prophets fo today
prophets fo today
have to dissagree witj the host.there are no more thus the lord says kind of prophets.the cannon of scripture is complete.god has spoken.or we would have to add another book to the bible from the man down the road because he believes hes a prophet.understandable if youve been teached in a charismstic church enviroment.
Re: prophets fo today
Grayham,
Once again, it's hard to follow your broken sentences, but it sounds like you are saying you disagree with my affirmation that there are prophets today. Strange, since I have not affirmed that there are any prophets today, and expressed my doubts about the present office of a prophet in the church.
However, your statement that, if there were prophets in the church, we would have to add books to the Bible makes no sense. There were prophets in the early church (Acts 11:27-28; 21:9; 1 Corinthians 14:29), but none of them wrote books of the Bible. The New Testament books were not written by prophets (except for Revelation), but by apostles. I also have my doubts about modern-day apostles of the New Testament sort.
I have noticed a pattern in several of your "disagreements" with me. You say you "disagree with the host" about something, but, in most cases, the something is something I also have stated my disagreement with. In other words, you do appear to agree with my position, as stated on the air.
I think what bothers you is that I present other possibilities, in addition to my own view, and you register your disagreement with those alternatives. It seems that what you disagree with is not my actual positions, but with my policy of surveying the options other than my own position. In this case, you don't disagree with me doctrinally so much as philosophically. That is, my philosophy of education included the providing of information on as many credible alternatives as may exist upon a controversy, in addition to stating my own opinion.
If this is in fact what you are having problems with, on a regular basis, you might find it easier to maintain your tranquility by listening to other radio programs instead of mine. I have no intention of changing my policy.
Once again, it's hard to follow your broken sentences, but it sounds like you are saying you disagree with my affirmation that there are prophets today. Strange, since I have not affirmed that there are any prophets today, and expressed my doubts about the present office of a prophet in the church.
However, your statement that, if there were prophets in the church, we would have to add books to the Bible makes no sense. There were prophets in the early church (Acts 11:27-28; 21:9; 1 Corinthians 14:29), but none of them wrote books of the Bible. The New Testament books were not written by prophets (except for Revelation), but by apostles. I also have my doubts about modern-day apostles of the New Testament sort.
I have noticed a pattern in several of your "disagreements" with me. You say you "disagree with the host" about something, but, in most cases, the something is something I also have stated my disagreement with. In other words, you do appear to agree with my position, as stated on the air.
I think what bothers you is that I present other possibilities, in addition to my own view, and you register your disagreement with those alternatives. It seems that what you disagree with is not my actual positions, but with my policy of surveying the options other than my own position. In this case, you don't disagree with me doctrinally so much as philosophically. That is, my philosophy of education included the providing of information on as many credible alternatives as may exist upon a controversy, in addition to stating my own opinion.
If this is in fact what you are having problems with, on a regular basis, you might find it easier to maintain your tranquility by listening to other radio programs instead of mine. I have no intention of changing my policy.