Also, you are making the assumption that because the scripture is closed that prophesy as described in the NT has ceased. This may be true, but not necessarily. They could be unrelated. (of course this gets back tot the questions of defining prophesy and whether or not one holds to strict ceasationism.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A question of headship and leadership
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
- Status
The prophecy that was Godly, had to meet two binding requirements. The prophet that failed in either test was considered a false prophet.
Prophecy was proclaiming very specifically what would happen in the future. A prophet could cite past events, but the prophecy itself had to be of future events - this separated the prophet from all other proclaimers of God's word.
Paul said, "But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." He was speaking of God's word.
Because the Word of God is "perfect" that which is in part is no longer.
There are NO modern prophets except false prophets.
No, he did not contradict himself.
But as I have already stated there are no modern prophets except false prophets.
The Word of God is complete. God has no more revelations of future events to share that is not already written in the Scriptures.
That which was in part is made perfect and it is available for no private interpretation just as the Scriptures express.
Let's assume you are correct. Why would Paul say that women could prophesy AND they needed to be silent. Is that not a contradiction?
To prophesy can mean to things. One to specifically speak of future events. The other to speak revelation of God.(whether by direct revelation or from written revelation...the Bible). Today a person can prophesy by reading the Bible. They are speaking revelation of God from the Scripture. We can't limit prophesy to just one of the definitions.
As for the women being silent, that's speaking of questions or corrections she has. She should talk with her husband first. It's not saying that a woman can't open their mouth in church. So yes, a woman can sing in church.
As for the women being silent, that's speaking of questions or corrections she has. She should talk with her husband first. It's not saying that a woman can't open their mouth in church. So yes, a woman can sing in church.
Tom Butler
New Member
It seems to me that the case can be made that Paul was writing specifically to the church at Corinth, and was seeking to correct some of the women's behavior in the church.
I would disagree with the part of a person being able to "prophesy" by reading the Bible.
The very definition of prophecy is to foretell a future event that has yet to be revealed.
To merely read or speak the written revelation of God is NOT a qualification of a what a prophet is - for if it were then every person even a heathen like Voltaire could rightfully be called a prophet.
Prophecy ceased when the word of God was complete.
No, you are forgetting about the other definition. To Prophecy CAN mean to foretell the future, but that's only a small portion of what the word means. A prophet would be one that gives prophecy directly from God.
New prophecy...yes. Repeating prophecy, no.
Because, when Paul wrote the letters, the Scriptures were not complete and the local church not having the complete word of God had to rely upon "extra revelation." Not until many years later when John recorded the Revelations was the door shut.
That is why Paul said that when the Scriptures were complete (perfect) that prophecy would cease. The early church only saw but shadows of what we can see clearly. No longer is there any need for prophecy.
However, because we have what the early believers did not, and we have it in a complete way, and we have it with far more understanding, tools to research, and historically significant people, that it is no wonder the Scriptures indicate how much more responsible we will be held (to whom much is given...).
God has given us the complete revelation of the future that He desires us to know and all that we can absorb. Remember that John was told and saw things that he was told not to record.
Makes me long to see what he was so very privileged to see about 1900 years ago.
If you repeat prophecy, you are not the prophet, but merely a spokesman.
Even the world knows that prophecy is about future events.
"Definition of PROPHECY from Webster (online)
1: an inspired utterance of a prophet
2: the function or vocation of a prophet; specifically : the inspired declaration of divine will and purpose
3: a prediction of something to come"
Divine will and purpose is to say what God says about what WILL happen and the PURPOSE it is to serve. Even "strongs" says that it is the person speaking under divine inspiration about future events.
If I read the sermon on the mount to my wife, I am not a prophet. If I expound on the monster of Daniels dream, I am not a prophet. Hal Lindsey is not a prophet.
Some may make the claim, but the claim is empty.
All self proclaimed prophets of this day are false prophets.
The Scriptures are not open to be added or subtracted. There is no "Newest Testament" or "Book of Mormon" that is the word of God.
If it is as you say, then Paul was in error when he said that the women are to be silent in the church. You can't have it both ways!
I lack understanding because:
> You want to ignore what Paul said, in favor of a personal agenda. That is fine except that from the beginning I have stated what the Scriptures taught.
> You argued from Ex 7 and were shown to be wrong.
> You argued from the thinking that if I can show the old man he is wrong on singing, then he must be wrong on prophecy.
Problem is you boxed yourself into a corner by your own declaration that women were not allowed to sing at temple. Which, I am still not in agreement.
> You argued the point of public prayer by the woman in the assemblies and were again shown that view is not consistent with the Scriptures.
So, now the only response seems to be that I am lacking the understanding of the full meaning of the word. Yet, even the world knows that prophets prophesy about the future events delivered to them personally by God.
The Scriptures are sealed. None can be added. God has delivered and preserved all the Word He desires until Christ (the Very Word of God) sits on the throne of David during the Millennial reign.
It therefore remains that any and all person(s) who claim to have a personal word from God that is not directly taken from the Scriptures but by some "divine revelation" are false and not to be trusted nor joined in fellowship.
Considering that in the last 200 years we have had cults such as the Mormons, Jim Jones, David Koresh, and more preachers claiming a special divine revelation (such as the appearance of a 50 foot tall Jesus) than I can even count, merely shows the shallow lack of discernment of the modern believer because more and more chase after them with itching ears. These are all false prophets and it is not an easy determination for the modern shallow swimming believer to accept. But, it is never the less true.
There are growing numbers who chase after women "speakers" with no care that they both are in violation of the Scriptures, and even excuse the destruction of their own homes by flaunting the authority and blame games.
Such flaunting started in Eden with Eve and Adam.
Sad ....
All so very sad....
You lack in understanding of what prophecy is.
Never said otherwise.
Again, you are limiting the term. I'm not going to argue with one that is going to ignore basic stuff like this. When Paul says women are prophesying, he is speaking of them saying inspired words...aka..Scripture. Not about speaking of the future.
DiamondLady
New Member
Why is it, everytime the "women be silent" is discussed people don't realize that they need to READ THE WHOLE PASSAGE!!! Paul was not telling ALL women to be quiet only women who were coming into the church to disrupt and cause problems.
God does not intend women to be silent. Never did, and never will. He intends women to pray, to sing, to speak, to teach, to be a welcome and loved part of the church. God gives women intelligence and insight, he gives women great discernment (often far more than men....that's why they call it women's intuition).
Agedman, you need to do an in-depth study of the gift of prophecy and what it really means. I'll give you a hint...it's not prophecy such as the OT prophets gave. God would not have included it in scripture if the gift ceased.
Now I will return to my corner and continue observing this verbal match.
God does not intend women to be silent. Never did, and never will. He intends women to pray, to sing, to speak, to teach, to be a welcome and loved part of the church. God gives women intelligence and insight, he gives women great discernment (often far more than men....that's why they call it women's intuition).
Agedman, you need to do an in-depth study of the gift of prophecy and what it really means. I'll give you a hint...it's not prophecy such as the OT prophets gave. God would not have included it in scripture if the gift ceased.
Now I will return to my corner and continue observing this verbal match.
Ba-bam!!!!!
I doubt you will stay in that corner, but I will tell again why Paul included it.
First let me do a quick restatement of the thread and what I have stated.
> I have shown on this thread more than once exactly what both the world definition and the scriptural view of prophecy.
> I never said women were not allowed to sing. I contend that they sung as part of the chorus at temple. Not as soloists, but in groups.
> Certainly they may pray, just not stand and lead in prayer in the assembly. Again I gave the example of a woman praying at temple.
> They may speak to their husband and as the husband allows to others when in the assembly. For ultimately he is responsible for the family and each members actions and words. Most men can and do trust their wives. Some men can't because the wife has displayed a spirit of self above anyone and everyone.
> Certainly they may teach - the old and wise are compelled by Paul to instruct the young in the womanly attributes that make them a faithful follower of both husband and Christ.
> No one has said anything about them not being welcomed and loved in the assembly.
Paul said (not ME) that women are to be silent.
Now let me restate what Paul said and the reasoning you can look at in the Scriptures.
Prophecy is EXACTLY how the Old Testament presented it. It didn't change just because the word "new" was inserted instead of "old." God didn't suddenly stop talking. He gave specific instructions to specific members of the assembly as guidance to that local body that was without the complete word of God. Again, I have shown by both the world definition and the Scriptural view what prophet and prophecy means.
Because the Scriptures were not complete, prophets and prophecy did continue until as Paul said until that which was in part was made perfect and that the shadow (see through a dark glass) would be removed.
AFTER, John wrote Revelations which took place a number of years after BOTH Paul and Peter had been murdered, the Scriptures were sealed and preserved by God.
Paul (being a prophet) said that which was Perfect would come, and it did, and Paul said that when it did come that prophecy would cease. It has.
NO more prophecy.
We have the complete revelation of God that He wanted us to have. There is NO NEW "word of god" given to anyone.
If you miss understand, then it is not me that needs "to do an in-depth study of the gift of prophecy and what it really means."
I am not limiting the term prophet or prophecy.
I am stating what it is in the Scriptures. If you want make more of the word that what the Scriptures state, well not much I can do about it.
Do you know what the test of a true prophet was? Apparently not, for if you did, you would know that EVERY prophet that spoke a prophecy spoke of a future event that no one new would happen until the prophet revealed it.
If you doubt that, then show me in scripture one place that a prophet prophesied that it wasn't about a future event. Certainly prophets spoke other "inspired" words, just as Nathan did before David and so did other men such as Saul. However, when Nathan prophesied, it was about the future.
You said that I am ignoring "basic stuff like this." So, rather than being so condescending or at worst insulting of my education, use the scriptures and show me the real depth of your higher educated understanding.
Start another thread though so that the topic will be more direct and limited to the scope in which YOU desire for me to be educated.
Yes you are.
sorry, but you are the one limiting.
Obviously you are either unable or unwilling to follow along. I'm not speaking about a prophet. Since you can't seem to grasp, I'm not going to waste my time with the rest of this because it's all about a prophet which no one is speaking about.
I've never said anything about your education. You are limiting the use of a term.
Now you are acting like another poster on here, which isn't good. The prophesying in I Corinthians has nothing at all to do with telling the future.
What you are doing is looking at one definition of prophesy and not the other. To prophesy can mean to foretell, but it can also mean to forthtell.
Anyway, it's starting to get off topic.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status