Christian Prophets

[Zakuska]

We often hear from Christians bemoaning our use of the ANFs or the ECFs or even the RCFs that...

"Luther is NOT a prophet. Wesley is NOT a prophet. Neither one claimed such."

Here I beg to differ, we know Luther claimed to be a prophet...

Martin Luther, Jena, vol. 7, f. 304:

“I do not prophesy willingly, nor do I want to prophesy. Whatever I foretell, especially something bad, very often turns out that way—in fact, more often than I wish—so that I often yearn deeply with St. Micah: ‘Oh, that I were not a man with the Spirit and that I spoke lies!’ [Mic. 2:11, Vulgate]”

[thesometimesaint]

I wonder how much flatulence was involved

[etana]

We often hear from Christians bemoaning our use of the ANFs or the ECFs or even the RCFs that...

"Luther is NOT a prophet. Wesley is NOT a prophet. Neither one claimed such."

Here I beg to differ, we know Luther claimed to be a prophet...

Martin Luther, Jena, vol. 7, f. 304:

“I do not prophesy willingly, nor do I want to prophesy. Whatever I foretell, especially something bad, very often turns out that way—in fact, more often than I wish—so that I often yearn deeply with St. Micah: ‘Oh, that I were not a man with the Spirit and that I spoke lies!’ [Mic. 2:11, Vulgate]”

He didn't claim to be a Prophet, but to "prophesy" in the same sense that Paul exhorted.

1Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. 3But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. 4One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. 5Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.

[Zakuska]

He didn't claim to be a Prophet, but to "prophesy" in the same sense that Paul exhorted.

Prophesying without being a prophet?

Him quoting Micha, sets himself as a prophet, in the exact same sense.

[volgadon]

We often hear from Christians bemoaning our use of the ANFs or the ECFs or even the RCFs that...

"Luther is NOT a prophet. Wesley is NOT a prophet. Neither one claimed such."

Here I beg to differ, we know Luther claimed to be a prophet...

Martin Luther, Jena, vol. 7, f. 304:

“I do not prophesy willingly, nor do I want to prophesy. Whatever I foretell, especially something bad, very often turns out that way—in fact, more often than I wish—so that I often yearn deeply with St. Micah: ‘Oh, that I were not a man with the Spirit and that I spoke lies!’ [Mic. 2:11, Vulgate]”

The notion of prophecy as being critical has had its greatest success in

Protestant theology. To the reformers, their opposition to certain practices of

the church of their times was a preeminently prophetic mission, seeking to

oppose derailed practices.155 This mission constituted a sharing in Christ’s

prophetic ministry, the munus propheticum Christi—that is, it was part of his

threefold ministry (munus triplex Christi: munus sacerdotale, munus regale, and

munus propheticum, Christ’s sacerdotal, kingly, and prophetic ministries).

Protestants do highlight the importance of the entire church’s prophetic role

vis-a`-vis the world,156 but tend more readily to see prophecy realized in in-

dividuals guided by Christ from within the church criticizing lapsed office

bearers.157 Many of Luther’s contemporaries and later followers considered

him a prophet; thus, for instance, five years before the two fell into conflict

over the Lord’s Supper, Zwingli had labeled Luther a contemporary ‘‘Elijah,

the eschatological prophet who was to proclaim the Word of the Lord in the

last times.’’158 To Luther, the purpose was not to establish a new church but to

correct those religious traditions and theologies that were in opposition to the

Gospel. To the reformers, the criticism unintentionally ended up with the es-

tablishment of the Lutheran community, whereby the critical element can

almost be seen as constitutive of the reformed churches, an element that still

shines through in the name ‘‘Protestant.’’

-Niels Christian Hvidt, "Christian Prophecy: the post-biblical tradition" p. 173.

[Zakuska]

I was happy to find out that John Wesley claimed the prophetic gifts that as he said had been dead in Christianity for some time, you know the whole visions no longer necessary, closed canon bit.

John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, certainly would have concurred. In his Journal entry for August 15, 1750, he wrote, "I was fully convinced of what I had long suspected, 1. That the Montanists, in the second and third centuries, were real, scriptural Christians; and, 2. that the grand reason why the miraculous gifts were so soon withdrawn, was not only that faith and holiness were well nigh lost; but that dry, formal, orthodox men began even then to ridicule whatever gifts they had not themselves, and to decry them all as either madness or imposture."

Wesley clearly believed that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were relevant for the church in any age. He defined them. He described them. He experienced them. He defended them.

Although Wesley never emphasized certain gifts such as predictive prophecy or tongues and their interpretation, he did regret their loss to Christians in general. In his sermon, "The More Excellent Way," he writes, "The cause of this [decline of spiritual gifts following Constantine] was not, (as has been vulgarly supposed,) `because there was no more occasion for them,' because all the world was become Christians. This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The real cause was, `the love of many,' almost of all Christians, so called, was `waxed cold.' The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathens. The Son of Man, when he came to examine his Church, could hardly `find faith upon earth.' This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church; because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form left."

Obviously the implication here is that when the church recovers its first love, the gifts of the Holy Spirit will be available to enable its several parts to minister effectively within their own spheres of influence. Although the "more excellent way" is the way of love, Wesley still insisted that we may "covet earnestly" such gifts as evangelism to "sound the unbelieving heart," or the gift of knowledge to understand both the providence and the grace of God, or the gift of faith "which on particular occasions,...goes far beyond the power of natural causes" (Works, 7:27).

Some argue that Wesley sounded somewhat ambivalent at times with regard to some of the more "extraordinary" gifts as they surfaced within the 18th century Evangelical Revival (no doubt concerned about the charges of "enthusiasm" against the people called Methodist). However, on at least one occasion Wesley defended the gifts of the Spirit. In a letter to Conyers Middleton (Works, 10:1-79), Wesley defined, described, and defended a whole host of spiritual gifts, including: "1. Casting out devils; 2. Speaking with new tongues; 3. Escaping dangers, in which otherwise they must have perished; 4. Healing the sick; 5. Prophecy, foretelling things to come; 6. Visions; 7. Divine dreams; And, 8. Discerning of spirits" (Works, 10:16). Although the order and even the mention of some "gifts" not normally associated with the biblical accounts (such as visions and dreams) may seem a bit strange, the fact remains that Wesley believed that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were not only important but also were active during the 18th century Evangelical Revival.

http://ucmpage.org/a...s/rtuttle1.html

Edited October 11, 2011 by Zakuska

[ldsfaqs]

This is one of the serious flaws of anti-mormon theology that I've always recognized.

The condemn us for following "false prophets", yet the very definition of false prophet is exactly who and what they themselves follow.

They follow men/ideology's which men created, who called themselves, who interpret scripture, who stand as watchmen, created religion, etc.

Even if they don't "call themselves" prophets, they do everything a prophet does. Yet, who gave them that authority? In both the Old and New Testaments, that authority was always given by those who had the authority, be it Moses or Christ, or the Apostles, etc.

They don't comprehend that the moment a man opens his mouth to lead others without God's direct authority, he becomes a false prophet.

Yet, because they "feel" called, they then believe that qualifies them. That's not the Biblical standard. In fact, Christ and the Apostles knew that standard in Mark 9 & Luke 9. However, in those cases, Christ made clear, that even though other believers weren't with the Church and didn't have his authority, he still considered them his children. This is one reason we don't have ministry's against other religions. And also, Christ directly condemns anti-mormonism in those chapters.

There are so many other examples..... Just the New Testament alone, other Christians simply don't know their Bibles. They are told to see only what they say it says, not what it actually says. It's an interesting subject to me. They claim "authority" isn't in the New Testament, but there are several examples. On and on....

Edited October 11, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Yirgacheffe]

I wonder how much flatulence was involved

This is acceptable?

[Zakuska]

This is acceptable?

Inside Joke. You have to have posted on Carm and know the history of the person who I took the OP quote from to get it. (I have kept him anonymous because you really do not want to get to know him, beleive me)

Edited October 11, 2011 by Zakuska