Until we all become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the Fullness of the Stature of Christ

[Glenn P]

OK Ty, I'll walk you through this one bit at a time, starting with these two things:

I did answer. You apparently did not read carefully the rest of my post to you. I am saying that revelation from God has no errors.

OK. So far, so good.
Let's reform our language at this point. The Bible never uses the term "knowledge gifts." But it does say that what the New Testament prophets present was revealed by God (Ephjesians 3:5)

1) So this is the first point that you must take on board. Scrub from your vocabulary those invented terms, and stay closer to the biblical text. What the prophets prophesy IS revealed by God (i.e.) revelation.

So answer this: When God reveals something through a prophet, is it possible for the revelation to contain an error?

You are wrong in two quite different ways here.

2) Firstly: Even in the Old Testament, not all prophecy involved a prediction, so this is NOT a distinction between Old and New Testament prophets (e.g. when nathan rebuked David).

3) Secondly, cometimes New Testament prophets DID predict the future (e.g. Acts 21:10-11). So New Testament prophecy was a misture of predictive and non-predictive prophecy, just like the Old Testament prophets.


I have presented three points in this post. I have numbered them for you so that you can see where they are. Do you understand them? If so, what are they?

Secondly, do you accept them? If not, I will have to ask why not.

Ty, a couple of times after posting this, I have asked for your comment, but received none.

So I am now assuming that you have shifted your positiona nd you now agree with the following biblical facts:

1) That what the New Testament prophets presented was indeed revealed by God, just as the New Testament explicitly states, as shown in the references given in the above post of mine.

2) That the Old Testament prophets presented a mixture of predictive and non-predictive prophecy.

3) That the New Testament prophets also presented a mixture of predictive and non-predictive prophecy, so you may not use this point to distinguish the two.


I am treating the above three claims as now accepted by you, Ty, since you have repeatedly chosen not to offer any opposition to them.

[Sparko]

I suggest you take your own advice and pray about what you called "that 'glass darkly' scripture you use." It has meaning. It is not to be set aside but to be understood. You do not understand it.

In the example I used the person who thought they saw an eagle, but it was a buzzard, was not telling a lie! He was simply mistaken. You make mistakes, too. You are attempting to speak for the Lord in your condemnation, while selectively ignoring the points you lose, that are central to the faith. '

The difference, ty (I will type it slowly so you can understand)

People.....can....make...mistakes. God....doesn't.....make....mistakes.

get it?

If you said you saw an eagle but it was a buzzard, they yeah you could be mistaken. But if GOD told you it was an eagle then it would be an eagle. God doesn't make mistakes.

If you said God told you it was an eagle but it was a buzzard then we are left with two outcomes:

1. You lied. God didn't tell you anything.
2. You imagined that God told you it was an eagle but He didn't. You didn't hear from God at all.

The result is the same, if it was not an eagle then God didn't tell you it was. You are a false prophet for claiming he did.

I will now take somone advice recently given to me, and I will no longer argue with a Pharisee.

Oh I so hope that is true. Your "arguments" are nothing but scripture twisting and repeating yourself anyway.

[TyRockwell]

Ty, a couple of times after posting this, I have asked for your comment, but received none.

So I am now assuming that you have shifted your positiona nd you now agree with the following biblical facts:

1) That what the New Testament prophets presented was indeed revealed by God, just as the New Testament explicitly states, as shown in the references given in the above post of mine.

Revelation has to do with Jesus and the word of God.

The scripture you quoted, Ephesians 3:5 is dealing with revelation, which is not the same thing as the gift to prophesy. Paul was referring to revealed truth, scripture.

When one prophesies, it is not to be taken as revealed like scripture, because Paul said, "Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they WILL FAIL....For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come ["God is love"... "Perfect love casts out fear."], then that which is in part will be done away...For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then [when perfection comes] face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know just as I am known."

Take notice, that Paul and the other writers of scripture were keeping distinct the perfect from the "in part."

[Glenn P]

Revelation has to do with Jesus and the word of God.

The scripture you quoted, Ephesians 3:5 is dealing with revelation, which is not the same thing as the gift to prophesy. Paul was referring to revealed truth, scripture.

Let's quote the verse to see, shall we?

Ephesians 3:5

Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

There I am obliged to reject your claim that this about Scripture, and not prophecy. On the contrary, it is about prophecy, and not Scripture.

Thus, what the prophets (in the NT) receive is revelation.

When one prophesies, it is not to be taken as revealed like scripture, because Paul said, "Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they WILL FAIL....For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come ["God is love"... "Perfect love casts out fear."], then that which is in part will be done away...For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then [when perfection comes] face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know just as I am known."

Notice carefully. "Fail" here does not mean "err." It means to end, as when somebody's strength fails.

Likewise, to prophecy "in part" is not to prophesy "in error."

Thus you have no refuge here. The Bible says that prophecy is revelation, and it does not say that it may err. Indeed, if revelation errs, then God errs.

Also, as shown to you from Scripture, New Testament prophecy contains both predictive and non-predictive prophecy, just like Old Testament prophecy.

[Rupert Pupkin]

When one prophesies, it is not to be taken as revealed like scripture, because Paul said, "Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they WILL FAIL....For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come ["God is love"... "Perfect love casts out fear."], then that which is in part will be done away...For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then [when perfection comes] face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know just as I am known."

Can I offer another perspective on this? I don't think the word "prophecy" is used always with the same meaning everywhere it occurs in the New Testament. In this case, the prophecy in question seems clearly to be the gift of prophecy referred to in chapter 12 (e.g. vs. 10). Remember chapter 13 is a digression that occurs in the middle of a discussion of spiritual gifts. Hence the prophecy that will fail, and that is in part, referred to here is the gift of prophecy, as exercised in the New Testament church, as described in chapter 12.

However, while canonical scripture also is "prophecy", it is "prophecy" in a different sense. Everyone will agree, I think, that not all prophecy in the New Testament era is canonical. For example, we are told in Acts 21:9 that Philip had four daughters who were prophetesses, yet there is not a word of what they said recorded anywhere in scripture. Hence, their prophecies were obviously extra-canonical.

At the least, then, we have two different kinds of NT-era prophecy - canonical, and extra-canonical. I would suggest that when Paul speaks of the gift of prophecy to the church at Corinth, he must be talking about the extra-canonical form, since no-one at the church at Corinth, to our knowledge, wrote any scripture.

While I would agree with Dr JB that canonical prophecy must be inerrant and, in fact, will never fail (because "the Word of the Lord will endure forever"), I think there must be a "lesser" form of prophecy in the NT era. That "lesser" form of prophecy, I think, can contain error. We are all fallible human beings, and the gift of prophecy does not involve a direct incarnation of the Word of God, in the same way that canonical inspiration does. When 1 Cor. 13 speaks of prophesying being "in part", in the context of the statement that we see as if looking in a dim mirror, I think error must be involved. Incidentally, when it says that we "know" in part, this is referring to the gift of knowledge also (see 12:8), not to knowledge in general. This is quite clear, in my opinion, from 13:8, where it lists "prophecies", "tongues", and "knowledge" in that order. He is speaking of the gifts.

If 1 Cor. 13:8 refers to canonical scripture, then it would contradict many other scriptures which promise that the Word of the Lord will endure forever. We will not be doing away with scripture in heaven. Man does not live except by the Word of God. We just will see it clearly and perfectly, and not as we do now.

In short: ordinary, extra-canonical NT era prophecy, which I think continues to this day in the church, is not infallible or inerrant (which is why it is not canonical). I am happy to accept certain statements by people I think are godly as being prophetic, but I am not prepared to put their utterances on the same level as scripture. I don't think the NT forces me to choose between either having to reject a prophecy altogether, or to hold it as authoritative as scripture.

But canonical prophecy does not continue today.

The word "prophecy" in the New Testament has two different uses, as is true of many of the gift words (e.g. "apostle"). Let me try and put the difference one last way:

A NT canonical prophet speaks the Words of God.

A NT extra-canonical prophet, exercising the gift of prophecy as in 1 Cor. 12, speaks what they think or feel to be the Words of God (what they perceive to be God's message).

Not the same thing. The second has the possibility of error. The first does not.

[Glenn P]

Can I offer another perspective on this? I don't think the word "prophecy" is used always with the same meaning everywhere it occurs in the New Testament. In this case, the prophecy in question seems clearly to be the gift of prophecy referred to in chapter 12 (e.g. vs. 10). Remember chapter 13 is a digression that occurs in the middle of a discussion of spiritual gifts. Hence the prophecy that will fail, and that is in part, referred to here is the gift of prophecy, as exercised in the New Testament church, as described in chapter 12.

Sure. However, if at this stage you're already assuming that "the gift of prophecy" makes a prophecy different from some other non-gift type pf prophecy, then a biblical foundation for that view still needs to be laid.

However, while canonical scripture also is "prophecy", it is "prophecy" in a different sense.

Canonical Scripture is not prophecy.

Everyone will agree, I think, that not all prophecy in the New Testament era is canonical. For example, we are told in Acts 21:9 that Philip had four daughters who were prophetesses, yet there is not a word of what they said recorded anywhere in scripture. Hence, their prophecies were obviously extra-canonical.

That is correct. Not all prophecy was recorded.

At the least, then, we have two different kinds of NT-era prophecy - canonical, and extra-canonical.

This does not seem like two different types of prophecy at all. It just seems like some prophecy was recorded, and some was not.

Some meals in the New Testament era were recorded in Scripture. Others were not. But this doesn't mean that there are two different types of meal. Likewise, some sermons were recorded, and others were not. This doesn't establish that there were two different types of sermon. So I do not see at all that this shows that there are two different types of prophecy.

I would suggest that when Paul speaks of the gift of prophecy to the church at Corinth, he must be talking about the extra-canonical form, since no-one at the church at Corinth, to our knowledge, wrote any scripture.

The question is not whether a prophecy was recorded. I think the issue is whether or not the prophecy is genuine - i.e. inspired by the Holy Spirit, and whether or not an actual prophecy can err. What I've argued is that since prophecy is something revealed by God (as state in Ephesians 2-3), it cannot err.

While I would agree with Dr JB that canonical prophecy must be inerrant and, in fact, will never fail (because "the Word of the Lord will endure forever"), I think there must be a "lesser" form of prophecy in the NT era.

Well, that is the important claim that will, at some stage, need to be supported with reasons.

That "lesser" form of prophecy, I think, can contain error. We are all fallible human beings, and the gift of prophecy does not involve a direct incarnation of the Word of God, in the same way that canonical inspiration does. When 1 Cor. 13 speaks of prophesying being "in part", in the context of the statement that we see as if looking in a dim mirror, I think error must be involved. Incidentally, when it says that we "know" in part, this is referring to the gift of knowledge also (see 12:8), not to knowledge in general. This is quite clear, in my opinion, from 13:8, where it lists "prophecies", "tongues", and "knowledge" in that order. He is speaking of the gifts.

I think we would all agree that he is speaking of what we would call gifts (even though Paul doesn't specifically use that word). The question is whether or not any revelation from God can actually contain error, whether it's a "gift" or not, and regardless of whether it ever becomes part of the canon.

If 1 Cor. 13:8 refers to canonical scripture, then it would contradict many other scriptures which promise that the Word of the Lord will endure forever. We will not be doing away with scripture in heaven. Man does not live except by the Word of God. We just will see it clearly and perfectly, and not as we do now.

In short: ordinary, extra-canonical NT era prophecy, which I think continues to this day in the church, is not infallible or inerrant (which is why it is not canonical). I am happy to accept certain statements by people I think are godly as being prophetic, but I am not prepared to put their utterances on the same level as scripture. I don't think the NT forces me to choose between either having to reject a prophecy altogether, or to hold it as authoritative as scripture.

What's still lacking, I think, are good reasons to believe that this distinction between two types of prophecy exists at all in Scripture. It looks to me like it is being read into the text.

But canonical prophecy does not continue today.

The word "prophecy" in the New Testament has two different uses, as is true of many of the gift words (e.g. "apostle"). Let me try and put the difference one last way:

A NT canonical prophet speaks the Words of God.

A NT extra-canonical prophet, exercising the gift of prophecy as in 1 Cor. 12, speaks what they think or feel to be the Words of God (what they perceive to be God's message).

Not the same thing. The second has the possibility of error. The first does not.

The above looks (to me, at least) like a distinction that is not well grounded in Scripture.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Sure. However, if at this stage you're already assuming that "the gift of prophecy" makes a prophecy different from some other non-gift type pf prophecy, then a biblical foundation for that view still needs to be laid.

Yes. I'd point to the following: (a) for many of the gifts, it is necessary to make a distinction between the operation of "the gift of X", and the ordinary, general phenomenon X. For example, 1 Cor. 12:9 speaks of the gift of "faith". Furthermore, the text makes clear that the gifts are distributed so that not every Christian has every gift. Yet we know that a person cannot even be saved except if they have faith. Hence, it follows that the "gift of faith" is to be distinguished from ordinary, everyday faith which every Christian must possess. Similarly, every Christian should possess wisdom, and knowledge. But there are gifts of wisdom and knowledge, which are distinct from these. Following this pattern, we should expect that the "gift of prophecy" is something distinct from prophecy in general. (b) The distinction between canonical and extra-canonical prophecy, noted below.

Canonical Scripture is not prophecy.

But what about:

Mt. 11:13 "For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John.

2 Pet1: 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,

Rev. 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy,

And so forth?

This does not seem like two different types of prophecy at all. It just seems like some prophecy was recorded, and some was not.

This is a good first step, but you then need to ask why? Is it possible that the Word of God was spoken, but that God then failed to preserve it for future generations, although we are assured that his Word will never pass away? Given what scripture says about the Word of God, it is impossible that it could ever not be recorded. Which suggests that whatever is not recorded was not, in this strong sense, the Word of God.

The question is not whether a prophecy was recorded. I think the issue is whether or not the prophecy is genuine - i.e. inspired by the Holy Spirit, and whether or not an actual prophecy can err. What I've argued is that since prophecy is something revealed by God (as state in Ephesians 2-3), it cannot err.

Not sure exactly which verse you are referring to here, but I would take 2:20, 3:5 as referring to canonical prophecy. After all, the teaching which he says was so revealed about the inclusion of the Gentiles is in fact described in detail in the New Testament, including in the very work he is writing, so I don't see any reason why we should assume that any extra-canonical prophecy is in view.

What's still lacking, I think, are good reasons to believe that this distinction between two types of prophecy exists at all in Scripture. It looks to me like it is being read into the text.

To summarize:

(a) There is a distinction to be made at least at this level, between canonical prophecy and extra-canonical prophecy.

(b) Scripture's teaching elsewhere about itself implies that this distinction must reflect a qualitative distinction between the two kinds of prophecy (in that extra-canonical prophecy cannot be "the Word of God" in the strong sense).

(c) The gifts in 1 Cor. 12-14 are frequently distinguished from the general phenomenon in question.

(d) The gift of prophecy referred to in 1 Cor. 12-14 is said to be "in part", and "to fail"; whereas scripture is said to be "perfect" and never to fail.

While one would not want to make it into a dogma, the above seems to me to be sufficient scriptural grounding for the claim regarding the distinction between two types of prophecy. That theory is the best explanation for the scriptural data, though not the only possible explanation perhaps.

As far as I am aware, it is only Paul, or Pauline-influenced works such as Acts, which make any reference to the "lesser" type of prophecy, the gift of prophecy, in the New Testament era. Outside of the Pauline and Pauline-influenced works in the New Testament, "prophecy" and cognates seem to refer to canonical prophecy (usually) or to extra-canonical prophecies during the OT era (such as those of Elijah or John the Baptist). Although I just noticed that Mt. 7:22 is probably an exception to this rule; it is the only exception that I know of.

[Glenn P]

Yes. I'd point to the following: (a) for many of the gifts, it is necessary to make a distinction between the operation of "the gift of X", and the ordinary, general phenomenon X. For example, 1 Cor. 12:9 speaks of the gift of "faith". Furthermore, the text makes clear that the gifts are distributed so that not every Christian has every gift. Yet we know that a person cannot even be saved except if they have faith. Hence, it follows that the "gift of faith" is to be distinguished from ordinary, everyday faith which every Christian must possess.

I think this is probably a bad example to use, because inf act the faith that we all have IS called a gift (Phillipians 1:29, where the term charizomai is used of our trust in Christ). But actually, that's not quite the point. See my next comment.

Similarly, every Christian should possess wisdom, and knowledge. But there are gifts of wisdom and knowledge, which are distinct from these. Following this pattern, we should expect that the "gift of prophecy" is something distinct from prophecy in general. (b) The distinction between canonical and extra-canonical prophecy, noted below.

Two things:

Firstly, the distinction you are drawing in the list of gifts is between things that all Christians have anyway, and things that only certain people have - gifts. This distinction falls apart when it comes to prophecy, since we would already both agree that not everybody gives prophecies as a matter of normal Christian life, apart from any special gifting.

Secondly, this really isn't a reply to the comment of mine that you've attempted to respond to. I said: "if at this stage you're already assuming that "the gift of prophecy" makes a prophecy different from some other non-gift type pf prophecy, then a biblical foundation for that view still needs to be laid."

And this, you did not cover. At best you would have showed (even though I think you failed to show this) that some people have the ability to prophesy without any gift, and some people prophesy because of a gift. But this says absolutely nothing at all about whether or not one is trustworthy revelation while the other is not.

Next, I replied to your claim that Scripture just is prophecy. I noted that this was not the case. Indeed, I think pretty much all of use realise this. Now of course, there are prophecies within Scripture, and so there are prophecies of Scripture. There are even books of prophecy, like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the book of Revelation. Likewise Scripture contains many poems, but it would be obviously wrong to say that Scri[pture just is poetry. So while Scripture contains many prophecies, Scripture is not prophecy.

Now you offer some evidence for your claim that Scripture is prophecy. You say:

But what about:

Mt. 11:13 "For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John.

2 Pet1: 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,

Rev. 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy,

And so forth?

In reply, I will simply note that these are all fine. They show that there are prophecies in Scripture.

This is a good first step, but you then need to ask why? Is it possible that the Word of God was spoken, but that God then failed to preserve it for future generations, although we are assured that his Word will never pass away? Given what scripture says about the Word of God, it is impossible that it could ever not be recorded. Which suggests that whatever is not recorded was not, in this strong sense, the Word of God.

You and I already know full well that the word of the Lord was sometimes not recorded. Consider, for example, the closing words of John's Gospel in John 21:25. The writer admits quite freely that he did not record everything that took place in the ministry of Jesus, and that the world couldn't contain the books that could be written about it. But this doesn't mean (God forbid!) that any of the words of Jesus were false or not inspired.

Likewise, we read in the book of Acts that the early converts to Christianity devoted themselves to the teaching of the Apostles. But we don't have records of what they had heard. Does that undermine the authority with which the Apostles taught them? Not at all.

The reason these things were recorded is that they did not need to be. The idea of the sufficiency of Scripture is that whatever other specific revelation or prophetic utterances may have been given at any tuime - even extra words of Christ that were never written down, they are not necessary to inform and nourish our faith. What we do have in Scripture is enough for this.

What this means then is that we can't draw a distinction between authoritative and non-authoritative Scripture merely on the grounds that some was recorded and some was not.

Not sure exactly which verse you are referring to here, but I would take 2:20, 3:5 as referring to canonical prophecy. After all, the teaching which he says was so revealed about the inclusion of the Gentiles is in fact described in detail in the New Testament, including in the very work he is writing, so I don't see any reason why we should assume that any extra-canonical prophecy is in view.

Thjere is no basis for the assumption that he is referring to Scripture here. Indeed, we can be almost certain that he is not, since he appeals to the apostles and prophets, new Testament figures. But at the time Ephesians was written, we just did not have canonical writings from other apostles, let alone prophets. So we can know for certain that this interpretation of yours is wrong.

To summarize:

(a) There is a distinction to be made at least at this level, between canonical prophecy and extra-canonical prophecy.

This is true if it means no more than this: Some prophecy ended up being recorded, and some did not end up being recorded. That much we can safely say.

(b) Scripture's teaching elsewhere about itself implies that this distinction must reflect a qualitative distinction between the two kinds of prophecy (in that extra-canonical prophecy cannot be "the Word of God" in the strong sense).

This has never been established.

(c) The gifts in 1 Cor. 12-14 are frequently distinguished from the general phenomenon in question.

It's by no means clear that this is true of everything mentioned, and it looks very unloikely to be true of prophecy. There is no general everyday phenomenon of Christians giving a prophecy, and thus nothing to contrast the "gift" of prophecy with.

Something you may also be unaware of is that prophecy is nowhere called a gift in 1 Corinthians 12-14. I am aware of the unfortunate tendency of our translations to translate pneumatikos as "spiritual gifts," but as someone with a background in Greek 9I think), you yourself know that this is not the word's meaning. It refers to spirituality more generally, which is why, for example, the ESV adds the footnote: "or spiritual people" (as opposed to spiritual gifts).

(d) The gift of prophecy referred to in 1 Cor. 12-14 is said to be "in part", and "to fail"; whereas scripture is said to be "perfect" and never to fail.

I already addressed this. "In part" does not mean "in error." It is easy to think of only a part of divine revelation (e.g. one verse, one chapter, etc) as opposed to complete revelation (e.g. the whole Bible). "To fail" only means to end, and it is very easy to imagine an inspired prophecy coming to an end, unlike love, which never ceases.

While one would not want to make it into a dogma, the above seems to me to be sufficient scriptural grounding for the claim regarding the distinction between two types of prophecy. That theory is the best explanation for the scriptural data, though not the only possible explanation perhaps.

I have not seen any reason at all to entertain this view.

[TyRockwell]

What you are missing, Dr. Jack, is that "in part" is juxtaposed to "perfect." It is set apart as distinct from perfect. It CAN be perfect, but in part, just as we don't now always act in perfect love, or perfect knowledge.

I am thankful for Rupert Pupkin's valuable input to this thread.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Firstly, the distinction you are drawing in the list of gifts is between things that all Christians have anyway, and things that only certain people have - gifts. This distinction falls apart when it comes to prophecy, since we would already both agree that not everybody gives prophecies as a matter of normal Christian life, apart from any special gifting.

Actually, I do think that ordinary Christians can and do prophecy, as a matter of ordinary Christian life, without having the gift of prophecy. I freely admit that scripture does not say this explicitly (though 1 Cor. 14:1 implies it, see below), but neither does it deny it, and by analogy with the other gifts, it seems a reasonable inference to draw. Anyone can have faith, anyone can have wisdom, anyone can speak in tongues, and so forth; but there are special gifts of these things, also. Similarly, anyone can prophesy, but there is a special gift of prophecy.

Secondly, this really isn't a reply to the comment of mine that you've attempted to respond to. I said: "if at this stage you're already assuming that "the gift of prophecy" makes a prophecy different from some other non-gift type pf prophecy, then a biblical foundation for that view still needs to be laid."

And this, you did not cover.

I am not saying that the distinction "gift prophecy" vs "non-gift prophecy" is the same distinction necessarily as "canonical prophecy" versus "extra-canonical prophecy". I would say that all gift prophecy and ordinary Christian prophecy is extra-canonical - canonical prophecy is an extremely special case. However, the point is that there are different types of prophecy, and 1 Cor. 13 is addressing only the gift of prophecy.

But to reiterate why I think canonical prophecy is different to extra-canonical prophecy: Scripture is prophecy (I know you dispute this, I'll address this point below); scripture is said to endure forever and to be perfect, whereas the gift of prophecy is said to fail and to be in part. Hence they are two different kinds of prophecy.

Next, I replied to your claim that Scripture just is prophecy. I noted that this was not the case. Indeed, I think pretty much all of use realise this. Now of course, there are prophecies within Scripture, and so there are prophecies of Scripture. There are even books of prophecy, like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the book of Revelation. Likewise Scripture contains many poems, but it would be obviously wrong to say that Scri[pture just is poetry. So while Scripture contains many prophecies, Scripture is not prophecy.

This I dispute. The primary meaning of the term "prophecy" in scripture does not mean a genre, as it is used when we speak of the law, prophets and writings. That is Biblically at best a minor usage of the word "prophecy", although it is legitimate in its own right provided that it is not imported into the general Biblical concept. My claim is that the scriptures typically do not use prophecy in this way, but that (a) they regard every scripture as prophecy, and (b) whatever is scripture, is, by virtue of that fact, prophecy. This does not mean that it is merely prophecy - remember that Jesus was a prophet, but that does not mean that he was merely a prophet.

But returning to the Biblical texts: Mt. 11:13 specifically speaks of the "Law" prophesying, not just the texts which came to be known by the genre-label "the prophets". This speaks of the Pentateuch as prophecy. Indeed, the phrase "the prophets and the Law" is an offhand way of refering to the entire Old Testament (since the genre "the writings" was not well-established then), so Mt. 11:13 specifically states that the entire Old Testament is prophecy.

2 Pet. 1:20 Verse 19 speaks of the fact that we have "the prophetic word" made more sure, to which we should pay attention - surely this is the entire Old Testament, not just parts thereof. Then verse 20 says that "no prophecy of Scripture" being of a private interpretation, which again surely applies to all of scripture, not just part thereof. Verse 21 describes the process of scriptural inspiration, and refers to written prophecy (the "prophecy of Scripture" in verse 20). So again I think this is a general reference to all of scripture as prophecy.

Rev. 22:19 is more arguable and I shall leave it aside.

There is only one mechanism of scriptural inspiration, and that mechanism is prophetic. Indeed, the mere fact that scripture is the Word of God, automatically makes the giving of it an act of prophecy, by Biblical definition of prophecy. To give the Word of God, is what prophecy is.

You and I already know full well that the word of the Lord was sometimes not recorded.

Which means that not everything that Jesus said was either prophetic or inspired scripture. Which makes perfect sense. When he asked where his shoes were, or what was being cooked for breakfast, those were ordinary statements and had no prophetic or scriptural element. So they weren't recorded. The fact that much of what Jesus taught was not recorded, is similarly not relevant to the argument, unless you can prove that something that he taught which was not recorded was actually inspired scripture and prophetic.

Did Jesus ever say anything false? Probably. Did he think the earth was flat? Probably. No doubt he said so in one way or another at some time. He had the same ignorance about many things that any man of his time did. None of those statements made it into inspired scripture, though. Of course he never lied, but being ignorant of some fact which you have no conceivable way of knowing, is not the same thing as lying. Furthermore, to clarify: nothing Jesus said as recorded in scripture is in any way errant, or false. This is because that when he spoke what is recorded in scripture, he was speaking under inspiration. Hence this argument should not be construed as a way to dismiss Jesus' teaching in scripture about anything as misinformed.

To short cut the whole kenosis thing: I am not denying that Jesus was fully God, or that in his deity he had any lack of knowledge. What I am saying is that the perfect and full knowledge of his divine nature expressed itself through the imperfect and faulty knowledge of his human nature. He lived the kind of life that God would live if he were a human (and hence were limited in the way that humans are). But that Jesus was ignorant of many things, is a conclusion hard to avoid based on scripture.

Thjere is no basis for the assumption that he is referring to Scripture here. Indeed, we can be almost certain that he is not, since he appeals to the apostles and prophets, new Testament figures. But at the time Ephesians was written, we just did not have canonical writings from other apostles, let alone prophets. So we can know for certain that this interpretation of yours is wrong.

I don't quite see the point. Let us say that the teaching in question has been derived orally from the New Testament prophets and apostles. It is now (at the hand of Paul) being inscribed in canonical scripture, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Hence, it is (and was) canonical prophecy. There can be a time delay between when a prophecy is given, and when it becomes canonical in the sense of being written into a canonical text. Consider Jude 14-15. All God has to do is to make sure that the relevant prophecy is recorded. He doesn't have to do it that very minute. Caiaphas gave one canonical prophecy, which was later recorded in the Gospel of John. Does that make everything Caiaphas said prophetic, or canonical? No.

This is true if it means no more than this: Some prophecy ended up being recorded, and some did not end up being recorded. That much we can safely say.

Yes, and I claim that granted scripture's teaching about itself, some qualitative difference is entailed by this.

This has never been established.

To reiterate: scripture says that canonical prophecy will endure forever, and is perfect; whereas in 1 Cor. 13 it says the non-canonical gift of prophecy will fail and is in part. Hence there is a qualitative difference established.

It's by no means clear that this is true of everything mentioned, and it looks very unloikely to be true of prophecy. There is no general everyday phenomenon of Christians giving a prophecy, and thus nothing to contrast the "gift" of prophecy with.

This is your assumption, which I think is faulty. It certainly can't be proven from scripture.Note that Paul states that the Corinthians should earnestly desire to prophesy (14:1), which seems a bit pointless if many of them can't do it.

Something you may also be unaware of is that prophecy is nowhere called a gift in 1 Corinthians 12-14. I am aware of the unfortunate tendency of our translations to translate pneumatikos as "spiritual gifts," but as someone with a background in Greek 9I think), you yourself know that this is not the word's meaning. It refers to spirituality more generally, which is why, for example, the ESV adds the footnote: "or spiritual people" (as opposed to spiritual gifts).

In 12:4, the Greek says that there are varieties of XARISMATWN. In fact Paul lists gifts (vs. 4), services (vs. 5), and activities (vs. 6), and then he covers these in order, with digressions in between - 12:8-11 deals with gifts, 12:28-30 deals with services, and chapter 14 with activities. So the term "gift" is legitimate. But in any case the main point is that the word "prophecy" in chapter 13, whether gift, service, or activity, has to be taken in the context of chapters 12 and 14. That's the kind of prophecy is in view.

I already addressed this. "In part" does not mean "in error." It is easy to think of only a part of divine revelation (e.g. one verse, one chapter, etc) as opposed to complete revelation (e.g. the whole Bible). "To fail" only means to end, and it is very easy to imagine an inspired prophecy coming to an end, unlike love, which never ceases.

"In part" seems to entail error so far as I can see. If I only know say that Jesus is God, then insofar as I think some thought about Jesus in relation to manhood, I have to be in error. If I only have a part of the canon, then I will inevitably be in error in relation to many things. If this were not so, part of the canon would be superfluous. Paul also states that we see as in a mirror darkly, which involves error. If we know in part, then we have to be in error in relation to that part that we do not know.

As for "to fail", again I would disagree. No inspired prophecy will ever come to an end; scripture has "infinite depth" and multiple applications. There will be continued application in the eternal state. One cannot limit any prophecy just to one event in history, and say, well, that's over with now, no more future relevance for that prophecy.

Just as in Christ, the infinite was instantiated in the finite (to paraphrase Martin Luther), so in scripture, the infinite is instantiated in the finite. Scripture is an actual incarnation of divinity; that is why Jesus is called "the Word of God", the logos. He is incarnated in scripture. Otherwise we have no access to the incarnation, but only to a second-hand record of it. When we read scripture in faith as God's word (and not just as a historical document or writings of men), we encounter the living Christ.

[TyRockwell]

I would like to add that the reason that I set this thread in Eschatology is that the verse, "Till we all come to the unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" is an eschatological statement, involving a growing process to maturity.
It was to highlight the fact that something prophesied could fail, and that would not be a case for the one who prophesied being a 'false prophet,' a term that has been thoroughly abused, not only in this thread, but in practical application.

I am interested in hearing your comment on this.

[Rupert Pupkin]

It was to highlight the fact that something prophesied could fail, and that would not be a case for the one who prophesied being a 'false prophet,' a term that has been thoroughly abused, not only in this thread, but in practical application.

I agree. The term "false prophet" is bandied about too much. Often, when it is used, I am in agreement with the general thrust of the criticism, I just don't think that what is being criticized counts as "false prophecy".

However, a corollary of allowing that people can sometimes give errant prophecies, is that we must not elevate alleged prophecies too highly, either. If someone claims that their prophecy is on a par to the Word of God, then I will strongly disagree as a matter of principle. If a person I respect as a genuine Christian gives a word which they believe to be prophetic, then I will take it on board as an interesting piece of information, to be evaluated in the light of all the other data I have. I'm not going to immediately reject it, and neither am I going to regard it as being infallible. I'll take it seriously as possibly being from God, but I won't box myself into it and die for it, either.

[TyRockwell]

I agree. The term "false prophet" is bandied about too much. Often, when it is used, I am in agreement with the general thrust of the criticism, I just don't think that what is being criticized counts as "false prophecy".

However, a corollary of allowing that people can sometimes give errant prophecies, is that we must not elevate alleged prophecies too highly, either. If someone claims that their prophecy is on a par to the Word of God, then I will strongly disagree as a matter of principle. If a person I respect as a genuine Christian gives a word which they believe to be prophetic, then I will take it on board as an interesting piece of information, to be evaluated in the light of all the other data I have. I'm not going to immediately reject it, and neither am I going to regard it as being infallible. I'll take it seriously as possibly being from God, but I won't box myself into it and die for it, either.

I agree. What you have said is compatible with 1st Cor. 14:29, that states that the others should 'weigh carefully' that which was prophesied.

[Sparko]

are you both clueless? Prophecy MEANS getting revelation from God. If God gives you information directly, then that is prophecy. the information CANNOT be wrong. If it is, then God is wrong.

[Raphael]

Rupert,

When someone is claiming to have a word from God, be it a vision, a song, a prophetic utterance, an interpretation of something spoken in tongues etc. that person is claiming to be speaking what God has told them.

If they get it completely wrong, then they cannot have heard from God, and it is wrong for them to be claiming to have heard from God. This is not to be taken lightely as by attributing things to God that God has no part of, they are attacking His Honour. And indeed they are no worse than the fellow currently on trial here in NZ where he claims God told him to attack two women with a samurai sword and then to kill himself with the sword (when the sword snapped, he took it as a sign from God to not kill himself)

When someone is constantly making very public "prophecies" that are verified as being false (as Hinn and Joyner have done, on numerous occassions) then those men are false prophets.

Similarly when someone teaches blantant heresy, they are a false teacher and not to be listened to.

ergo, Hinn and Joyner are false prophets and false teachers and it is right for us to let people know that these men are wolves in sheep's clothing attempting to lead astray the elect.