 3, and thus featuring the same keywords 'babes' and 'mature'.

Here I'll discuss 1Cor 2 and 3. The first interpretive key is the usage of 'We' or 'Us' meaning 'We [mature] apostles and prophets', in stark contrast to the immature Corinthian babes. Example: "God hath set forth us the apostles last" (1Cor 4:9). This contrast began at 2:6:

"We [mature apostles and prophets] speak wisdom among the mature..we speak, not in words of man's wisdom, but in words taught by the Holy Spirit" (2:6, 13). Considerable scholarship including Calvin concurs:
(1) That Paul is here contrasting 'we the apostles' with the Corinthians.
(2) That prophetic revelation is in view here.

At issue here is actually an elite class of prophetic revelations esoteric to the mature. Hence he couldn't share them with the Corinthian babes:
"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able" (3:1-2);

Again, 'We [apostles] speak [such] wisdom [only] among the mature' (2:6), NOT to Corinthian babes. So he had to settle for giving them milk, not solid food. What kind of milk? This epistle! The epistles are NOT SOLID FOOD! Similarly the writer of Hebrews provided his epistle INSTEAD of solid food (see Heb 5:11-14), as did Peter (1Pet 2:2). Chrysostom remarked on solid food that not even “Scripture hath anywhere discoursed to us of these things" (NPNF, Part 1, Vol 12, Homily 34). Solid food is that elite class of prophetic revelations for the mature.

Both the following contrasts mean the same thing:
(1) The mature versus the babes (2:6, 3:1);
(2) The spiritual versus the unspiritual (2:15, 3:1).

The spiritual man, then, is the prophetic man. Still not convinced? Take a hard look at 14:37:
"If anyone considers himself a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that what I am writing are the commands of the Lord". You see the intimation? A spiritual man, by virtue of prophetic revelation, would KNOW that Paul's teachings were correct. Considerable scholarship finds at 14:37 that Paul is defining the spiritual man in terms of giftedness and/or inspiration. Examples include John Gill, JFB Commentary, John Wesley, People’s New Testament Commentary, Albert Barnes, Cambridge‘s Bible, Expositors Greek New Testament, John Dummelow's Commentary, Meyer’s NT Commentary, Phillip Schaff's Popular Commentary, Joseph Beet's Commentary.

Moreover some of these commentators tie 14:37 directly to 2:15.
"He that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we [apostles and prophets] have the mind of Christ" (2:15-16)

Did you catch what Paul just said? Trying to judge or correct a spiritual man is like trying to correct the Lord! Because a spiritual man is already one-minded with the Lord! He is beyond human correction! Now, if THAT is not a description of prophetic revelation, I don't know what is.

Ok so we've seen that to be mature - 'spiritual' - can be defined in terms of giftedness. As Gordon Fee noted, the term spiritual (pneumatic) means Spirit-powered. This background explains 1Cor 12:1:
"Now concerning spiritual things, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant."
Most translations write it like this, unfortunately:
"Now concerning spiritual GIFTS, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant."
The word gifts is not in the Greek. He's not talking about gifts. He is STILL talking about being SPIRITUAL (spiritual maturity). He's concerned with spiritual things. It just so HAPPENS that spiritual maturity is largely about GIFTEDNESS!! The same translation-error is made at 1Cor 14:1 - there too, the words gifts is NOT in the original Greek.
"Earnestly pursue spiritual things, especially the gift of prophecy" (14:1).
Paul isn't talking about gifts. He's STILL talking about being spiritual/spiritually mature. He took up this argument in chapters 2 and 3, picked it up again in chapter 12, climaxed it at 13, and recapped it here at 14:1. This should alleviate your concern that Paul's exhortations to seek the gift of prophecy might be 1900 years out of date. Seeking spiritual maturity (prophethood) will NEVER be out of date.

 

[JAL]

There are no more witnesses of Christ. He gave authority to 12 men. He didn't speak of appearing to people throughout history to be His witnesses. He spoke to the 12 and told THEM, 'you shall be my witnesses.'

Regardless of the term 'witness', face-to-face visions proliferate with maturity, as Num 12:8 suggests. 1Cor:13:12 also hints of this, 'Then [in maturity] we shall see face to face.' Jesus lamented, 'You have never heard His voice, nor seen His shape" (John 5:37). Gordon Fee considered 2Cor 3:18 an undeniable beholding of the Lord. Prayer in Christ's name (Jn 16) is actually code-language for face-to-face visions of the Father, a fact still overlooked by the whole church.

Two arguments of some logical rigor support such claims.

(1) All conscious experience/thought can be defined as loudness. To be conscious is to be conscious of one sensation or another, perceived more or less distinctly (loud and clear). For example a person can mentally sing any words to his favorite tune, and then must VISUALIZE their meanings in order to comprehend them. This includes the words "God", "angels", and "heaven". The mind always worships God according to its visions of Him; the mind can only worship that which the mind's eye sees. It is impossible for ordinary cognitive powers, however, to PROPERLY conceive an ineffably holy God. Therefore our visions of Him are idolatrous except where painted by direct revelation. Hence Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims (etc) are all unsaved, despite SUPPOSEDLY worshiping 'God'. Accordingly, considerable scholarship including Calvin rightly defines the new birth as a revelatory vision of the TRUE God.

Now, what happens when an object isn't face-to-face with us, that is, when it's too far in the distance for us to clearly make out its details? Our mind will inadvertently paint some of the picture, resulting in partial idolatry. Seeing God face-to-face in ACCURATE visions, therefore, is the only route to maturity.

(2) What is intimacy with the Father? What is 'fellowship' with Him (1Cor 1:9; Phi 2:1; 3:10; 1Jn 1:3, 6)? Picture this conversation:

A man says to his comrade, “Guess what? I have recently been enjoying incredibly intimate fellowship with a woman. Indeed we are in love.” “Oh really? Tell me all about it! Is she beautiful?” “Well, I‟ve never actually seen her.” “No? Ok. In that case, I‟ll bet she has a wonderfully feminine voice.” “Well, honestly, I‟ve never actually heard her voice.” “No? How exactly do you know her, then?” “Well, actually she died 2,000 years ago nailed to a cross, but she left behind a book of laws and rules for me to obey.” “Wait a minute, I thought you boasted intimate fellowship with her!” “Yes I did. It‟s a spiritual relationship.”

Sorry, but that was NOT fellowship. Fellowship between two parties can ONLY be defined as a mutual exchange of sensations more or less distinct (loud and clear). The broader the spectrum of sensations, the more intimate the fellowship. Even if the the Father WANTED to omit some components of that spectrum, it would backfire whenever cognitive idolatry filled in the missing details. Therefore He even needs us to eat and drink of Him, as at the Last Supper (but please don't assume this is happening in today's Eucharists unless you've been able to authenticate it).

To summarize, spiritual maturity is peak intimacy with the Father. Therefore a mature believer will see Him face to face. Note how the word 'friend' conveys intimacy, "The LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend” (KJV). Likewise the prophet Abraham was called the friend of God, for example one afternoon he had God come over to his house for supper, baked Him up a loaf of bread, fried Him up a beef steak, and stood with Him face-to-face while He ate (Gen 18).

 

[JAL]

I can only define "prophet" from scripture using the OT as the definition. Anything less is not a prophet. And tongues interpreted was its equal.

I strongly agree with you on this point.

On the other hand, some take it too far. They don't accept the concept of fallible revelation. While God, typically, fully authenticated the message both to the prophet and to his audience, as I defined authentication at post 273, that is, at the level of 100% certainty, I do not believe that EVERY thought, or even every divine message, in a prophet's mind was known at full certainty, especially for newbie prophets. To put it in layman's terms, in some cases God's voice was less than perfectly loud and clear.

Take David for example. In some cases:
(1) He inquired of the Lord as to whether he should go up and fight the Philistines.
(2) The divine voice responded, Yes.
(3) Later, David inquired again.
Why the 2nd inquiry? Obviously because he didn't get 100% certainty the first time, or had it and then lost it. This put him in a state of potentially fallible revelation.

People with fallible revelations need to be HONEST about it. Instead of saying, 'Thus saith the Lord', or, 'The Lord told me the following', they should say, 'I'm really not 100% sure about this, but I THINK the Lord is telling me the following. '