NT prophet infallible?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Christopher

Puritan Board Freshman
Acts 21.10-11.

The Jews did not bind (the text never says they did, but certainly could have bound him while beating him) and deliver Paul tot he Gentiles (the Romans took Paul). This prophecy seems to be close but not 100%. What does that mean? What think ye?
 
Hmmm... what does Paul think? Let's see...

Acts 28:17 After three days Paul called together those who were the leading men of the Jews, and when they came together, he began saying to them, "Brethren, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet [b:1e8e96e5a2]I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. [/b:1e8e96e5a2] "

The Jews are given credit for his arrest because it was they who wanted him to be and it was they who instigated the whole ordeal...

Don't be a Grudemite.
 
A Grudemite? Okeydokey - you smarty-pants seminary guys can't just make up words whenever you want to...

Seriously. I don't know that one?!?!


:dunce:
 
[quote:632fb5fbe4][i:632fb5fbe4]Originally posted by Mary[/i:632fb5fbe4]
A Grudemite? Okeydokey - you smarty-pants seminary guys can't just make up words whenever you want to...

Seriously. I don't know that one?!?!


:dunce: [/quote:632fb5fbe4]

He is talking about taking the position that Wayne Grudem takes regarding "non-doctrinal" prophecy (whatever that is :question: ) or "congregational prophecy" where a supposed Prophet does not have to be 100% correct and avoid being stoned to death. :behead: or beheaded as the case may be.

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by wsw201]
 
I would not not think so Paul. Grudem is a firm 5 pointer. His veiw of prophecy would not really allow for the slippery slope in that dirrection.
 
[quote:26b54d75fa][i:26b54d75fa]Originally posted by Christopher[/i:26b54d75fa]
I would not not think so Paul. Grudem is a firm 5 pointer. His veiw of prophecy would not really allow for the slippery slope in that dirrection. [/quote:26b54d75fa]

No but it seems that it opens the door for a lot of trouble if we don't have any premise to judge these supposed prophetical utterances by.
 
Thanks for the info, fellas. I am always amazed at how little I know, and how much there is to learn...

:biggrin:
 
What God reveals is always infallible. This does not and cannot change between the OT and NT. Could a true prophet mix some of what God had said with some of their own imaginings, to produce a partially true result? Well technically I guess so, were they so inclined, but why would God reveal anything to someone who He knew would be unfaithful to the message?

Thinking over it, I still can't see a difference between NT and OT prophets, none at all actually. Perhaps someone could enlighten me.

:eureka:
 
[quote:7d6c62ea06][i:7d6c62ea06]Originally posted by SolaScriptura[/i:7d6c62ea06]
Hmmm... what does Paul think? Let's see...

Acts 28:17 After three days Paul called together those who were the leading men of the Jews, and when they came together, he began saying to them, "Brethren, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet [b:7d6c62ea06]I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. [/b:7d6c62ea06] "

The Jews are given credit for his arrest because it was they who wanted him to be and it was they who instigated the whole ordeal... [/quote:7d6c62ea06]

Sola,
This passage does not actually say that Paul believed it was the Jews who were responcible for handing him over to the gentiles. It merely says that from Jerusalem (a location) he was handed over to the Romans. I think this is a referance to him being taken from the Romans in Jerusalem and sent to Felix in Ceasarea and then from there he appealed to Ceaser. This passage does not iscredit the view that Agubus had it right in the details.
 
Perhaps this is less than fair, but this seems to me a clear case of demanding, not full and complete fulfillment of infallible prophesy, but of literalistic hair-splitting. We don't make the same kind of demands of O.T. prophecy. Take the protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15). In the context of the Garden, and Satan appearing as a serpent, God says that the Seed of Promise, Jesus, would smash the serpent's (i.e. Satan's) head. We read nothing of the kind [i:43e84a9d17]literalistically[/i:43e84a9d17] in the gospels. It's entirely possible Jesus never stomped physically on the head of a single snake his whole life, much less on Satan's own head in another demonic appearance. Now, if we fuss about whether the Word of the Lord was infallible in the details here, isn't it obvious we are being deeply irreverent?
 
Hold on there big guy (I have never seen you so if you are big or small do not take it personally. LOL).
In the OT if you were not correct to the nth degree you were stoned to death.
By the way, it was God who made that statement in the garden Himself and not through the agency of a prophet (although later recorded by one, Moses). You must understand that there are styles in prophetic writing as well. There are those that are colorful (Revelation comes to mind) and there are those who mix no words at all (see Joshua 6.26 and then 1 Kings 16.34).

It does not appear that Agubus is trying to be colorful here. He even used Pauls belt to illustrate his point that the JEWS would be the ones to bind him and hand him over to the gentiles. those are the detail of his prophesy and they were wrong.

Is Agubus a false prophet. It does not appear so. In Acts 11 he seems to have been lead by the Spirit in his prophesy there. What has made this situation different then?
 
Actually I'm average and thinish :)
Agabus' point of using Paul's belt was to point to "the owner" of it and that he would be taken prisoner. No implication is made, for example, that Paul's own belt would be used by his captors to tie him up with. The Jews are [i:2ad85be364]named[/i:2ad85be364] as the ones responsible for the binding.

You may not agree, but I think Agabus' (who is certainly represented Scripturally as a true prophet, and so I believe) is in fact being less than detailed as to the [i:2ad85be364]manner[/i:2ad85be364] by which the Jews will take Paul. This is not inconsistent with Acts 11. There he predicted a famine--that's all we are told, along with the extent ("world" there=Roman Empire probably). Luke the narrator goes on to relate when the fulfillment took place--in Claudius Caesar's days

As to details, please understand that I am not questioning details as integral to prophecy. My point was that by pushing the details here in an literalistic manner, thereby questioning the whole nature of prophecy under N.T. administration--when figurative language is perfectly consistent with what we know happened--is unjustifiable, because the same tack can be taken with O.T. prophecy, to call it into question.

Make sense?
 
The Prophecy:

[b:6c370e6f58]Acts 21[/b:6c370e6f58]
11 "So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this belt, and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles."'

The action takes place:

[b:6c370e6f58]Acts 21[/b:6c370e6f58]
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them. 27Now when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, 28crying out, "Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place; and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place." 29(For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.) 30And all the city was disturbed; and [u:6c370e6f58]the people ran together, seized Paul, and dragged him out of the temple[/u:6c370e6f58]; and immediately the doors were shut. 31[u:6c370e6f58]Now as they were seeking to kill him[/u:6c370e6f58], news came to the commander of the garrison that all Jerusalem was in an uproar. 32He immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down to them. And when they saw the commander and the soldiers, [u:6c370e6f58]they stopped beating Paul[/u:6c370e6f58]. 33[u:6c370e6f58]Then the commander came near and took him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains[/u:6c370e6f58]; and he asked who he was and what he had done. 34And some among the multitude cried one thing and some another.

Then Paul spoke to the Jews who had beaten him (and probably bound him while beating him):

[b:6c370e6f58]Acts 22[/b:6c370e6f58]
1 "Brethren and fathers, hear my defense before you now." 2And when they heard that he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, they kept all the more silent.

Then the Jews responded:

[b:6c370e6f58]Acts 22[/b:6c370e6f58]
22 And [u:6c370e6f58]they[/u:6c370e6f58] listened to him until this word, and then [u:6c370e6f58]they[/u:6c370e6f58] raised their voices and said, "Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he is not fit to live!" 23Then, as they cried out and tore off their clothes and threw dust into the air, 24the commander ordered him to be brought into the barracks, and said that he should be examined under scourging, so that he might know why they shouted so against him. 25And as [u:6c370e6f58]they bound him with thongs[/u:6c370e6f58], Paul said to the centurion who stood by, "Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman, and uncondemned?"

The Centurion was standing by watching...the Jews demanded he be taken away, he was bound again and about to be beaten again by the Romans this time.

Further, the High Priest and other Jews testified against Paul to the Romans (Acts 24:1, 9) And in Acts 25 we see certain Jews pestering Festus to send Paul to Jerusalem and they were going to ambush the group and kill Paul. Festus refused at first so the Jews who had come up from Jerusalem continued to testify against Paul (Acts 25:7).

Paul then, instead of consenting to be sent back to Jerusalem, appealed to Caesar and so was prepared to be taken to Rome. He was at this time already in the custody of the Romans because of the Jews. It was the Jews who pursued the matter over and over again throught he course of several years, making sure that Paul was arrested and held by the Romans.

So where did the prophecy not come true?

Because of the testimony of Jews from Jerusalem, Paul was bound, beaten, and held for 2 years by the Romans.

Phillip
 
[quote:5d62b2a1b2][i:5d62b2a1b2]Originally posted by sundoulos[/i:5d62b2a1b2]
Was Jonah a false prophet because Ninevah was not destroyed? [/quote:5d62b2a1b2]

Actually... in the ancient near east they understood that in any judgment oracle there was an implicit understanding that the judgment about to befall them would be cancelled if they repented.
 
Grudem's position on NT prophecy tries to make room for prophecy being not 100% reliable. The text he uses isn't convincing in my opinion. The prophecy was fulfilled. They didn't misinterpet it or anything like that.

Are there any other signs that from the OT to the New prophets went from proclaiming God's word to the role of exegete?

MacArthur, a cessationist, also defines NT prophesy this way, though he doesn't take it as receiving a new revelation from God, simply teaching scripture fits into the role of prophesy. In his view prophesy has been reduced to the role of exegete. Grudem's view makes the "prophet" an exegete of divine revelation in the form of intuition, or feeling. Thus the spirit communicates through feelings and not through clear truths.

[Edited on 5-12-2004 by Ianterrell]

[Edited on 5-12-2004 by Ianterrell]
 
New Testament Prophets and the Gift of Prophecy

Is there a difference between the gift of prophecy (as seen being given to the NT church with all the other gifts) and the office of prophet?

Does one have to say that having the gift of prophecy makes you a prophet? Or are they separate? One is an office bestowed by Christ to the church, the other a gift of enablement by the Spirit for ministry to the saints, just as is mercy, teaching, giving, etc.

Prophecy as a gift is listed with other gifts given to the church as a whole. But the office of prophet is clearly tied to the founding of the church with the apostles.

Just thinking.....

Phillip
 
Phillip,

would it follow then that those who have the gift of teaching should not necessarily be teachers?
 
I am just investigating the potential for there to be a distinction between gift and office.

We have offices given - Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor-Teacher, Deacons. (Eph 4:11; 1 Tim 3)

And we have gifts - word of wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, healings, miracles, prophecy, discernment, tongues, interpretation (1 Cor 12:8-10), and listed elsewhere we also have prophecy, ministry, teaching, exhortation, giving, leadership, and mercy (Rom 12:6-8).

There is not a one to one coorelation between offices and gifts. In other words, there is not a spiritual gift of evangelist or pastor. Having a spiritual gift does not mean you have an office in the church. In other words, using teaching as an example, I do not believe that every person gifted with the gift of teaching (gift) must necessarily be an appointed teacher (office) in the church.

We are gifted to minister to one another, but we are not all called or qualified to be serving in an office within the church. That does not inhibit the use of our gifts, it simply draws a distinction between those who are to be appointed to an office and those who are not.

Make sense?

Phillip
 
I think I agree with that. I'm thinking of Saul prophesying in the OT, certainly not a prophet. In the NT all those prophesying I see seem to be either apostle or prophet. Certainly the presence of a gift does not automatically signify an office.
 
[quote:c1b951c33c]I'm thinking of Saul prophesying in the OT, certainly not a prophet.[/quote:c1b951c33c]

I think it says in Samuel 10, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" I don't know if that actually implies that he is or not. But the people atleast thought he was in some way.

My take on the whole matter: If someone is prophesying about [i:c1b951c33c]anything[/i:c1b951c33c] in the surety that they are delivering a "word of the Lord," they must be able to accept the title of a prophet. Meaning that they cannot be incorrect.

Is NT prophesy (the gift) authoritative? Better hope so. Would you say that teaching is not authoritative?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
OT prophets infallible
Replies
4
Views
3K
rembrandt
R
C
  • Locked
Another Prophet thread
Replies
3
Views
3K
Christopher
C
W
  • Locked
Prophet - Correct Me If I'm Wrong
Replies
7
Views
3K
Wynteriii
W
R
  • Locked
indwelling in OT and NT
Replies
2
Views
3K
fredtgreco
fredtgreco
Dr. Bob Gonzales
  • Locked
A Humble Argument for the Cessation of NT Prophecy and Tongues
Replies
20
Views
5K
Dr. Bob Gonzales
Dr. Bob Gonzales
Back
Top