Prophets

[Mike Miller]

After church on Sunday, I was asked a really good question: "Are there prophets today or or were they only for Old Testament times?"

To begin with, let me explain the role of the prophet in the Old Testament (OT). OT prophets were spokesmen for God. When they spoke, it was the perfect word of God. True prophets spoke infallibly as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. That is why much of what they spoke is recorded as part of our Bible today. In fact, according to Deuteronomy 13, if any prophet either says anything contradictory to God's Word or predicts something that does not come to pass, he is a false prophet. The penalty was death. Nothing less than 100% accuracy was acceptable. The last of these OT prophets was John the Baptist (he was in the New Testament, but he was before Jesus).

In the New Testament (NT), there were some who spoke and wrote the words of God. They were called apostles. As theologian Wayne Grudem says, "The apostles are the New Testament counterpart to the Old Testament prophets." They were the ones with the authority to write Scripture.

Nevertheless, there are also those who are called "prophets" in the NT, but they are different from the OT prophets, and I believe the gift of prophecy in the NT sense is still present today. First, NT prophets did not speak with the same kind of authority as did the OT prophets or the NT apostles, and their words did not carry the weight of Scripture. In fact, NT prophets can be wrong.

In 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21, Paul tells the Thessalonians (who had "accepted" and "received" the Word of God) that they should not "despise prophecies," but that they should instead "test everything," holding fast to "what is good." This implies that when prophets spoke (like when teachers teach), everything they said should be tested by Scripture. We know that those with the gift of teaching can be wrong and should therefore be tested against Scripture. Prophets should be examined in the same way.

Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 14:29-38, Paul advises that when prophets speak, what they say should be weighed. If they carried the same weight as Scripture, Paul would not have given this instruction. He would have simply said, "Accept whatever they say as God's Word."

So what is the gift of prophecy, and what is the role of NT and contemporary prophets? Well, in the same passage in 1 Corinthians mentioned above, it seems that people could be given a "revelation" that they would speak for others to weigh. This is not the same kind of "revelation" that Scripture is, but my understanding is that it would be a kind of impression to speak to others words of encouragement or admonishment. For example, someone might be in a group with others and say, "I sense that I need to say something to the group. I believe God is impressing on my heart that we need to pray right now for our pastor (always a good idea ." Well, that person wouldn't be speaking a "new" revelation in addition to Scripture, but rather an encouragement to action based on the Holy Spirit's prompting. It could be that the pastor needed extra prayer at that time.

Similarly, I have had times preaching when I have felt led to say something that was not in my sermon notes--something I suddenly sensed that the church needed to hear. That could be an example of prophecy in action. But remember--this is not infallible and should always be tested against Scripture.

The gift of prophecy is different from teaching in that teaching is something that is prepared, whereas prophecy would be more spontaneous. Teachers should not be unprepared and try to teach spontaneously as prompted by the Spirit, but they should work hard at understanding Scripture for the purpose of instructing others. Prophets cannot prepare and study for prophecies. They just happen. A teacher might have the gift of prophecy, but not necessarily. While they might overlap, they do not do so necessarily. Also, 1 Corinthians 14 indicates that pretty much anyone in the congregation can at times be prompted to prophesy. In fact, in verse 5, Paul even says that he would like for all of them to do so. This is the gift that is to be most desired in the body.

Well, that's a lot of info. Let me know if I can clarify or if you have anything to add.

[Alicia Hunsberger]

Thanks for addressing my question. This does help clear up my confusion yesterday. I did know that the gift of prophecy existed and this explanation helps to clarify the difference between an OT prophet, a man speaking the word of God, and a modern day prophet, one feeling the movement of the Holy Spirit, which should ALWAYS be tested against scripture. I appreciate you taking the time to explain!

[Terri]

So, I guess that people couldn't necessarily say that if a one who claims to be a prophet (present day) is a false prophet if the prophet ever says, or has ever said something that doesn't come to pass or hold true to Scripture??? Am I making sense to you?

I am referring to the tv preacher we talked about in small group last night.

[Mike Miller]

Since prophets today are not of the order of OT prophets, they do not speak infallibly. However, a contemporary prophet who predicts something that doesn't come to pass, or who claims to have information in addition to Scripture, would be a false prophet. Since NT prophets are not infallible, they might misinterpret a word from the Lord that, when tested against Scripture, is shown to be incorrect. But they always place themselves under the authority of the Word.

Similarly, a teacher must always be tested against Scripture for correct doctrine and interpretation. We teachers are not infallible and can make mistakes. However, a teacher who teaches a false Gospel or who is wrong on the core doctrines of the faith (i.e., salvation by grace, the Trinity, the virgin birth, etc.) is one who could be labeled a false teacher or a heretic. This is why I see Osteen (the one we talked about last night)--as a false teacher--because he teaches a false Gospel (denying the necessity of repentance, making false promises of wealth and comfort). I would definitely not label him as a false prophet, because he claims to be teaching God's Word. To my knowledge, he doesn't claim to declare prophecy that is revealed to him directly from God.

By way of example, I teach that baptism is to be practiced by immersion by believers only. A PCA pastor teaches that baptism can be by sprinkling and performed on infants. One of us is wrong. However, we are both orthodox in our teachings of the central doctrines of Christianity, so neither of us would label the other as false teachers. Also neither of us would be considered as false prophets because we are not claiming a divine revelation on the matter.

If, on the other hand, I deny the Trinity (as do Jehovah's Witnesses) or the virgin birth (as do Mormons), or if I claim that salvation can only come through baptism (as does the Church of Christ) or through the keeping of sacraments (like the Roman Catholic Church), then I am guilty of heresy. Similarly, if I remove repentance and lordship from the Gospel, or if I claim that the Gospel brings an offer of financial prosperity, then I have perverted the Gospel, and we can see what Paul said about that in Galatians 1:8-9.

I'm really not trying to beat up on Osteen. I think he's sincere. It's just that he's sincerely wrong. He seeks to improve upon the Gospel, and in so doing, he abandons it altogether. I could not be saved until I acknowledged my sin. Not only that, but without realizing the depth of my sin, the cross makes no sense to me. Why would Jesus have to die? I am very jealous of the Gospel, and no one is perfect, but we teachers have to be right on this. Anything else is powerless to save (Romans 1:16).