Christians: There are no modern-day prophets

[tomspug]

I believe in the gift of prophecy, I do. But in the Biblical sense of a prophet, one who speaks the direct word of God, I do not believe there are any anymore. I believe that the Word of God was concluded through Christ, the last prophet, because he was, literally, the Word of God made flesh, making any further prophecy unnecessary.

John, in his book Revelation, spoke no prophecy, if you recall. He merely conveyed the contents of his revelatory dream. John was no prophet. None of the disciples were, in fact, as far as the Bible tells us. We have no evidence at all that we should expect any prophets after Christ that speak the literal Word of God.

We live in an age of anticipation. Those of us who believe in the coming of Christ have to cope with the anticipation of the 2nd coming, the rebirth of humanity. And in that anticipation, we are prone to want a more immediate, more deliberate answer to the future. We turn to strange doctrines and "seers" to alleviate our impatience with God (that's what it is, impatience with God) because we are uncomfortable with the idea of a silent God.

What kind of prophecy is there, then, besides speaking the direct Word of God? I believe that modern-day prophets are artists, philosophers, and dreamers, who interpret the word of God as it is already revealed to us. This is exactly what Jesus did in his life, using the scriptures to determine religion and scripture alone. Jesus did not create any new doctrine or any new Word of God. He merely revealed what already was and HAS been!

So I would encourage you to reject anything, ANYTHING that describes itself as a new doctrine, as if to say that the words of Jesus and the scriptures were somehow insufficient, to alleviate our impatience with God, to create a new God that suits our palate better, very similar to the old God, but more to our personal preference.

What is an idol? It is taking something that was made by God and constructing it into something that it wasn't before, and lauding it as an improvement.

 

[tomspug]

Bump!

 

[Starfish]

I respectfully disagree, and will leave it at that.

 

[Ringer]

I just heard somebody on Christian radio talk about this briefly this morning. I think a user called and asked if there are modern day prophets or apostles. From what I can recall and I'd have to wait until the audio archive is available for me to verify, that there are no modern day apostles or propehts. No apostles because the church has already been established, and no prophets because we already have the cannon and thus, no need. He backed these up with a few biblical passages but I don't remember what they were.

 

[Dunemeister]

John, in his book Revelation, spoke no prophecy, if you recall. He merely conveyed the contents of his revelatory dream. John was no prophet. None of the disciples were, in fact, as far as the Bible tells us. We have no evidence at all that we should expect any prophets after Christ that speak the literal Word of God.

The word "prophet" has multiple meanings. So does "prophecy." The sort of prophecy we have in scripture is, if you will, the "high-water mark" of prophecy. It's prophecy par excellence. But other things counted as prophecy, both during the time of the Old Covenant as well as after Jesus. That is, there were people called prophets whose writings and sayings were not considered to be SO authoritative as to be inscripturated.

Prophets in the early church had two primary ways of acting. There were the extemporaneous prophets who would speak the words of God to their congregations during worship. And then there were the visionary prophets who, after having had a vision, would interpret that vision for the church either verbally or in writing. Many of these had an itinerant ministry. It appears that John is indeed a prophet, bridging the gap between the prophetic ministry of, say, Ezekiel and an extemporaneous prophet.

We live in an age of anticipation. Those of us who believe in the coming of Christ have to cope with the anticipation of the 2nd coming, the rebirth of humanity. And in that anticipation, we are prone to want a more immediate, more deliberate answer to the future. We turn to strange doctrines and "seers" to alleviate our impatience with God (that's what it is, impatience with God) because we are uncomfortable with the idea of a silent God.

It's true that a lot of people take an overweening interest in predicting or controlling the future. Some of these people call themselves prophets. But prophecy is not, in the first instance (although it is at times) telling the future. Rather it speaks the word of God to a church's immediate circumstances, giving them comfort and clarity. It's no spiritual defect to desire this sort of comfort and clarity, and if the church is willing, it's God's good pleasure to provide it.

What kind of prophecy is there, then, besides speaking the direct Word of God? I believe that modern-day prophets are artists, philosophers, and dreamers, who interpret the word of God as it is already revealed to us. This is exactly what Jesus did in his life, using the scriptures to determine religion and scripture alone. Jesus did not create any new doctrine or any new Word of God. He merely revealed what already was and HAS been!

There are those who have a prophetic sort of gifting without being prophets. That is, they interpret and speak truth into our circumstances in many ways. Isn't it interesting that the prophets of the past tended to be artists and so it continues?

I disagree that Jesus brought nothing new. If he hadn't, nobody would have felt so threatened by him that they'd seek to get rid of him.

So I would encourage you to reject anything, ANYTHING that describes itself as a new doctrine, as if to say that the words of Jesus and the scriptures were somehow insufficient, to alleviate our impatience with God, to create a new God that suits our palate better, very similar to the old God, but more to our personal preference.

The scriptures are indeed sufficient and there won't be any added (despite what some revisionist restorationist groups might say). But that's not to say that there is no place for prophecy. If there were no place for prophecy, Paul wouldn't have been so pained to make sure it was properly used by the church.

 

[dawny0826]

I believe in the gift of prophecy, I do. But in the Biblical sense of a prophet, one who speaks the direct word of God, I do not believe there are any anymore. I believe that the Word of God was concluded through Christ, the last prophet, because he was, literally, the Word of God made flesh, making any further prophecy unnecessary.

John, in his book Revelation, spoke no prophecy, if you recall. He merely conveyed the contents of his revelatory dream. John was no prophet. None of the disciples were, in fact, as far as the Bible tells us. We have no evidence at all that we should expect any prophets after Christ that speak the literal Word of God.

We live in an age of anticipation. Those of us who believe in the coming of Christ have to cope with the anticipation of the 2nd coming, the rebirth of humanity. And in that anticipation, we are prone to want a more immediate, more deliberate answer to the future. We turn to strange doctrines and "seers" to alleviate our impatience with God (that's what it is, impatience with God) because we are uncomfortable with the idea of a silent God.

What kind of prophecy is there, then, besides speaking the direct Word of God? I believe that modern-day prophets are artists, philosophers, and dreamers, who interpret the word of God as it is already revealed to us. This is exactly what Jesus did in his life, using the scriptures to determine religion and scripture alone. Jesus did not create any new doctrine or any new Word of God. He merely revealed what already was and HAS been!

So I would encourage you to reject anything, ANYTHING that describes itself as a new doctrine, as if to say that the words of Jesus and the scriptures were somehow insufficient, to alleviate our impatience with God, to create a new God that suits our palate better, very similar to the old God, but more to our personal preference.

What is an idol? It is taking something that was made by God and constructing it into something that it wasn't before, and lauding it as an improvement.

I agree with you. I do believe that there people who have the gift of prophecy but I don't believe their gifts will deliver any revelation that is applicable to God's plan for our salvation. That is a done deal.

 

[sandandfoam]

Does the Popes infallibility make him a prophet of sorts to those who follow him?

 

[Dunemeister]

Does the Popes infallibility make him a prophet of sorts to those who follow him?

The Pope's "infallibility" is highly restricted. He is infallible if and only if he speaks ex cathedra -- on behalf of the whole church. And he does so quite rarely. In fact, the only time the pope has used this power has been to affirm a doctrine about Mary. So no, he's not a prophet in the same sense as, for instance, the LDS Church regards their "prophet".

 

[Polaris]

Interesting post...

I believe in the gift of prophecy, I do. But in the Biblical sense of a prophet, one who speaks the direct word of God, I do not believe there are any anymore.

I'm a little confused by your opening statment here. What is the gift of prophecy if not the direct word of God? If prophecy isn't the word of God than whose word is it? I can understand prophecy as being divided into two types:

1. doctrinal prophecy - the establishment of doctrinal truth by one who receives such revelation from God
2. foretelling prophecy - the foretelling of future events by one who receives such through revelation from God

In both types is not the word of God (ie revelation from God) involved? Is there a type of prophecy that I'm missing here that does not require revelation from God?

I believe that the Word of God was concluded through Christ, the last prophet, because he was, literally, the Word of God made flesh, making any further prophecy unnecessary.

I'm curious, why do you believe that? The NT makes mention of prophets after the death of Christ, what is a prophet without prophecy? Where does it state that Christ's coming makes "any further prophecy unnecessary", does God not have more that he can teach us?

John, in his book Revelation, spoke no prophecy, if you recall. He merely conveyed the contents of his revelatory dream. John was no prophet. None of the disciples were, in fact, as far as the Bible tells us.

A revelatory dream doesn't constitute prophecy? I'm confused, I must not understand what you mean by prophecy.

We have no evidence at all that we should expect any prophets after Christ that speak the literal Word of God.

I respectfully disagree. Jesus himself said "behold I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify" (Matt 23:34). Further Christ teaches a pattern by which his disciples would be able to discern false prophets from true prophets: "by their fruits ye shall know them". This cousel would be pointless if there were to be no prophets after Christ.

we are uncomfortable with the idea of a silent God.

I can agree with that. I am indeed uncomfortable with the idea of a silent God because it runs contrary to both his word and the pattern that has existed since the beginning of the world. Amos taught clearly that "surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7). From the beginning of the world God has always lead his covenant people through a prophet and/or apostles, why should that change?

What kind of prophecy is there, then, besides speaking the direct Word of God? I believe that modern-day prophets are artists, philosophers, and dreamers, who interpret the word of God as it is already revealed to us. This is exactly what Jesus did in his life, using the scriptures to determine religion and scripture alone. Jesus did not create any new doctrine or any new Word of God. He merely revealed what already was and HAS been!

So Jesus wasn't a prophet then?

So I would encourage you to reject anything, ANYTHING that describes itself as a new doctrine, as if to say that the words of Jesus and the scriptures were somehow insufficient, to alleviate our impatience with God, to create a new God that suits our palate better, very similar to the old God, but more to our personal preference.

Are you certain that God doesn't have more to teach us?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Just a couple of questions:
- Do you consider the Bible alone to be sufficient for dealing with all modern day issues?
- How would you approach a problem you did not feel was outlined sufficiently by the Bible?

 

[tomspug]

I disagree that Jesus brought nothing new. If he hadn't, nobody would have felt so threatened by him that they'd seek to get rid of him.

I agree. It was Jesus himself and everything he embodied that was new. He even claimed to "make all things new". His teachings, however, were not new, merely correct.

 

[tomspug]

Just a couple of questions:
- Do you consider the Bible alone to be sufficient for dealing with all modern day issues?
- How would you approach a problem you did not feel was outlined sufficiently by the Bible?

Of course the Bible doesn't give us SPECIFIC ANSWERS for every problem. For example, the Bible talks nothing of training monkeys. I think I can safely say that I should not turn to the Bible as a tool for training monkeys to ride motorcycles.

But when it comes to issues of the heart, spirit, and mind, of the SELF, of our relationship between God and other people in LOVE, there is no need for anything else besides the Bible, because in my experience, I have never been left wanting in any of those areas by what it has to say. It is sufficient for me, as is the God the Bible teaches about, without any need for elaboration.

Take something obscure like... presidential elections. Does the Bible talk about elections? No! But it gives us a perfect outline of what our priorities should be in life and how to love people properly. It is up to us to figure out how to correctly put that into practice. I think it's stupid to think that scripture's purpose is to "hold our hand" through life. It is truth, take it or leave it, and nothing more.

 

[tomspug]

Does the Popes infallibility make him a prophet of sorts to those who follow him?

I don't believe in the infallibility of any man, including Jesus's mother, who herself conflicted with Jesus's ministry, as demonstrated in the Gospels.

 

[doppelganger]

Sure there are. There's just precious few modern day listeners.

 

[tomspug]

Sure there are. There's just precious few modern day listeners.

...in the United States and Europe, if you're speaking in terms of majorities. Unfortunately, you're completely incorrect about every other part of the world.

 

[doppelganger]

...in the United States and Europe, if you're speaking in terms of majorities. Unfortunately, you're completely incorrect about every other part of the world.

No, I'm quite correct. There's always been precious few listeners - at all times and everywhere.

What do you think they should be listening for, Tomspug?

 

[Charity]

I believe there are modern day prophets, whether you choose to believe it or not. They don't change God's word or the gospel of Jesus but only are used to bring a spirit of revival to the believer. It is not foretelling but forthtelling. More for the uplifting of the believer.....

 

[tomspug]

No, I'm quite correct. There's always been precious few listeners - at all times and everywhere.

What do you think they should be listening for, Tomspug?

See, I hold the opposite worldview. There are too MANY modern-day listeners, ready to grasp at every straw that is thrown at them. Why do you think the most successful magazines are the tabloids, because too many people AREN'T looking for answers and truth?

I think it is abundantly clear that there are PLENTY of modern day "prophets" because it is easy and profitable to be one.

 

[ccapel]

See, I hold the opposite worldview. There are too MANY modern-day listeners, ready to grasp at every straw that is thrown at them. Why do you think the most successful magazines are the tabloids, because too many people AREN'T looking for answers and truth?

I think it is abundantly clear that there are PLENTY of modern day "prophets" because it is easy and profitable to be one.

The answer to your original questions is simple. All you need to do is ask yourself where that bible you're holding came from. God has a pattern. From the beginning of time he has communicated with his children here on earth in a specific way. You see, we're here to prove to God that we can live a life worthy of the gift of returning to his presence even though we don't KNOW that he is real. That's called faith.

In order for God to communicate with his children and still maintain that aspect of faith he chooses certain men from the group and calls them as prophets, whom he speaks to directly. They in turn write down what he tells them and share it with the rest of the world.

God has worked this way from the beginning of time so it seems silly to think that he would stop. We are in greater need of prophets today than at any other time. As the world continues to exist it becomes more and more wicked.

The thought that god has left us all here with no communication other than a poorly interpreted 2000-year-old book that's been passed through countless hands and undergone many translations is frightening and fortunately, false.

Anyone who believes that the Bible is the complete and correct word of god is dilusional. If that were true then you wouldn't see so many denominations of Christianity all fighting over who has the correct interpretation of scripture.

Modern day prophets correctly interpret ancient, mis-translated scripture.

 

[tomspug]

Your argument boils down to this:

Modern day prophets correctly interpret ancient, mis-translated scripture.

If this is in any way true (which it isn't, we have accurate translations of scripture from original sources), then how could anyone POSSIBLY be able to tell who are real prophets and who are fake prophets? You can't, because you have no measure with which to base truth on.

Inevitably you get circular reasoning like some of our LDS members: that because prophets are the word of God, and there are prophets that claim to speak the word of God, therefore there are prophets that speak the word of God.

Let's say for example that I said that Jesus did NOT say: "no one comes to the father but through me" and instead believe he said "there are many roads to the father, I am one of them", I can use a random "prophet" to back up my belief. Since the word of Jesus is conveniently fallible at any point of my choosing, I can claim to believe in the Bible and yet NOT believe it at any convenient point in scripture. How convenient.

You see? There is no room to criticize "modern-day prophets" because their words hold no weight in the first place. The only thing that gives them value is the BELIEF that what they say is the WORD OF GOD, which is determined by... basically anyone.