Many may not know the name Wayne Grudem or his book The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today; or maybe you do. Apparently it's a popular book in charismatic circles.
Grudem's main argument is that New Testament prophets differ from Old Testament prophets in the sense that New Testament prophets aren't always right.
He says God gives true prophecies to the prophet, but since the prophet is a fallible human the message may get lost in transmission. He even gives an example of why Agabus was wrong when he prophesied Paul would be bound and handed over to the Romans in Acts 21. It's a ridiculous idea that can easily be disproven.
But the story doesn't end there. Recently a Prophetic Standards Statement was issued and signed by a group that's made up nearly entirely of people from the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). I'll post a few of the more ridiculous notions and comment on them; but you really have to read the whole thing for yourself to get a sense of how ominous it really is.
"WE RECOGNIZE that prophets do not serve as spiritual fortune tellers or prognosticators, nor is their role to satisfy our curiosity about the future or reveal abstract information." This statement is directly contradicted by other statements that come later. For example: "WE UNDERSTAND that prophecies can be conditional and that many prophecies will take time to come to pass"; and "On the other hand, if a prophetic word is delivered containing specific details and dates in which the stated prophetic word will come to pass and that prophecy contains no conditions to be met in order to be fulfilled, and that word does not come to pass as prophesied, then the one who delivered the word must be willing to take full responsibility, demonstrating genuine contrition before God and people." Sure sounds like prognosticating to me. It continues: "Any statement of apology and/or explanation/clarification should be delivered to the audience to whom the erroneous word was given. For example, if it was given to an individual, the apology (and/or explanation/clarification) should be delivered to the individual. If the word was delivered publicly, then a public apology (and/or explanation/clarification) should be presented." Notice what it says: the prophet doesn't have to be right, only willing to show genuine contrition. This idea comes directly from Grudem's book.
And there's more, unfortunately:
"Finally, while we believe in holding prophets accountable for their words, in accordance with the Scriptures, we do not believe that a sincere prophet who delivers an inaccurate message is therefore a false prophet." Prophecy falsely? No worries, as long as you're sincere.
"WE REJECT the notion that a contemporary prophetic word is on the same level of inspiration or authority as Scripture or that God always speaks inerrantly through prophets today, since the Bible says we only know in part and prophesy in part (1 Cor. 13:9). It is the written Word alone that can lay claim to being "the Word of God" (2 Tim. 3:16); prophecies, at best, are "a word from the Lord," to be tested by the Word of God." But again this is directly contradicted by their very first statement: "WE BELIEVE that the gifts of the Holy Spirit, including the gift of prophecy and the ministry of the prophet, are essential for the edification of the Body of Christ and the work of the ministry, which is why Scripture exhorts us to earnestly desire spiritual gifts, especially that we may prophesy." So apparently God's word isn't sufficient after all, since prophecy is also "essential." If everything must be tested against God word, what need do we have for prophecy?
"WE RECOGNIZE the unique challenges posed by the internet and social media, as anyone claiming to be a prophet can release a word to the general public without any accountability or even responsibility. While it is not possible to stop the flood of such words online, we urge all believers to check the lives and fruit of those they follow online and also see if they are part of a local church body and have true accountability for their public ministries and personal lives. We also urge prophetic ministers posting unfiltered and untested words purportedly from the Lord to first submit those words to peer leaders for evaluation." The internet poses a serious threat to these false prophets, and so we see their contempt for it.
Throughout the Statement, there's talk of prophets needing to fall under the authority of peer groups and other ministers to have their "prophecies" evaluated.
What this Statement amounts to simply is a power grab by the NAR to tighten its grip on the prophetic community, bringing it under their control; and to recruit new supporters.
A lot of people signed this. Many names are unfamiliar but they have ties to the NAR. You may recognize some of them. Notice Wayne Grudem among them.
Grudem's main argument is that New Testament prophets differ from Old Testament prophets in the sense that New Testament prophets aren't always right.
But the story doesn't end there. Recently a Prophetic Standards Statement was issued and signed by a group that's made up nearly entirely of people from the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). I'll post a few of the more ridiculous notions and comment on them; but you really have to read the whole thing for yourself to get a sense of how ominous it really is.
"WE RECOGNIZE that prophets do not serve as spiritual fortune tellers or prognosticators, nor is their role to satisfy our curiosity about the future or reveal abstract information." This statement is directly contradicted by other statements that come later. For example: "WE UNDERSTAND that prophecies can be conditional and that many prophecies will take time to come to pass"; and "On the other hand, if a prophetic word is delivered containing specific details and dates in which the stated prophetic word will come to pass and that prophecy contains no conditions to be met in order to be fulfilled, and that word does not come to pass as prophesied, then the one who delivered the word must be willing to take full responsibility, demonstrating genuine contrition before God and people." Sure sounds like prognosticating to me. It continues: "Any statement of apology and/or explanation/clarification should be delivered to the audience to whom the erroneous word was given. For example, if it was given to an individual, the apology (and/or explanation/clarification) should be delivered to the individual. If the word was delivered publicly, then a public apology (and/or explanation/clarification) should be presented." Notice what it says: the prophet doesn't have to be right, only willing to show genuine contrition. This idea comes directly from Grudem's book.
And there's more, unfortunately:
"Finally, while we believe in holding prophets accountable for their words, in accordance with the Scriptures, we do not believe that a sincere prophet who delivers an inaccurate message is therefore a false prophet." Prophecy falsely? No worries, as long as you're sincere.
"WE REJECT the notion that a contemporary prophetic word is on the same level of inspiration or authority as Scripture or that God always speaks inerrantly through prophets today, since the Bible says we only know in part and prophesy in part (1 Cor. 13:9). It is the written Word alone that can lay claim to being "the Word of God" (2 Tim. 3:16); prophecies, at best, are "a word from the Lord," to be tested by the Word of God." But again this is directly contradicted by their very first statement: "WE BELIEVE that the gifts of the Holy Spirit, including the gift of prophecy and the ministry of the prophet, are essential for the edification of the Body of Christ and the work of the ministry, which is why Scripture exhorts us to earnestly desire spiritual gifts, especially that we may prophesy." So apparently God's word isn't sufficient after all, since prophecy is also "essential." If everything must be tested against God word, what need do we have for prophecy?
"WE RECOGNIZE the unique challenges posed by the internet and social media, as anyone claiming to be a prophet can release a word to the general public without any accountability or even responsibility. While it is not possible to stop the flood of such words online, we urge all believers to check the lives and fruit of those they follow online and also see if they are part of a local church body and have true accountability for their public ministries and personal lives. We also urge prophetic ministers posting unfiltered and untested words purportedly from the Lord to first submit those words to peer leaders for evaluation." The internet poses a serious threat to these false prophets, and so we see their contempt for it.
Throughout the Statement, there's talk of prophets needing to fall under the authority of peer groups and other ministers to have their "prophecies" evaluated.
What this Statement amounts to simply is a power grab by the NAR to tighten its grip on the prophetic community, bringing it under their control; and to recruit new supporters.
A lot of people signed this. Many names are unfamiliar but they have ties to the NAR. You may recognize some of them. Notice Wayne Grudem among them.
-
1
- Show all
