the gift of prophecy

Hello Anne,
I asked a question regarding this passage as well in an eariler http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-music-as-prophecy ]thread . It seems to me that much of what I read on 1 Corinthians 14 is in regard to the proper use of "tongues" and very little is said of the other positive principles that Paul is teaching in this passage. I know I have not read all their is to read on it, so I'll be interested to see what others have to say on this topic in this passage.

I'll not speak for Anne, but I think the question is more about the definition of NT "prophecy."
Can women participate? What does it look like for women to "prophecy"in a NT?
My question dealt with the musical aspect of NT prophecy, and more specifically what does 1 Corinthians 14 teach us about the proper use of the "gift of prophecy".

Again the danger here is tying God as to what He can and cannot do to which the cessassionist position leads .Prophecy in the sense of foretelling would have the same benefits it has always had. If God wants to tell someone something He is not bound to do it through the written Scriptures (unless WE make it a part of our theology that He can only reveal His will in this way) He can use, and I hold, that He does use any way He chooses.(This is not an endorsement of any other religion or claimed revelation outside of Christ). I don't see a conflict between special revelation and consistency with Scripture as God is the author of both and though Scripture is His revelation God is not a book, i.e. the Bible is not our God, our God is the God of the Bible, He is much bigger.
I can't understand how prophecy can be equated with preaching in the pulpit unless God directly intervenes or intrudes into the prepared sermon to speak a particular message to the hearers. Or are we saying that every preacher is a prophet? That seems a strange idea that has never crossed my mind. Are there any Scripture verses that would confirm this?

Cessationists are not tying God's hands- if God has chosen to do something a certain way, then He has bound Himself... or are we going to get into that most inane of all arguments "Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?" It's the same thing IMO, to say that because God will act consistently with revealed Scripture that we've limited Him in some way.

I thought Scripture said the test of a true prophet is that what he says will come to pass. That seems basic.

There is a gift of discerning of Spirits but if this is not in exercise then one is bound to search and see if this contradicts God's word. If so you are, I reckon, safe to conclude that he may be wrong (I am nobody to suggest he is a false prophet but others may make that judgement, he may simply be barking up the wrong tree)
If there is no contradiction then one must wait and see. Whether the congregation takes this man's word on faith I think depends on how much under the leaders sway they are and how much they are given to critical thinking. Whenever I listen to a preacher I am fully aware of his mortality and his imperfection and am often critical(to myself) of some things they say. I never put a man on an infallible pedestal...although I have sneaking admiration for some but that admiration tends to be cos they seem so much closer to the Lord than I. I have never been used in the exercise of this gift but I would have to be unmistakably sure the Lord was speaking a word to me before I would dare to speak it.

The issue seems to be as to what God has chosen to do today and what He has chosen not to do. The continuationist sees nothing in Scripture to invalidate God using prophecy today, on the contrary, he sees that it is taught in Scripture as something for the church in the last days.
Some of the things God has chosen not to do nowadays we would agree on. You can build a Scriptural case for no animal sacrifices but can you do the same for prohecy. I don't see it myself.

That is like saying we have Scripture so we don't need God any more.
"So once the Scriptures were completed, there was no further need for prophecy" is a conclusion you have formed but this is not backed up by the verses you referred to.
I am familiar with your Timothy reference but have never thought it a verse to "have to get over" for this same Scripture which provides the doctrine we need is that very same Scripture that talks of the gifts being operational in the last days...the promise is to you and your children and those who are far off etc.

Thanks for the background discussion.
but Continuationist or Cessationist:

What is a quality definition of the NT gift of prophecy?
Yes or No - Is it in operation today?
Is it gender specific?
Is there a musical element (per my original question on 1 Corinthians 14)?

Many believers claim this sort of communication. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no basis in Scripture for this sort of subjective communication.
- No instruction to expect it.
- No definition to determine what it is or is not.
- No guidelines for using it.
- No examples of it taking place.
- Nothing!
Instead we have statements in Scripture that Scripture is all we need. The very notion of subjective, extra-biblical communication is contrary to Scripture, therefore any communication must itself be contrary to Scripture by default regardless of the supposed content.

I cannot recommend strongly enough the book Decison Making and the Will of God for reading on this topic.

QUOTE:

"One of the most foundational Scriptures for many cessationists is II Timothy 3:16-17. It tells us that the Scriptures provide all the doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction that we need to be perfect/mature/complete. So once the Scriptures were completed, there was no further need for prophecy. If the Scripture provides everything we need to be thoroughly equipped, why do we need prophecy any more?
That is why Chip talked about the sufficiency of Scripture. It's a question that many continuationists don't really come to grips with. If II Timothy 3:16-17 is really true, and Scripture really does provide everything we need to completely equip us, why would there be further revelation? We already have everything we need"[/quote]

When this letter to Timothy was written telling that Scripture provides "all the doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction that we need to be perfect/ mature/ complete"
the exercise of prophecy was in use. Yet Paul didn't use this argument of the sufficiency of the Scriptures to say that prophecy was no longer needed.
If the Scriptures were sufficient at the time Paul wrote and the gifts were in operation at that same time Paul wasn't making the conclusion that you are making, namely that 'we don't need prophecy any more because we have the Scriptures which are sufficient'. So you can't use these verses to say Paul would have agreed with you.
If you were around in Paul's time I could imagine you arguing with Paul telling him that he shouldn't be encouraging the use of Spiritual gifts because we have the Scriptures. Paul didn't see the fact of having the Scriptures as making the gifts void.

[quote= I am willing to discuss this topic with continuationists, but I don't want to argue it with anyone. And statements like yours show that the spirit in which I have wanted to carry on this conversation has not been received,

One mustn't presume that because we continue to disagree on this issue that there is some desire to argue or be unpleasant or that any failure to come to a convergence of view is a sign of stubbornness. It is disconcerting to have it implied that one is displaying a wrong spirit when to my mind all I have done is to try to present my view on the issue.
I may not have articulated my stance well or this thread may have as you said wandered off from the original question but a lot of these side issues are interconnected and relate to each other but I simply presented my view and waited eagerly to see the response and whether such response was convincing.
Anyway, no ill will is intended.

Perhaps my use of the word "you" sounded as if it was being used pejoratively. One could have used the term "any christian" who in the time of Paul could have argued that being as they had Scripture there was no need of any further revelation through things like prophecy. But prophetic gifts were being used at that time without any indication in Scripture that it was considered as negating sufficiency of Scripture.
I would suggest that if it didn't undermine sufficiency then that there is no reason that it should do so now.
Apologies if I seem to be belabouring the point.

I agree with you Anne. It does show however that sometimes we cherish and cling to our presuppositions so intensely that we do not see things clearly, "Hearing they hear not, though seeing they do not see".

But no one answered Chip's other three points. Where is the Biblical instruction to expect it, the Biblical explanation of it, or the guidelines for using it? How do we know this is the experience of anyone besides apostles and prophets?

How Biblically can we know it is any different from the Mormon "burning in the bosom"? How Biblically can we know that it wasn't just indigestion? How do you know who the thoughts are from, and how can we know that your experience tells us anything about how God works? How can we know it isn't sometimes Satan, who can appear as an angel of light, playing tricks?

Just because it worked out well, and someone has a happy marriage, for instance, doesn't mean that it was actually the Spirit directly leading. That happy marriage comes out of obedience to God's principles in the marriage, doesn't it? God can bring good out of even Satan's tricks -- He's done it uncounted times.

It's not really good enough for believers to say, "I disagree," or state opinions on what God does. Opinions aren't worth very much. Chip's questions should be answered Biblically.

I'm not saying that Anne's experience was a trick of Satan, or indigestion, or anything else. I don't have any idea what it was. All I'm saying is that our authority is Scripture, and it isn't answering Chip's question about what the Bible says to say that it worked out well, or to express an opinion.

I am not saying there is no Biblical answer to Chip. I'm saying it hasn't been given on this thread.

Quote:
"It was impossible for the sufficiency passages (I Tim 3 is only one, though perhaps the clearest) to be consider enacted at the time they were written, because God didn't consider the Scriptures sufficient yet - He was still giving Scripture. However, with the completion of the cannon came the full sufficiency of Scripture and the end of the need for direct revelation from God. God says we have all we need."

If it was impossible to consider the sufficiency passages as enacted at the time they were written then the passages cannot be seen as support for sufficiency...there is no caveat that it will only become sufficient in the future. It is spoken of in the present.

You make a gigantic assertion when you say that "God didn't consider the scriptures sufficient yet" based not on scriptural support but on another supposition, namely that God was waiting for the completion of the canon and then another assertion that the full sufficiency of scripture came with the completion of the canon.
Nowhere is this issue of a "completed canon" taught in Scripture let alone that sufficiency is dependent on it or that the gifts of the Spirit are thereafter invalidated.
It seems to be all based on one supposition after another and all to fit into a man made tradition, that of cessationism.

Ann,
The NT gift of prophecy is preaching and proclaiming the Gospel. Prophecy in the OT was known as "foretelling" or the telling of events yet to transpire. Prophecy in the NT is "forthtelling" or proclaiming truth already put forth.
OT prophecy has ceased. NT prophecy or "forthtelling" is commanded of all believers, Male or Female.

There is no consensus regarding the definition of prophecy. I believe it is best described, not as foretelling, but as declaring a message received directly from God. There isn't strong evidence, imo, to distinguish between OT and NT prophecy. Consequently, modern preaching would not be considered prophecy since the preacher is not receiving direct, personal revelation from God. He has what all people today have, the preserved Word of God. Generally, the definition of prophecy is shaded by one's understanding of sign gifts. Therefore you often get continuationists espousing the definition provided by S_Schmidt (don't know Steve's position) and cessationists espousing more or less the position I have just spelled out.

It's a narrow point, really. The much bigger question is not whether apostles or prophets were guided in particular ways -- Hebrews 1:1 indicates varied means of communication. The key question is how (or if) we should extrapolate that, and where in the world the Scriptures indicate that we should extrapolate that.

I don't remember the prior thread. That was actually a factor in reducing my SI time -- I found we just rehashed topics over again when someone new came along and posted a question. When time became really short for me, I opted out for a while.

***
Back to the main topic (again).

As to the definition of a prophet, in the OT a prophet is defined as one who gives the exact words of God and only the words of God when speaking as a prophet. I hope we can all agree on that. God used various means to speak to prophets (Heb. 1:1). They did not always understand what was revealed through them (I Peter 1:10-12), which would indicate that they really were simply mouth-pieces. Balaam prophesied. Mike McCubbins (Though I Speak) argues from Romans 3:1-2 and Deut. 18:13 that a prophet must be Jewish, and I find his argument interesting but not necessarily conclusive. Deut. 18:20 indicates that a prophet must speak in the name of the Lord, and only in the name of the Lord. It appears, though it is again not conclusive, that an OT prophet must give a sign, and certainly any sign he would give must come to pass (Deut. 13:1; 18:21-22).

In the NT, we are given no redefinition. Therefore, I believe it is best to assume the same definition applies. Communicating new revelation exactly as God intended it would be NT prophecy. Probably the most well-known NT prophet outside of the apostles is Agabus. A NT prophet is a mouthpiece for the Lord's words. We might perhaps argue that reading Scriptures, the exact words of God, or singing Psalms or other Scriptures, is a form of prophecy as well, serving as a mouthpiece of the word of the Lord. I would not be too sure about that, however, because generally prophecy appears to be used only of new revelation.

If prophecy has been redefined in the NT, there are problems. As has been mentioned, I Cor. 11 refers to women prophesying, apparently within a local church context and (for that matter) a mixed company of men and women. Yet, women are not to teach or have any position of authority over men (I Tim. 2), so prophesying cannot refer to teaching or what we often call "preaching" in the church. A woman could be a mouth-piece, under authority, and not violate I Timothy 2. It is hard to see how the "redefinition" view to cover what we call preaching in the church can reconcile I Cor. 11 and I Timothy 2. Acts 21:9 tells us of four daughters of Philip who prophesied. We do not know that this took place in the church, however.

In Acts 21:10-11 we have a prophecy from Agabus that he may not have fully understood. It appears (verse 12) that he was among those who were begging Paul not to go to Jerusalem. Yet, the prophecy was not a command not to go, but a statement of what was going to happen. In this respect, it appears that Agabus may have been similar to the OT prophets, in being a mouthpiece without necessarily having a full understanding of the import of what he said.

For the reasons given, I conclude that the NT definition of a prophet will not substantially differ from the OT definition. I would not call it a "sign gift", but rather a gift that was to be validated by signs.

Women definitely could prophesy, as evidenced by the Scriptures I've given.

If there is any particular connection between prophesying and music, it is very, very obscure, although as I have said above, the singing of the Psalms may be a form of prophesying, and other Scripture songs would fit in that category as well. I believe if musical prophesying were something that was to be part of our church life, we would have something a lot more clear than "I will sing with the understanding also" to indicate such. We are specifically told to use singing to teach, but we have no clear statement that it is to be used to prophesy (again, unless singing the Psalms would qualify).

If one defines todays expression of prophecy as "preaching the Word" is one to hold the preacher to the same level of perfection and accuracy that continuationists are subject to when they claim to prophesy from the Lord.
I reckon all preachers have said something wrong at times in their preaching so does that (if we are applying the same standards) mean they are false prophets?
You can, if todays prophet is the preacher,only claim as prophetic the quotations from Scriptures that they may use and the rest of the preaching surely is only the preacher's ideas which may or may not be right but by the standards of infallibilty that you demand of prophets the preacher will fall short.
The gift of prophecy is either available today or it isn't. Saying that the NT (that is, in our time) prophet is someone who preaches the Word seems to stray away from the Biblical use of the Word. I can't see where prophets are equated with preachers in the Scriprture as if they are equivalent,though some preachers may have been used to prophecy. They seem to be presented as two different ministries.

Thanks to all for the answers. There is no doubt the other debates (continue / cease & "inner voice") are important to this big discussion. These definitions and biblical work give a clearer picture from which to address the other issues. no time to fully comment now.
Thanks again