SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Are prophets in the New Testament different from prophets in the Old Testament?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Hi twayneb. This teaching of 'rank' [for the lack of a better word] comes from 1Corth 12:28 if you do a Commentary Search on Eph 4:11. The only books I have in my computer are from the e-sword. I'll copy and paste two on that verse & just for the first three callings of this verse -

1Co 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.


Albert Barnes Notes -

And God hath set - That is, has appointed, constituted, ordained. He has established these various orders or ranks in the church. The apostle, having illustrated the main idea that God had conferred various endowments on the members of the church, proceeds here to specify particularly what he meant, and to refer more directly to the various ranks which existed in the church.

Some in the church - The word “some,” in this place ους hous, seems to mean rather whom, “and whom God hath placed in the church,” or, they whom God hath constituted in the church in the manner above mentioned are, first, apostles, etc.

First, apostles - In the first rank or order; or as superior in honor and in office. He has given them the highest authority in the church; he has more signally endowed them and qualified them than he has others.

Secondarily, prophets - As second in regard to endowments and importance. For the meaning of the word “prophets,” see the note on Rom_12:6.

Thirdly, teachers - As occupying the third station in point of importance and valuable endowments.



Adam Clarke -

God hath set some in the Church - As God has made evident distinctions among the members of the human body, so that some occupy a more eminent place than others, so has he in the Church. And to prove this, the apostle numerates the principal offices, and in the order in which they should stand.

First, apostles - Αποστολους, from απο from, and στελλο, I send; to send from one person to another, and from one place to another. Persons immediately designated by Christ, and sent by him to preach the Gospel to all mankind.

Secondarily, prophets - Προφητας, from προ, before, and φημι, I speak; a person who, under Divine inspiration, predicts future events; but the word is often applied to these who preach the Gospel. See on 1Co_12:8 (note).

Thirdly, teachers - Διδασκαλους, from διδασκω, I teach; persons whose chief business it was to instruct the people in the elements of the Christian religion, and their duty to each other.
________________________________________________

You probably have more commentaries that you'd like to look at on your computer or from websites.

We were taught that apostles were like Missionaries that set up Churches and then the prophets were there for obvious reasons and then the Pastor/teachers for their purpose and evangelists to bring 'em in. :-)

Some of my favorite verses that form one sentence are the ones that follow.
The purpose of the 5 ministries for the Body.

Eph 4:12-16 [i]For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. [/i]


Amazing, isn't it?


Praise GOD. Thank you for this conversation Brother. GOD Bless!

 2009/9/29 0:47
elharris
Member



Joined: 2009/8/10
Posts: 59


 Re:

Greetings I the name of Jesus Christ,

I have been working on an answer to your post for a few days. I will warn you now, that it is not totally proof read, and I did not list a few scriptures I referred to. But I trust the main thought and intent will be clear.

You began your post with:

Quote:
In the OT we find that prophets were held to a standard of 100% accuracy. This is quite remarkable seeing that what a prophet speaks, although it is the anointed word of God, is filtered through a fallible mind before it is spoken out of a fallible mouth.

Obviously the function of the OT prophet was different, and maybe this accounts for the standard of 100% accuracy. OT prophets primarily foretold future events. What they had to speak was extremely important as it established OT scripture. Perhaps there was a miraculous undergirding of their minds and mouths by God to assure that they spoke with 100% accuracy.

I find some interesting things in the NT that seem to lead to the idea that this standard of 100% infallibility does not exist under the new covenant. Here are some scriptures to consider.Act 20:22

(22) And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:

[b]Paul was bound in the Spirit to go to Jerusalem. God spoke specifically to him to go there.[/b]






When a prophet speaks for God through the holy spirit, it is 100% infallible. But when the prophet speaks on his own, or chooses not to follow God's directions, he is fallable. Every word that comes out of a prophets mouth is not “prophecy”. Nor is every action or decision made by a prophet, determined by God, or God’s will.

Every single prophet in the old testament, made mistakes, when they did not follow the council of the Lord. Man is free to make his own choices. Your original premise is in error to begin with; in saying that old testaments prophets were 100% infallible. Prophets are not robots, who’s every move is controlled by God.

Within some Christian circles they teach that God told Paul to go to Jerusalem. Chances are that in your walk with the Lord, and being around some of these people, that you have heard this.

When we first come to the Lord, it is usually though some Church. We come knowing nothing, and we sit through sermons and bible studies, and we pick up what I will call "sayings" These are sentences and quotes, where someone reads something or teaches something in the Word, and then draws a conclusion and makes a "statement".

We pick up these sayings, these "statements", and we repeat them, thinking they are true. I will tell you that I was thoroughly indoctrinated wtih these quaint little sayings, that all seemed to have scripture to back them up. But over the years, through much research and study, (and especially God’s mercy and grace), I found that many, MANY things, I held as true and just repeated to others, was not actually in the Word.

Unfortunately a little leaven, leavens the whole lump. This is because when you begin with a false statement, or erroneous understanding, then it leads to another and another and another, until your whole understanding is twisted.

I believe that this is one of those statements, for I have heard it previous to your mentioning it.

Your statement:

[i][b]"Paul was bound in the Spirit to go to Jerusalem.

God spoke specifically to him to go there."[/b][/i]



Paul did say, and the Word of God does state the first part of the statement above.

"And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem,"


But the Word does not specifically state:


"God spoke specifically to him to go there."


This is the part of the statement that is an interpretation, of what Paul said and of the events.

But as I will endeavor to show, your statement is based on the incomplete evidence and testimony of the witness.

As in a court of Law, all evidence must be considered for the jury to judge the verdict; So also must we take into account ALL the testimony of the witness, to make a proper and true judgment of the issue. There is much testimony that you did not adhear to of list in your conclusion of the matter, that shows a completely different picture of what truly happened, than the hypothesis you have formed.


When ever anyone takes the testimony of the witness from scripture and gives a summation in the form of a statement, it is an interpretation. Writing or speaking forth an interpretation of what God’s word means, can be teaching, and can also be a “form” of prophecy because you are saying “Thus sayeth the Lord.”

When ever we do this we need to make sure that we have gathered and considered all of the evidence, the witness, the testimony, before determining the judgment.

Most of the time we do this, if we have not taken in all the testimony of the witness, we will come to a wrong conclusion and make a false judgment. This is the manner in which all false understandings are created.

In presenting your case and your conclusion, you left out some of the testimony of the wittness, that contradicts your ultimate conclusion. I do not think you did this on purpose, or that you are purposely presenting a false picture. We often do this, because of what we have heard previously, that is not true, Statements we have picked up over time, from the Church, which came a long time ago and got passed down to us. Statements which are made according to the very formula I have thus described. This is how error get’s started and passed on from one person to the next, one generation to the next. And then added to.

For example you gave this statement of the witness.


Act 20:22
(22) And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:


Then you gave your own statement.


[i]Paul was bound in the Spirit to go to Jerusalem. God spoke specifically to him to go there.[/i]


But you did not list the very next statement of the witness which shows Paul already knew he was not supposed to go to Jerusalem.

Acts 20:23[b] Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. (24) But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.

This statement comes before the testimony of the believers in Tyre or Agabus, in the next chapter. Paul does not say “People were telling him this”, though I am sure the message was coming from God through believers. Paul specifically says: [b]“the HOLY GHOST witnessed in EVERY CITY, telling him that if he went bonds and afflictions awaited him.[/b] But what did Paul say to the Holy Ghost? NONE OF THESE THINGS MOVE ME! Move him to what? Change his mind, from the course he was on.

This is a typical example of a prophet doing his own will, and not God’s will. The Old Testament is full of examples of them doing similar things. Going where they were not supposed to go, and suffering consequences for it.

You don’t’ list any of this testimony, showing that Paul knew he was not supposed to go. The interpretation, that “bound” in the spirit means God told Paul specifically to go, is inaccurate. Bound, means “not free”. This interpretation came about, because religious people somewhere refused to think that Paul would do something that was not God’s will.

EVERYTHING a prophet does and says is not prophecy.

You don’t list the testimony of the witness again until Acts 21:4, leaving out vital information, that is not taken into account.


This next portion of what you state is enough of the account to give a true rendering in your next statement.

Quote:

Act 21:4
(4) And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.


Act 21:10-14
(10) And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
(11) And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.
(12) And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.
(13) Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.
(14) And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.

Statement (interpretation) made by you: The believers at Tyre prophesied by the Spirit that Paul should not go to Jerusalem. Agabus the prophet also prophesied that Paul should not go.



What you say here is true; But you go on to make false statements, because you began with a false assumption to begin with; Namely that prophets in the OT were infallible in everything they did. Then that “bound in the spirit”, meant God specifically told Paul to go to Jerusalem.

This is how great error is ultimately formed by mixing true statements with error.

You state:
Quote:

Yet, Paul went. The thing to consider is this. Who missed it? Did Paul, did the disciples at Tyre, did Agabus? No one was denounced in scripture as being a false prophet. Paul, the disciples at Tyre, as well as Agabus are portrayed as legitimate, but the word God spoke to Paul and the words that came through the others seem to conflict.




I would remind you that Baalim was a true prophet of God. Yet he chose to go where God did not want him to go. I would remind you that David was a true prophet of God and yet he chose to go where God did not want him to go. I would remind you that Elijah was a true prophet of God, yet he also chose to go where God did not want him to go. And of the prophet, who is nameless in----, who also chose to go where God did not tell him to go. And then Abraham, who chose to not go when God told him to go, but waited and also took Lot with him, when he was told to leave his kindred. ALL of these prophets made decisions for one reason or the other, that resulted in consiquences of one kind or the other, that were not in accordance with God’s will.

God would rather we listened to him to begin with; But men make mistakes, and then God has to clean up the mess, and try and make the best out of the decisions we make. What you find is that there is always God’s PRIMARY will for your life, and then God’s SECONDARY will, in which he can work all things together for your good, but perhaps not what would have been BEST for you.




The messages spoken to Paul and the messages spoken to others only seem to conflict, because you started with the premise the God told Paul to go, to begin with., Paul himself said that the holy spirit witnessed in every city, that bonds and afflictions awaited Paul, if he insisted on continuing his journey. And it is obvious also that Paul knew this, by telling the Ephesian Elders, that NONE OF THESE THINGS MOVED HIM, and he would see their face no more. The fact is that God will usually ALWAYS tell you first, when it deals with your life, before he will run and tell someone else to tell you. Only when you refuse to listen will God then try and help you by working through others. God is not a blabber mouth about your problems and disobedience.


Now please do not take offence here, for as I stated, you did not come up with this interpretation. It is very common is many circles of Christianity, and has been taught in this manner often. And we innocently pick it up from those we trust to know what they are talking about.

But you then go on to form some opinions of your own and add to the original false conclusion that is arrived at by not taking in all the evidence of the witness. And some of the conclusions you come to have serious ramifications, if believed.


You state:
Quote:

[b]In these same scriptures notice that Agabus said that the Jews would arrest Paul, bind him, and then deliver him to the Romans. This is not how it happened. Look at Act 21:30-35[/b]

(30) And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut.
(31) And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar.
(32) Who immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down unto them: and when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers, they left beating of Paul.
(33) Then the chief captain came near, and took him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains; and demanded who he was, and what he had done.
(34) And some cried one thing, some another, among the multitude: and when he could not know the certainty for the tumult, he commanded him to be carried into the castle.
(35) And when he came upon the stairs, so it was, that he was borne of the soldiers for the violence of the people.

[b]Paul was not bound and delivered by the Jews. He was rescued by the Romans as the Jews were wanting to kill him.

So, Agabus' prophecy was less than 100% accurate. However, we never see Agabus denounced as a false prophet. We do see other's in the NT denounced as false, but not him. [/b]




You left out the following testimony that shows that Agabus in speaking through the holy spirit was 100% correct.

First off the summation of your statement as to what Agabus said, is not what Agabus said.

You said: Paul was not bound and delivered by the Jews. He was rescued by the Romans as the Jews were wanting to kill him.

Agabus prophecy specifically states: (11) And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.

The next SIX chapters tell about Paul’s imprisonment. And vital information contained in this testimony, was not included in your summation.

Notice that TWO YEARS after his initial arrest, Paul is STILL in jail. This does not exactly prove a “rescue” by the Romans.


Acts 24:27 But after two years Porcius Festus came into Felix' room: and Felix, [b]willing to shew the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound.[/b]


Paul is still in JAIL, sill BOUND, and why is he still bound? Because by this time Felix willing to show the JEWS a pleasure, LEFT PAUL BOUND. Why is Paul still bound? Because the JEWS through their actions, delivered him over to the Gentiles, and after two years the Gentiles are STILL keeping Paul bound due to the wish if the Jews.

Again what was the prophecy of Agabus and every other believer on this issue?

Acts 21:11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, [b]Thus saith the Holy Ghost, [/b] So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.

And even before this:

Acts 20:22 And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: Save that[b] the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, [/b]saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. [b]And now, behold, I KNOW [/b]that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.



The testimony shows, this is exactly what took place. The Gentiles (Romans) did not rescue Paul. Their intervention was specifically done to quell a riot, not to rescue Paul. They BOUND him, and took him into the castle to scourge him and get information out of him. TWO YEARS LATER HE IS STILL IN PRISON DUE TO THE JEWS DESIREING HIM TO BE THERE. It may look like a rescue, but the testimony shows that Paul never left jail or the hands of the Gentiles and was eventually executed by them.


Vital testimony of the witness is given in Act 21:30-35; Which shows that Paul was not “rescued”, from the Jews.

(30) And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut.
(31) And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief captain of the band,[b] that all Jerusalem was in an uproar.[/b] (RIOT)

(32) Who immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down unto them: and when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers, they left beating of Paul.

(33) Then the chief captain came near, and took him, [b]and commanded him to be bound with two chains; and demanded who he was, and what he had done.[/b] (this is not a rescue, but Paul being bound as Agabus declared.)

(34) And some cried one thing, some another, among the multitude: and when he could not know the certainty for the tumult, he commanded him to be carried (by force) into the castle.

(35) And when he came upon the stairs, so it was, that he was borne of the soldiers for the violence of the people.

Acts 22:24 The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, [b]and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him.[/b]

Scourging is what the Romans did to elicit a confession out of a criminal. (water boarding not having been invented yet). Context shows, they were not rescuing him, but were endeavoring to quell a riot. That was one of their jobs.

25 And as [b]they bound him with thongs[/b], Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?


Why did Paul say that? In the time of the apostles, in consequence of the passing of what was called the Porcian law, no Roman citizen could be scourged under any case.


But was Paul bound? Yes. Was Paul delivered over to the Gentiles? Yes. Did Paul ever leave their hands, after that? No. Was this God’s primary will? No. Hence why the HOLY GHOST witnessed in EVERY CITY, that bonds and afflictions awaited him, if he by his OWN choice, not God‘s insisted on going.

If it truly had been God’s will for Paul to go to Jerusalem and be bound and in prison the rest of his life. Then there would have been many false prophets along the way, that were trying to thwart the true purposes of God. Paul, as when Jesus reproved Peter for rebuking him, saying he would not suffer and die, would have said; “Get thee behind me Satan. For thou savorist not the things that be of God, but of men.”

False prophecy is a SERRIOUS offence to the Lord, because you are in effect working for SATAN, when doing so. The Lord however does give the one in error space to repent. Paul’s actions were not based on prophecy but simply on his own human failing.

The testimony continues to show that Paul was not rescued by the Romans.



26 When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman.

27 Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.

28 And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.

29 Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.

30 On the morrow, because he would have known the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him from his bands,[b] and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down, and set him before them.[/b]


I will say here again, that Paul NEVER left that hands of the Gentiles, and was eventually exicuted by them. And at one point, on his way in CHAINS to Rome, he was almost executed, by the Romans, fearing he would escape during the ship wreck.

Acts 23
1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

2 And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.


Again this does not sound like being rescued, and had not Paul spoken up about being a Roman citizen, he'd of been water boarded...oh excuse me scourged, had 40 minus 1 lashes, with a three tailed whip with pieces of bone on the end, like Jesus was. And they still think he's some sort of criminal.

And here again, he is brought before the Jewish council.


3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

4 And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest?

5 Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.
Exod 22:28

6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.

8
For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

9 And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.

10 And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle.


Did he really give a hoot about Paul being torn to pieces? NO, but if Paul was a Roman citizen and he did not protect him, he himself if found guilty of such a thing, would be put to death.



11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.


Well, we could say...Gee,....see there, it was God's will after all.[b]But what you must see here is not God's will, but God's MERCY, when we mess up on his primary will.[/b] God’s will was that Paul would finish his life and his course with joy, not being bound in affliction and iron. Paul could have done much more for God FREE. But God can take our bad decisions, and make all things work together for good when we love him, which Paul did. But it is the PRIMARY will we should seek. Not God having to clean up after our bad decision.


We have already seen that God's primary will, was the Paul did not go to Jerusalem, and that Paul would finish his course with JOY, not being put to death by the Romans.

You saw where Paul KNEW that the Ephesians would SEE HIS FACE NO MORE. He was "bound" and not "free" in the spirit to go to Jerusalem. This decision of Paul's was made due to this reason.

Phil 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

22 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.

23
[b]For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:[/b]

24 Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.


There have been many Christians, who personally would rather just die, than put up with this world. What did Paul say in Acts about not caring if he died or not?


Acts 20:23 Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. But none of these things move me, [b]neither count I my life dear unto myself,[/b]


And it was Paul who also wrote the following, and they also show us something about Paul's personal character, beliefs, and personality.


Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

And he wrote this:

Heb 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again: [b]and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.[/b]

We are to be [b]LIVING SACRIFICES[/b], because being DEAD doesn't help anyone. What we are to [b]KILL[/b] off is our [b]OLD MAN NATURE and THE DEEDS OF THE FLESH[/b]. Not our literal selves.

You may be not supposed to love your life unto death. But you don’t purposely walk into that death, if it is not the Lord’s will, and it usually isn’t.

That there will be times, when death is inevitable, is certain, but the Lord DELIVERS us from all of our destructions. Paul’s chance to get rescued from “himself”, get out of this, was before he ever got into it.


So you see how one false statement:

1. Thus sayeth the Lord: [b]"God specifically told Paul to go to Jerusalem."[/b]

Leads to another false statement: "

2.Thus sayeth the Lord: [b]The standard of 100% infallibility does not exist under the new covenant."[/b]


All drawn, because the full testimony of the witnesses was not taken into consideration. And then leads to more wrong assumptions, also based on more incomplete testimony. The next conclusion you came to was as follows.


Quote:

In 1 Corinthians 14:29 Paul tells us to judge words of prophecy. What are we judging, the prophet, or the prophecy? If a prophecy comes forth that is not 100% accurate we are not told to cast the speaker out as false. Just to judge the words.

1Th 5:19-21
(19) Quench not the Spirit.
(20) Despise not prophesyings.
(21) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

These verses suggest again that prophesying is to be active in the modern church, and that we are to judge and hold fast to the good.

So, do you think that NT prophecy is held to the same standard as OT prophecy? Is there grace for the prophet who speaks a word that does not have 100% accuracy?




Yes there is grace, this much grace.

Titus 3:10
[b]A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.[/b]



The word reject, is the Greek word. Paraiteomai, and means; to ask beside, ask aside,[b] get rid of [/b] by asking, beg off from, to excuse one’s self from.

This can be applied in two ways. One, in the fellowship someone teaches or says something that is false, and not the truth of the Word. You warn them up to two times, and then if they insist upon speaking error, a falsehood, you ask them aside and politely tell them to leave and not come back, until they have repented.

The second way this is applied is if you happen to be in the company of people who insist upon believing and making the same type of lie, saying “thus sayeth the Lord” with their false statements and partial portions of scriptures.”

You warn them twice, try and instruct them in the truth, and if they insist upon keeping their own ideas and doctrines then you beg off, and excuse yourself from them.

The translation of the word into “REJECT” is not accurate, in that you don’t burn bridges. Being hateful and mean, burns the bridge of repentance, back to the truth. So you supposed are ever mindful of that.

The interesting thing here is, that people can hold to a lie, and believe someone coming in telling the truth is the heretic. This would not have been the way it was at the beginning though. They were fully instructed in the truth, and thus had the information necessary to make sound judgments on what people spoke, in the name of the Lord.

AGAIN, any time you draw a conslusion in scripture, and then make a statement, you are in effect saying "Thus saith the Lord". You are speaking for God, saying God says such and such.


Your statement:

[i][b]“If a prophecy comes forth that is not 100% accurate we are not told to cast the speaker out as false. Just to judge the words.” [/b][/i]

Is not completely accurate. Surely we don't grab them and throw them out. Neither do we allow them to continue in error and infect others. We take a stand and speak the truth and try and persuade them of what the Word really says. But in the end, each person must stand approved before God for how he divides the Word of truth.

That heresies would come was foretold by the prophets, and Paul himself. But what is the reason?

1 1 Corinthians 11:19 [b]For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.[/b]


God will allow people to conclude error. It's how he tells who really loves the truth and who doesn't. That we will draw a wrong conclusion is many times enevitable, but will we STAY in error, that is the question.


In the first century Chruch, they did not just let people do their own thing on a continual basis. The truth was taught, and they prophecied the truth. If you went to bringing falsehood forth on a continual basis, you were asked to leave. Being asked to leave the fellowship was being "delivered over to Satan". Because you were taken out from underneith the protection of God's assembly.


False conclusions can also be reached when we do not take into account that prophecy is of a [b]two fold nature.[/b]

First the prophecy is given to the original prophets, and was then written down. This is called [b]FORE-TELLING.[/b]

Secondly we read and REPEAT the prophecy, and this could be called [b]FORTH- TELLING.[/b]

[b]FORE-telling[/b] an event, and [b]FORTH-telling[/b] an event, are two sides of the same coin. Very little of prophecy today is FORE-telling, revealing a future event or catastrophe, that might happen to someone if they take a certain course.

Most of the prophecy we are to do, and of which Paul was speaking in 1 Corinthians is [b]FORTH-telling;[/b] Speaking the wonderful word and works of God, through the inspiration of the holy spirit, bringing his Word to our remembrance. This prophecy is meant to edify, encourage and comfort the believers, by bringing forth the truth of the gospel of Christ. It is meant to tell believers what they need to hear from God’s word, when they need to hear it.

God knows what is going on in the hearts and lives of believers, at a given time. This form of prophecy is used so God can inspire a believer to speak the Word, and give the right word at the right time. In other words, not a “canned sermon”, like you get today in most Churches.

In the first century Church EVERY BELIEVER, learned to do this. And every believer was allowed to do this. Since they were all in various states of learning; then when the message came forth, those who were more mature in the Word and KNEW the truth would judge the message, simply to make sure it was based on the accuracy of what they had been taught first hand in person by Paul or other apostles.

First of all this type of prophecy is mainly what is called FORTH TELLING, nor FORE Telling. Prophecy is mainly speaking forth the word of God, through the spirit, that is teaching and doctrine. Only on occasion is it FORETELLING, warning and speaking forth a future event.


You state:

Quote:

Remember that under the law one infraction was damning and according to strict interpretation often resulted in immediate physical death. Remember the first guy who made the mistake of picking up sticks for a fire on the sabbath? They enforced the law by stoning him to death.

The standard under the law was perfection or nothing. But under the new covenant? 1 John 1:9 was written to believers, not unbelievers. God knew we could not keep the standard of perfection demanded by the law which, by the way, was only a shadow of the TRUE standard of Holiness that God IS. He offered to us reconciliation through His Son Jesus Christ. WHEN we do blow it, we have an advocate, we can confess our sins, and we continue to walk in His forgiveness and grace, cleansed of that sin. Is a prophetic word of less than 100% accuracy any different under the NT?





There are numerous incidents under the law, where people broke the law, and were not immediately stoned or killed. David and Bathsheba for one. What you said there, by using only one example is not accurate.


There is quite a difference, between acting against God’s word, or sinning on occasion, and practicing sin as a habitual lifestyle. Those who insisted on practicing sin as a habitual lifestyle, were dis-fellowshipped. As Paul stated regarding the man who was “having his father wife”, “purge out the old leaven, that you may become a new lump”. And he told them to put that person away out of the assembly.

The same holds true for someone who just continueally speaks what is false, and makes false assumptions and statements regarding God’s word. That person becomes a false teacher, and in making summary statements, in effect a ‘false prophet”. Because as I said: Saying that God’s word states such and such, in your own words is saying “Thus saith the Lord”…blah, blah, blah; If your BLAH ain’t accurate, you are giving false prophecy (FORTH-Telling). False edification, false exortation, and false comfort. And ultimately leading another brother or sister straight to hell. But then I’m sure we can come up with some partial testimony along with summary statements to prove that this cannot happen; and thus give some false security also.


Your last statement was:

“interested in what you all think.”


Some of your statements are wondering, what the truth really is, while some of them are stating what the truth is, but in reality is proven by the testimony you did not include to be false. This shows that you are truly in a state of not really knowing for sure.

This is OK, since many people in this day and time are in that state, and slowly God is leading them to the truth, through his word. But in that leading, you have to do about as much [b]UN-learning[/b], as you do learning; due to the fact that we have 2000 years of men giving false statements, based on partial testimony; which we have picked up unwittingly, and hold as the truth.

I went through a period of 10 years, where I learned that everything I once held to be the truth of what the Bible was teaching; was really based on false statements and partial testimony. Not only had I picked a lot of this stuff up, but also I make a lot of my own wrong conclusions doing the very same thing.

However, Jesus said in John 8:31, 32, that if we continued in his Word, we would become his disciples, and we would know the truth, and the truth would set us free. If you continue to read and study God’s word, and IF YOU TRULY HAVE A LOVE OF THE TRUTH, eventually you will correct yourself.

This is not how it was done in the first century, and we need to realize this. [b]THEY HAD THE TRUTH DELIVERD TO THEM FIRST HAND.[/b] We are simply trying to recover the accurate understanding of what they already knew.

Because they had the truth, they could judge when someone said “Thus saith the Lord”, and see if it lined up with what the scripture said. When people come to Christ, they basically know next to nothing. Then they are in danger of the following.

2 Peter 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, [b]speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which THEY that are UNLEARNED AND UNSTABLE wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

What is the error of the wicked? They are unlearned and unstable in the original truth, and so do exactly as you have done here, in mixing truth with error in your statements, and not taking all the testimony into account. [b]Then setting a precedent, that under the NT you don’t have to be 100% accurate when speaking for God.[/b]

According to the Word that is a wicked thing to do. Weather you do it on purpose or not. [b]I have done it,[/b] but every time I realized I did it I repented and renounced my false understanding, and asked God for forgiveness. I still have to do that on occasion, but not as much as at first, simply because over time, I have increased in knowledge. But I still wind up finding those little “statements”, lodged in my understanding that are not true.

I am just very THANKFUL, that I went through all of this in almost virtual seclusion, and could not spread my ideas to someone else. For this was before the invention and popularity of the internet. Here we an all effect and infest one another with our ideas. NOT that we should not speak what we think et. But we have to remember that what we say is of a very serious consiquence, not only to ourselves but to others who may pick up what we say, and then add more falsehood to it.

[b]I do not say these things to condemn you,[/b], but to bring to light some things you may not realize. And perhaps to test you to see what it is you truly love. [b]Do you truly love the TRUTH?[/b] Can you see that some of the conclusions you may have arrived at were based on incomplete evidence?

I am not saying that I myself know the all and all truth. But I have read, and read and read and read these things obsessively for many, many years. Therefore in some respects I have an advantage seeing as I have read them so much that I can recall things that others, who may not have had the time in reading I have, to recall.

In judging what someone says about the Word, you must have the ability to recall the testimony in context. I read and endeavor to understand and remember every verse, every incident in context. This helps me very much in determining if what someone says if the truth, and agrees with the entire testimony or is based on partial inclomplete testimony and statements they may have picked up from others.

[b]I have had to humble myself many times, and recant and repent to others what I may have taught.[/b] I am again just glad it was not a host of others. But I also teach people how to trim horses hooves. And I picked up a very damaging teaching from others on how to do it, and taught it for some time. It almost destroyed my horses hooves, and led others to do the same. I had to go back to all those people and recant and tell them I was wrong. That was a VERY hard thing to do. But in the end they appreciated me more for it, and it actually gave me more credibility with them; that I was able to admit when I was wrong.

Regards,
El Harris

 2009/9/29 12:34Profile









 Re:

This question in the title of this thread is a legitimate question, and I do not want to diminish it... but it's interesting how the same ol' topics just get recycled over and over again. I guess it happens because we have new people coming and going all the time... I just thought it was kinda funny.

My answer is "yes" it is different. There are a lot of people running around today prophecying nothing but looney tunes. My observation has been that God uses people as prophets, but usually the person doesn't realize it.

If someone tells me they are a prophet, or have the gift of prophecy... I am automatically skeptical. Usually a true prophet either doesn't realize the prophetic effect they are having on others, or God has so humbled the person that they would dare not brag or boast.

Krispy

 2009/9/29 13:04
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

If someone tells me they are a prophet, or have the gift of prophecy... I am automatically skeptical. Usually a true prophet either doesn't realize the prophetic effect they are having on others, or God has so humbled the person that they would dare not brag or boast.



No doubt, many boast in arrogance about their prophetic gifts. But, even to regularly talk about one's prophetic gift or calling does not make one arrogant. It's no more arrogant than to acknowledge being a teacher or elder. Of course, men can be arrogant about those things as well. But for those who are truly humble, they can talk about such a gifting in the same humility as Christ or any other prophet that has ever existed. The apostle Paul was never shy about talking about his apostolic calling, and did so on a regular basis. Was he arrogant for doing such? No doubt, there are men who do such and are arrogant. But, to frequently talk about it is not arrogance. Indeed, if such a person is where they need to be in the Lord, they will understand such a calling is one of humility.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2009/9/29 13:15Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 2007
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

El: I did not mean to imply that everthing a prophet did in the OT was 100% accurate, only that the legitimacy of the office demanded such. i.e., if the man says something that does not come to pass, then the man is not to be considered a prophet of God. My question was, which I think you did a good job of answering in the last half of the post, does this same standard of legitimacy exist in the NT, or do NT prophets sometimes miss it and yet continue to be recognized as legitimate under grace. The other discussion was to what degree are prophets different in function between the OT and NT. (Don't worry, you did not offend brother.)

I ask the question without stating my own opinion because I am very interested in hearing what everyone has to say on the issue.

Krispy, you are probably right. Is there anything new under the sun? :-) I sometimes return even to old topics with people I have already had the discussion with out of forgetfulness or because the topic is churning in me again and time has passed (Maybe we have studied or learned more in the mean time).

Thanks for the input and (el) for the time spent studying the question. I have found that I am sometimes totally wrong about things, sometimes have the basic skeleton down correctly but have the meat placed wrongly on the bones, sometimes I am spot on, but always I can learn from others.

God Bless!


_________________
Travis

 2009/9/29 16:35Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

For those of you who might be interested, I recently preached at church on the issue of prophetic ministry. It's by no means an exhaustive sermon on the topic, but, I thought you might be edified by it:

"False Prophets and the Testimony of Jesus" -
http://www.iamadisciple.com/sermons/falseprophets.mp3


_________________
Jimmy H

 2009/9/29 22:31Profile









 Re:

Quote:

KingJimmy wrote:
For those of you who might be interested, I recently preached at church on the issue of prophetic ministry. It's by no means an exhaustive sermon on the topic, but, I thought you might be edified by it:

"False Prophets and the Testimony of Jesus" -
http://www.iamadisciple.com/sermons/falseprophets.mp3



I listened Brother and the content was very on target. GOD Bless you.

 2009/9/29 23:45









 Re:

Quote:
No doubt, many boast in arrogance about their prophetic gifts. But, even to regularly talk about one's prophetic gift or calling does not make one arrogant. It's no more arrogant than to acknowledge being a teacher or elder. Of course, men can be arrogant about those things as well. But for those who are truly humble, they can talk about such a gifting in the same humility as Christ or any other prophet that has ever existed. The apostle Paul was never shy about talking about his apostolic calling, and did so on a regular basis. Was he arrogant for doing such? No doubt, there are men who do such and are arrogant. But, to frequently talk about it is not arrogance. Indeed, if such a person is where they need to be in the Lord, they will understand such a calling is one of humility.



I can see your point, KJ. I think you are right, I just haven't run into very many that seemed to be very humble about it. But thats just me, and I'm sure there is a tinge of judgementalism on my part as well.

Krispy

 2009/9/30 6:57
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

I like to define humility as "giving glory to another," which is far different than the self-abasing attitude that many teach as being humility. So long as one "glories in Christ Jesus" in regard to their calling, and Him alone, then I have no problem with it :-)


_________________
Jimmy H

 2009/9/30 9:31Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

El: I did not mean to imply that everthing a prophet did in the OT was 100% accurate, only that the legitimacy of the office demanded such. i.e., if the man says something that does not come to pass, then the man is not to be considered a prophet of God. My question was, which I think you did a good job of answering in the last half of the post, does this same standard of legitimacy exist in the NT, or do NT prophets sometimes miss it and yet continue to be recognized as legitimate under grace. The other discussion was to what degree are prophets different in function between the OT and NT. (Don't worry, you did not offend brother.)



To me the notion that "grace" somehow lowers the standard and allows you to miss-the-mark, while a common teaching, simply flys in the face of the clear warning from Hebrews:

Hebrews 12:25 See to it that you do not refuse Him who is speaking. For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape who turn away from Him who warns from heaven.

Hebrews teaches us that if anything, there is a higher standard under the present dispensation and covenant. "To whom much is given, much is required." Grace demands more, not less. Jesus also reminds us that we will have to given an account for every idle word. How much more will we have to give an account for a "missed" word?

Do we truly understand what it means to "miss it" prophetically? It means the prophet has decided to speak out of his own imagination, his own thought, and ultimately, his own life. He is on the throne instead of Christ. No matter how well meaning he might be, well meaning intention isn't justification for making a prophetic utterance that is in error. For such speaking is entirely issuing out of the self life.

Be sure, if God gives somebody a word to say, that individual is given everything from the Lord they need to be able to communicate that word. The gifts of the Spirit are an extension of the grace of God. And if the grace of God is capable of saving you and me from sin, death, and hell, then surely it is capable of giving us the ability to utter a few syllables 100 percent accurately, is it not?

But what if somebody does miss the mark, and their flesh gets in the way, and they mix the words of God with their own thoughts? Well, clearly they can repent and still be used of God. Indeed, there is a story in the OT, where one of the prophets came and cried against the altar at Bethel. The altar was split in two and he journeyed away. Along his trip, an "old prophet" came across him, and deceived him into doing contrary to what the Lord had told the prophet to do. When this happened, the Lord filled the mouth of the old prophet with words, and he began to cry out against the prophet who had gone astray. As the one prophet left, a lion came and killed him, just as the old prophet had said according to the word of the Lord.

So, it is possible for a geniune prophet of God to have a mixture in their life. That's not to say God in anyway tolerates such a mixture. He does not. Such a mixture is condemned by the word, and is in no way encouraged. But there is room for repentance for a man or woman who "misses it." But be sure, it is no minor thing to "miss it."

Sadly, many in the so-called "prophetic movement" have a light-hearted attitude towards "missing" it. They tend to act like nothing wrong happened, and that missing it is the norm, and simply shows "one is growing in their gift." Don't be deceived, there is nothing in Scripture that teaches one can "grow" in their spiritual gifting. One might have more and more grace in their life and be used more mightily than another person, but that grace supplies the need of the moment so as to allow one to fulfill the will of God perfectly as they exercise that gift.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2009/9/30 12:35Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy