How to determine real life prophets

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Post by Jill » Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:13 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Murf
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:28 pm

Re: How to determine real life prophets

Post by Murf » Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:11 pm

Paidion wrote:
But I also believe, based on scripture, that if someone is a true prophet he will be 100% accurate
Have you ever encountered such a prophet? And if not, does that mean that there are no true prophets at the present time?

Was Jonah a false prophet? He announced, "Yet 40 days and Ninevah will be overthrown!" Jonah 3:4 ESV. It was an unconditional prophecy, but it didn't happen.

Was Micah a false prophet? He prophesied:
Therefore because of you Zion shall be plowed as a field; Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins, and the mountain of the house a wooded height. Micah 3:12 RSV
This prophecy didn't come to pass.
I’m always skeptical whenever someone says this prophecy didn’t happen. I’m not sure how one would verify that claim. Just because no one wrote it down doesn’t mean it didn’t happen and lots of archeological finds that have proven the biblical authors to be correct.

As far as Jonah is concerned I’m open to several options.
1) Jonah could be a false prophet. He didn’t have the best of attitudes and nowhere in Jonah does it say what God told him to say. It just records what he did say. So maybe God told him they had 40 days unless…
2) Your assumption about the prophecy being unconditional could be wrong. Many Christians still believe the Jews have an unconditional right to occupy Palestine.
3) Perhaps “overthrown” doesn’t mean the city will be destroyed but that the citizens evil ways will be overthrown.

User avatar
Danny
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: How to determine real life prophets

Post by Danny » Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:20 pm

I came across the following statement today from Quaker author Lewis Benson and thought it was germane to the discussion at hand:
The objective Word which is addressed directly to man by God is the distinguishing feature of all Hebrew religion. With the coming of Christ this knowledge of the divine Word is no longer mediated through a few uniquely chosen prophets but comes through the living Christ who is inwardly available to all men. This continuously spoken authoritative Word becomes the great organizing principle of a new type of community: the Church of Christ.
My blog: http://dannycoleman.blogspot.com

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read’st black where I read white.”
-- William Blake

User avatar
mkprr
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:39 am

Re: How to determine real life prophets

Post by mkprr » Tue May 12, 2009 11:51 pm

All the discussion here is exciting. Danny, I apologize about how I worded that. I didn’t mean to suggest you haven’t read the book of Acts carefully. I’m sure you have. I took your advice and read through Acts again. I don’t want to be too long winded so I will share only a few of the examples I found about the authority of the apostles. I would be glad to share more later.
By hierarchy I mean that the apostles held an authoritative office in the church that others did not. I don’t believe Peter was more than a man nor would I suggest he should be viewed as more. The office he held was however very important.
The office that the apostles at Jerusalem held was essential to the unity and strength of the church in early times and whenever the unity is strongest we see that it is because the disciples followed them carefully. see acts 2:42-47.
They held keys to perform ordinances that are recognized on earth and in heaven, and they established doctrine and kept order in the church.

As the Church grows we see the apostles suffering from the same dilemma Moses had. There was more work to do than they could get done themselves. So like Moses, they began giving their authority to others. In chapter 6 they call the disciples together and ask them to recommend 7 honest men full of the holy Ghost to perform duties. (note that the apostles involve all of the disciples whenever they can but they call the shots) The people listened gladly and chose 7 men and put them before the apostles who then prayed, laid their hands upon them and sent them to work. see Acts chapter 6:3-7 This is the first time in the book of Acts where we read of the apostles sharing this authority but later on we will see that it becomes the norm. Churches are set up and men are called by the apostles or by others who have authority from the apostles to establish teachers and leaders throughout the churches.

21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
Acts 14:21-23
In Chapter 10 we see what in my mind is one of their most important roles. That of revealing new doctrine. (or new at least to the people hearing it) Danny, you quoted Quaker author Lewis Benson.
With the coming of Christ this knowledge of the divine Word is no longer mediated through a few uniquely chosen prophets but comes through the living Christ who is inwardly available to all men. This continuously spoken authoritative Word becomes the great organizing principle of a new type of community: the Church of Christ.
This statement seems to be contrary to the book of Acts. The coming of Christ doesn’t signify the end of revelation from God to the Church through uniquely chosen prophets. We see in Acts chapter 10 that the revelation that the gospel should go forth to the gentiles was mediated through the apostle Peter.
Lets examine. In verse 2 a devout man (not a Jew) sees a vision and learns that he needs to visit Peter. Verse 9 Peter goes to pray, verse 11- 16 he see’s a vision. We hear of no thers recieving this revelation with him. It seems to be him alone. He learns that the gospel is for everyone and preaches it to this devout man and his house and sees that they are blessed with the Holy Ghost as well. This revelation was so contrary to the teachings and traditions of the past that in chapter 11 verse 2 when he tells the news to the brethren in Jerusalem they don’t at first believe him. After hearing his story and realizing that he isn’t speaking about his personal opinion but that the Lord revealed and proved it to him the argument stops and they accept it as the word of God. (see verses 4- 18)
This new doctrine (not eternally new just new to the Jews at the time) now brings up other problems and questions for the disciples. Let’s take a closer look at the council of Jerusalem Acts 15. You left out some key elements.
The controversy starts when gentiles are converted. We read of “certain men” who preach that the gentiles need to be circumcised to be saved. There was “no small dissension and disputation with them” And so” they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” 15:2

So here we see what the early church did when questions about salvation interrupt their unity. They went to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.
We have the direct living Presence of Christ within us and in our midst when we gather. Why turn from the Living Christ to mere men when we seek direction from God?
It is a loaded question you ask. We know to never trust in the arm of flesh or turn to mere men when we seek direction. Yet Paul Barnabas and others appear to be doing just that. Taking a closer look however we can see that they weren’t seeking direction from man. They were seeking direction from the offices that the Lord had appointed to direct the Church as a whole. They were going to the apostles and elders, not to Peter and John. Peter John and others happen to fill these offices.

So they went to Jerusalem and as you said the matter was brought before everyone. It was equally as controversial there as it had been at Antioch and seems to be quite chaotic until....”Peter rose up” see acts 15:7-11. When he was done speaking “Then the multitude kept silence” the arguing had stopped. Paul and others stood up to confirm what the Lord had spoken through Peter. The controversy was over. Those holding the office of apostle had spoken the will of the Lord, and those who were present were converted to the idea. Letters were sent out to the churches to follow the will of the Lord as it was given to them at Jerusalem. We don’t hear anymore of the “certain men” who started the controversy but we can assume they either changed their minds or apostatised. We also don’t hear of any churches rejecting the authority of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. There was no room for conflicting teachings in the churches once the apostles and elders at Jerusalem had obtained the will of the Lord on the matter.

If the office of apostle doesn’t hold special authority than perhaps we shouldn’t view the book of Acts or the writings of Paul or any other apostle as scripture anyway. If this is the case there is no reason to study the book of Acts to get answers. I believe however that the apostles did have authority and that their writings, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost, are binding scripture.

User avatar
mkprr
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:39 am

Re: How to determine real life prophets

Post by mkprr » Wed May 13, 2009 12:14 am

Christopher asked
Are you suggesting or supposing that there are no theological debates among LDS members? Or could it be that nobody feels at liberty to openly challenge the "authority" of the church?

Among those who sustain the leadership of the church as prophets seers and revelators you won’t find much confusion on anything pertaining to salvation. The basic principles of the gospel have been revealed so clearly in the LDS church that there isn’t much to argue. I understand that the idea of having answers to deep and important questions can sometimes be boring. But don’t worry, once you receive answers to the basic principles of salvation there are plenty of things to explore. The more you learn the more you’ll realize how little you know. I have uplifting theological arguments with my brothers and wife on a regular basis and we are all lds. I love reading the scriptures. All of them. They open my mind to deeper understanding every day.
I’m not afraid to challenge the authority of the Church. I hold fast to all that has been confirmed to me by the Holy Ghost and I test all other things. I have no reason to challenge the “authority” of the things that have already been confirmed to me by the Holy Ghost. Do you feel at liberty to openly challenge the Bible? If not why not. If so which parts do you openly challenge and why?

User avatar
christopher
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:50 pm

Re: How to determine real life prophets

Post by christopher » Wed May 13, 2009 9:21 pm

Hi Mkprr,
Among those who sustain the leadership of the church as prophets seers and revelators you won’t find much confusion on anything pertaining to salvation.
I would say the same for protestants as well. There isn't much debate on how to be saved* "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved...". The things protestants debate about are typically non-essentials when you get right down to it.
Do you feel at liberty to openly challenge the Bible? If not why not.


Sure, why wouldn't I? Any belief system should be falsifiable and open to challenge. If it's true, it will withstand that test and I believe the bible as we have it has done just that. If it was not true, why would I hesitate to challenge and expose it? The New Testament Canon has authority to me because the apostles from which it came had that authority granted directly from Jesus Himself. Beyond that, I see no reason to suppose that authority was passed on to successive generations through some corruptible heirarchical leadership structure. I don't believe that is what Jesus came to establish. Not the RCC and most certainly not the LDS church.

I believe you asked how protestants work out the whole authority thing since there are so many denominations. That's just it. The authority is in the word of God and the conviction of the Holy Spirit, not the offices of man-made institutions. The dependency is on God to lead us in all truth. Scary huh? ;)


*It is true that some protestant sects believe that baptism somehow completes the formula, but the main premise is FAITH.

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Post by Jill » Thu May 14, 2009 8:33 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Post by Jill » Sun May 31, 2009 5:48 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Danny
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: How to determine real life prophets

Post by Danny » Sat Jun 06, 2009 1:59 am

Hi mkprr,

I didn't realize that you had responded to my last post. Thanks for replying.

I couldn't help but notice in your response that you used the word "office" seven times. I think this is indicative of a fundamental difference in viewpoint that you and I have about apostles & prophets. "Office" implies position. Position implies hierarchy. Hierarchy implies succession. For the purpose of illustration, let's assume that you work in a job where you have a supervisor. Your supervisor is both a person and a position (or office). If the person who is your supervisor leaves the company, the position/office will likely remain and be filled by a different person. That new person's authority over you comes by way of occupying the position/office. You seem to take a similar approach towards apostles and prophets.

By contrast, my understanding of apostles and prophets is that they are not offices, but rather gifts given by God, through people, for the edification of the ekklesia. "Gift" implies function, rather than position. A functional orientation--rather than a positional one--implies a lack of hierarchy and certainly a lack of succession. If God is giving the gifts directly to men and women why would He need the mechanism of succession from one person to another?

The gifts listed by Paul in Ephesians 4:11-13 and 1 Corinthians 12:4-28 have to do with the function of the ekklesia (what we have come to call "church"). An ekklesia in the first century was not a hierarchical organization, but rather a gathering of believers mutually edifying one another with their spiritual gifts.

The picture Paul paints in 1 Corinthians 12 of a functioning ekklesia is decidedly non-hierarchical:

"Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.

For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be?

But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.

Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the ekklesia, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way."

What makes gifts "greater" in Paul's mind? Their ability to edify the body.

As Paul explains in a more abbreviated way in Eph 4:7-16 (I'm skipping verses 9 & 10 for the sake of brevity): "But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore it says, "WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN." And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the
saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love."

In the Quaker meeting within which I worship, as well as in house churches I've been a part of, we have recognized that everyone seems to have certain "clusters" of gifts in varying mixtures and degrees of strength. Anyone is free to function in their gifts when the ekklesia meets--for the edification of the body--so long as they are led by God to do so. Through the expression of these various gifts, we see the body of Christ formed in our midst.
By hierarchy I mean that the apostles held an authoritative office in the church that others did not. I don’t believe Peter was more than a man nor would I suggest he should be viewed as more. The office he held was however very important.
When you say "apostles" here, who are you referring to? There were many apostles beyond the Twelve. They included Barnabas, Silas, Apollos, Timothy, Andronicus, Junia (who was a woman, by the way) and who knows how many others. The word "apostle" simply means "sent one". The authority of the early apostles (including the Twelve) did not come because of an office that they held. It came because they had been in our Lord's presence, They had been discipled by Him and had been sent by Him to proclaim the Gospel. As a result, they were also de facto elders (presbuteros) and overseers (episkopos) and teachers to the followers of Jesus. It was not because of an office (which could be transferred to others). It was because of experience, maturity, calling and gifting. Experience, maturity, calling and gifts cannot be transferred.

I have occasionally had Mormon missionaries come to my door. I usually invite them in, offer them a glass of cold water, and chat a bit. If one of them is wearing a badge that says "Elder" I'll tease him (in a good-natured way) and ask if Elder is his first name. Functionally speaking, a man in his early twenties is not an elder (except maybe to children and teenagers) even though someone may have given him the title, office and badge. That is positional thinking. Eldership has to do with function, not position. John Wimber of the Vineyard used to say, "If you want to know who the elders in our church are, you won't find them by name-badges. The way to identify the elders is that they're the ones who are elding." In other words, it's a functional paradigm, not positional.
The office that the apostles at Jerusalem held was essential to the unity and strength of the church in early times and whenever the unity is strongest we see that it is because the disciples followed them carefully. see acts 2:42-47.
Ummm, no. They devoted themselves to following Jesus. Following Jesus included following the teaching of the apostles since, after all, the apostles had been taught by Christ. Following Jesus also meant hanging out together, eating, praying, sharing, ministering to one another with one's gifts and encountering the presence of the Living Christ as a gathered community. True unity comes from following Jesus, not men. If you believe that Jesus truly is risen and present with us, this makes perfect sense. On the other hand, if you believe that Jesus and God are far off and uninvolved in our affairs, then the need for following men and building hierarchies makes sense. Experience has led me to believe the former.
They held keys to perform ordinances that are recognized on earth and in heaven, and they established doctrine and kept order in the church.
Keys and ordinances? Sounds very Catholic. Jesus did not come to start a church, you know. He left that to His followers. It was up those who had been His close disciples when He was alive to sort out what to do next. They had to establish doctrine as situations arose--as in the Council at Jerusalem--but always under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and typically in the open with the involvement of the entire ekklesia. Peter is an excellent example of the fact that one can have been extremely close to Jesus yet still continue to screw up. This is why we desperately need community and mutual accountability to remain balanced. As far as keeping order in the church, that was the job of the elders in each ekklesia. Early churches were led by multiple elders, not the single pastor model which is the norm nowadays.
As the Church grows we see the apostles suffering from the same dilemma Moses had. There was more work to do than they could get done themselves. So like Moses, they began giving their authority to others. In chapter 6 they call the disciples together and ask them to recommend 7 honest men full of the holy Ghost to perform duties. (note that the apostles involve all of the disciples whenever they can but they call the shots) The people listened gladly and chose 7 men and put them before the apostles who then prayed, laid their hands upon them and sent them to work. see Acts chapter 6:3-7 This is the first time in the book of Acts where we read of the apostles sharing this authority but later on we will see that it becomes the norm.
I don't know how you're getting "they began giving their authority to others" out of Acts 6:3-7. That is certainly not in the text. You are reading it into the passage. The number of disciples was increasing rapidly. The Jerusalem church had gone from 120 to thousands. There were tensions between the Hellenistic Jews (who would have spoken Greek as their first language) and the Hebraic Jews (who would have spoken Aramaic as their first language). Tensions between Hellenistic and Hebraic Jews went back a few hundred years before Christ, so this was a cultural thing. The Twelve were made aware of the problem because of the input from the Grecian Jews. There were temporal needs which needed to be met. If the Twelve were "calling the shots", as you say, then they would have hand-picked the seven men themselves. Instead, they left it to the "plethos"--meaning "everyone" (plethos is where we get our word plethora, meaning "a multitude"). The Twelve seem to have no problem trusting everyone in the church to be able to recognize who among them is "full of the Spirit and wisdom." If you consider the Seven to be in positions of authority, then what the Twelve are essentially telling the people to do is pick their own leaders!

However, the text does not say that the Twelve apostles are "giving their authority" to the Seven. Rather, it says they are turning over the responsibility of fair distrubution of food to them. It's a huge stretch to go from that to "apostolic succession"! The Twelve knew what they were called to do (the ministry of the logos of God). They seemed quite comfortable with other "ministers" being selected by the ekklesia itself.
Churches are set up and men are called by the apostles or by others who have authority from the apostles to establish teachers and leaders throughout the churches.
Your statement is in direct contradiction to what the text actually says in Acts 6:3-7. It was not the apostles who established the Seven; it was "the plethos". One thing you may not be aware of is that the names given in verse 5 are Greek names. The implication is that the church picked seven Grecian Jews who were "full of the Spirit and wisdom". The Twelve, on the other hand, were Hebraic Jews. They entrusted the Spirit-guided discernment of the people to pick the right men for the job.
21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Acts 14:21-23
Paul and Barnabas planted churches which they knew they would have to leave after only a short period of time. Verse 21 says that Paul & Barny returned again to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch and at that time "ordained them elders". This begs the question: Who was in charge while Paul and Barnabas were gone? It seems that Paul and Barnabas initially left the fledgling churches in the care of Jesus Christ Himself. This is not a problem if you truly believe that Christ is risen and present with us. When they returned several months later to see how the churches were fairing, they looked for who among each ekklesia showed signs of maturity and giftedness in caring for the people. They looked for presbuteros (mature believers) who could be entrusted to act as caretakers (episkopos). The word translated “ordained” in this verse, is the Greek word, cheirotoneo. Cheirotoneo comes from the Greek words “Cheir” (meaning “hand”) and “teino” (meaning “to stretch” -- we get our word “tendon” from this same word). The primary meaning of the word cheirotoneo is to vote by stretching out one's hand. Secondarily, it means to select or appoint. This verse could be interpreted as saying that the selection of elders was done by a vote of hands within each ekklesia. Or it could mean that Paul and Barny did the selecting. The first interpretation is consistent with the apostles' modus operandi which we just saw in Acts 6:3-7, but the second interpretation seems to make more sense grammatically in this verse. Either way, what went on here has nothing to do with what we now think of as "ordination". The emphasis is on identifying those who are already functioning, just as in Acts 6:3-7 the "plethos" were told to select from among themselves men who were already known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. It's about function, not office.
In Chapter 10 we see what in my mind is one of their most important roles. That of revealing new doctrine. (or new at least to the people hearing it) Danny, you quoted Quaker author Lewis Benson.

"With the coming of Christ this knowledge of the divine Word is no longer mediated through a few uniquely chosen prophets but comes through the living Christ who is inwardly available to all men. This continuously spoken authoritative Word becomes the great organizing principle of a new type of community: the Church of Christ."

This statement seems to be contrary to the book of Acts. The coming of Christ doesn’t signify the end of revelation from God to the Church through uniquely chosen prophets. We see in Acts chapter 10 that the revelation that the gospel should go forth to the gentiles was mediated through the apostle Peter. Lets examine. In verse 2 a devout man (not a Jew) sees a vision and learns that he needs to visit Peter. Verse 9 Peter goes to pray, verse 11- 16 he see’s a vision. We hear of no thers recieving this revelation with him. It seems to be him alone. He learns that the gospel is for everyone and preaches it to this devout man and his house and sees that they are blessed with the Holy Ghost as well. This revelation was so contrary to the teachings and traditions of the past that in chapter 11 verse 2 when he tells the news to the brethren in Jerusalem they don’t at first believe him. After hearing his story and realizing that he isn’t speaking about his personal opinion but that the Lord revealed and proved it to him the argument stops and they accept it as the word of God. (see verses 4- 18) This new doctrine (not eternally new just new to the Jews at the time) now brings up other problems and questions for the disciples. Let’s take a closer look at the council of Jerusalem Acts 15. You left out some key elements. The controversy starts when gentiles are converted. We read of “certain men” who preach that the gentiles need to be circumcised to be saved. There was “no small dissension and disputation with them” And so” they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” 15:2

So here we see what the early church did when questions about salvation interrupt their unity. They went to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.
It's the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost which pretty much signifies not the end but the diminishment of revelation from God to the Church through uniquely chosen prophets. Other than Agabus and Philips' daughters, you don't hear much about prophets in the New Testament after Pentecost. This is because we all have access to God. That was part of the point of Pentecost in Acts 2. Some are more gifted in the prophetic, for the building up of the church (just as some are more gifted in teaching, evangelizing, administration, etc.) but the days of the Old Testament-style prophets ended with Jesus. He is the last and greatest and everlasting Prophet in the Old Testament sense. We need no other Prophets. We can receive revelation directly from Christ.

In writing the Book of Acts, Luke focuses on a few key players. He begins with Peter and then shifts to Paul as he documents the Gospel's expansion from Jerusalem outward. There were many other Christians; many other apostles; doing similar acts, which aren't recorded in any surviving documents. However, Peter does carry a lot of weight since he was very close to Jesus. Paul also because of his education, reputation and revelatory experiences. Why would their counsel not be sought in matters of doctrine and practice? The key though, as discussed in a previous post, is that at the Council of Jerusalem, a mandate isn't sent down from the top of a hierarchy to the rank & file. Rather, everyone is involved. The goal seems is to hear as a gathered people what the Holy Spirit is saying.
We have the direct living Presence of Christ within us and in our midst when we gather. Why turn from the Living Christ to mere men when we seek direction from God?
It is a loaded question you ask. We know to never trust in the arm of flesh or turn to mere men when we seek direction.
We do? I disagree. "For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellors there is safety". (Prov. 24:6) We were designed and created to function within community. Although we have direct access to God through Jesus Christ and can be guided and instructed by the Holy Spirit, we still need one another. We are interdependent. This is why God gives a multitude of spiritual gifts to the ekklesia. Within the community of a functioning church, we complement each other, compensate for each other, provide wisdom and council for each other, edify each other, instruct each other, help each other discern what the Holy Spirit is saying, etc. No person is above this interdependence.
Yet Paul Barnabas and others appear to be doing just that. Taking a closer look however we can see that they weren’t seeking direction from man. They were seeking direction from the offices that the Lord had appointed to direct the Church as a whole. They were going to the apostles and elders, not to Peter and John. Peter John and others happen to fill these offices. So they went to Jerusalem and as you said the matter was brought before everyone. It was equally as controversial there as it had been at Antioch and seems to be quite chaotic until....”Peter rose up” see acts 15:7-11. When he was done speaking “Then the multitude kept silence” the arguing had stopped. Paul and others stood up to confirm what the Lord had spoken through Peter. The controversy was over. Those holding the office of apostle had spoken the will of the Lord, and those who were present were converted to the idea. Letters were sent out to the churches to follow the will of the Lord as it was given to them at Jerusalem.
Your retelling of the Jerusalem Council is misleading. I'm assuming you didn't intentionally try to mislead but simply mis-read the text. Nowhere does the text say that the multitude become silent after Peter spoke, as if in acquiescence. Nor does it say that the purpose of Paul and Barnabas speaking was to "confirm what the Lord had spoken through Peter". The whole assembly did become silent but it was while Paul and Barny were speaking (hmmm, that implies that they weren't silent before...) probably because they were enraptured by what was being said. Nowhere does it say that anyone was "converted to the idea." The whole point of the council was to gather input and figure out what to do, hopefully under the guidence of the Holy Spirit.

What we have here is a difference in interpretation. What you seem to see is Peter as the positional authority mandating his decision in the matter down through the hierarchy, and everyone else obeying. What I see is everyone participating in trying to figure out what the Lord wants them to do in this situation. Certain people are highlighted in Luke's account: Peter, Paul, Barnabas, James, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they were calling the shots.

Typically once a month a Quaker church will have what's called a "Meeting for Business" (although its actual full name is "Meeting for Worship for the Purpose of doing Business"). It seems to be a perfect functioning model of what went on at the Jerusalem Council. An issue will be presented to the meeting. Input and opinions are welcomed from anyone who wants to participate. Dissenting and minority opinions are welcomed. Then the group will listen together to hear what God is saying. People will share what they believe God is saying. More listening occurs. A mature believer called a Clerk (essentially an elder) will, reminiscent of Peter, rise and say "The sense of the meeting seems to be that God is saying ..." There may be agreement all around or some may say "No, I don't think that's it." More listening to God may occur. Eventually, the group will settle unto a sense of how God is leading them. The Clerk's job is to accurately state and record what has been reached as a group. This really does work and it is the antithesis of a hierarchical structure.
If the office of apostle doesn’t hold special authority than perhaps we shouldn’t view the book of Acts or the writings of Paul or any other apostle as scripture anyway. If this is the case there is no reason to study the book of Acts to get answers. I believe however that the apostles did have authority and that their writings, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost, are binding scripture.
It's easier to argue that in the New Testament church the office of apostle held special authority than to argue that it still does today. At least in the New Testament church apostles were fairly easy to identify. They had been with Jesus and had references from others who had been with Jesus. Nowadays. anyone can (and does) claim to be an Apostle. It is meaningless. The gift of Apostleship isn't a matter of what's on your business card or name-badge or website. I know people who have the apostolic gift and it's about what they do, not an office that they claim to hold. None of them would be presumptuous enough to claim the office or title of Apostle. But they do function apostolically.

I'm not sure why you think there is no reason to study the Book of Acts if the office of apostle doesn't hold special authority. Luke, who wrote Acts, is not recorded in scripture as holding any apostolic office. And besides, Acts isn't a book of teachings; it is an historical narrative. All kinds of errors can occur when one tries to read an historical narrative as if it is doctrinal teaching. An historical narrative simply says, "this happened, and then this happened and then this happened." We can learn much from this, but it does not necessarily follow that because something happened a certain way in the narrative, it should happen that way now. Especially when we follow the Living God, not a book.

And you don't need a modern-day Apostle or Prophet to interpret scripture for you. As John wrote, "As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in Him." (1 John 2:27)

I too believe that the writings of the apostles (and non-apostles) which we have come to collectively call the New Testament are indeed scripture. Though I don't know what you mean by "binding", as if it is some kind of law book. Also, I couldn't help but notice the Mormon qualifier you slipped in there: "...when moved by the Holy Ghost..." Who makes the determination on when they were and weren't "moved by the Holy Ghost" and therefore which bits are scripture and which aren't? Do your Apostles and Prophets? And by what authority? Their superior education? Or simply because they claim that God told them so?

What I believe about scripture is what Paul said: It is inspired and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:16). I do not believe that scripture is inerrant or infallible. These are claims that scripture does not make for itself. I do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God. I don't need authorities holding offices to enable me to follow Jesus. He is the only mediator between me and God that I need, along with the support, edification and sometimes correction of others with whom I am in community and who are also following Jesus.
Last edited by Danny on Sat Jun 06, 2009 1:52 pm, edited 3 times in total.
My blog: http://dannycoleman.blogspot.com

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read’st black where I read white.”
-- William Blake

User avatar
Danny
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:52 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: How to determine real life prophets

Post by Danny » Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:01 pm

POSTSCRIPT...

Last night I was part of a gathering which may help to explain, on a functional level, some of what I wrote about above regarding interdependence. A woman at our church is facing a career crossroads. She is trying to decide whether to continue with her present line of work, branch out into an off-shoot of her present line of work, or do something completely different which would enable her to use gifts and abilities that she hasn't been able to use in her present line of work. Five of us gathered together in a home to "listen" together. She explained her situation, then we all became still and listened to the Holy Spirit. As each of us began to receive impressions from God we would share them, always with the caveat that we might be mistaken. There was no Prophet pronouncing "Thus sayeth the Lord...", just a small group of believers seeking wisdom from God together. The result was more like a quilt as bits and pieces that each of us received began to form a clear picture of what God was saying to this woman. Things were revealed by the Holy Spirit which she had not shared but which, when brought into light, she acknowledged were true and which helped to explain why she was having some of the struggles she was having (these were not condemnatory or embarrassing things, btw). The revelation of what God was doing in her life was much deeper than what she had initially come seeking wisdom about and had to do with some core fears of loss that kept her in bondage. This was a very interactive process of listening, sharing, dialoguing, listening some more, etc. By the end of the evening she had a very clear sense of what God wants her to do. It was much more profound and fulfilling than the handful of options that appeared to be available to her at the beginning of the evening. She left very encouraged.

This was the Body of Christ functioning.
My blog: http://dannycoleman.blogspot.com

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read’st black where I read white.”
-- William Blake

Post Reply

Return to “Latter Day Saints (aka Mormonism)”