Featured Baptist Prophets

Agreed, a NT "prophet" who proclaims inspired words is a similar doctrine to the dogma of "double inspiration" of the KJVO folks where the 1611 KJV translators "corrected the Greek and Hebrew" because the Spirit led them to do so.

My point is that the word prophetes could be a utilitarian secular word, i.e. even having the secular meaning of something like a town crier but used of someone who proclaims God's established inspired word.

HankD

 

Sure it does. We are still in the New Testament era.

It's not a matter of accuracy, but of telling the word of God, applying the word of God to specific situations, and speaking the immediate words of God into a specific situation (not with the same level of authority as scripture, but aligned with scripture) for the guidance of His people.

Depends on who is writing the definitions. There's a good chance that there might be a different understanding.

Not at all. That does not logically follow.

 

Would neeed to redefinethat term,as I could see Apostles today as Missionaries, who God gives autorit overtheir regionsto preachChrist, but not inspired as NT ones were! Same fashion, someone can have a prophetic gift to see prophecy in light of current evnts from Bible and mae application, but not able to speak "Thus ayrth te Lord" as to doctrines, as Charasmatic ones claim to do!

 

We are in the NT era, but NOT in the book ofActs transistion era, as since, no longer any need to hve any sign and wonders asback then, as we now have the completed canon of scripture!
And yo may hae theprophetic gifting to be able to apply scriptures into current evnts, but that is way different thn how charasmatics define this, as teir prophets'claim" doctrines/revelations from God still!

 

Agreed.
Hope you don't mind but I had to correct your spelling errors and re-read your words to understand what you were saying. Do you know how to use a spell checker?

Thanks
HankD

 

Yes, but main problem is working thru fat fingers on small keyboard!

 

Oh, OK (I guess)

HankD

 

I will seek to comply!

 

You claim this term "Book of Acts Transition Era" as if it is a universally-understood and accepted formulation backed up with biblical evidence.

"Signs and wonders" and a "completed canon of scripture" are not mutually exclusive things.

I realize that there is a whole set of teaching built upon "the perfect" (1 Corinthians 13:10) allegedly representing the canon of scripture, but that is certainly referring to the time when we will "know," just as we "are fully known." We are not there yet since Christ has not returned to destroy evil, abolish all rival kingdoms and authorities, and fully reestablish the world under His authority.

Does that mean I'm looking for signs and wonders and indulging in the excesses of the charismatic movement? Nope. But it means that I look at everything carefully and "do not despise" gifts without testing them.

So why are we talking about charismatics? This is about "Baptist prophets."

 

The particular issue was looking at prophecy that could be viewed as unrelated specifically to Prophecy that is specific to the Redemptive Plan. In other words, the prophecy quoted was specific to Paul and what would take place in his life.


God bless.

 

Just trying to clarify if you mean the Baptist prophets to be same way charasmatics define them being!
And baptists pretty much have seen Acts as a record of the church transistioning from old to new Covenant, so what was done by God there was for reasons of that time, and not normitive for all times!

 

It is just my opinion that anyone claiming to be a prophet in the vein of the Prophets of God are in fact properly labeled Charismatic.

Those who reject the Authority and sufficiency of Scripture inadvertently reject God's will in this Age, in my opinion. The entire point of Scripture is for God to communicate His will to men, and the primary theme is Redemption, and we have been given everything we need to know for us to carry out the commission given us by the Lord.

There is no greater source of authority than the Gospel of Jesus Christ as we interact with our fellow man.


God bless.

 

Besides the prophets noted in Acts 21 by Darrell and myself, there were prophets at the Antioch church:

Acts 13 (KJB)

Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers...

[with thanks to the NASB, it cross references 21:9 (Philip's daughters, prophetesses at Caesarea) to 13:1 (prophets at Antioch)]

 

And some were FEMALE!!

 

I don't take my theology from charismatic circles. I'm not even sure how they define a prophet in their ranks.

So I can't take the teachings and practices of the first century church and use their in culturally-appropriate ways today? Then what's the point of having a New Testament and citing Paul, Peter, James, and the apostles if what they did is not for our instruction?

What you are saying is that we should interpret the New Testament by OUR current practices and teachings TODAY - that we should condemn anything that we don't already do as being limited to the first century.

 

Were back then prophes, none sincet that time?

 

This is the same way that O view tis issue, as many today seem to want to keep cjarasma and Bible at same time!

 

Charismatics and Baptist Prophets are not mutually exclusive.




God bless.

 

No, rather that we have to view the book of Acts as being a historical account of what Goddid back then, in order to establish Jesus as Messiah, and th church, but was not meant to be the norm for all time!