More pieces fall into place

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.

If everything must be tested against God word, what need do we have for prophecy?

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.

View attachment 233260

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.

Best advice I can give to people with this spiritual gift of prophecy is to be thoroughly grounded in the Word of God before attempting to deliver what you believe is a message from God. I think it's better to hesitate and try to get confirmation before bearing false witness of God or possibly leading someone astray.

I'm just curious. If a prophet must be grounded in the word, and not prophecy anything that contradicts God's word, why do we need prophets? Teachers, yeah. But it seems prophecy is irrelevant if it must always conform to God's word. Why not just study God's word? Am I making sense?

I'm just curious. If a prophet must be grounded in the word, and not prophecy anything that contradicts God's word, why do we need prophets? Teachers, yeah. But it seems prophecy is irrelevant if it must always conform to God's word. Why not just study God's word? Am I making sense?

I don't know why you conclude that this is an NAR power grab.

If a prophet must be grounded in the word, and not prophecy anything that contradicts God's word, why do we need prophets?

I've posted on this over and over but you must've either missed it or didn't feel it was worthwhile of consideration.

The NAR are Dominionists. Their motivation is the Seven Mountains Mandate. The end-game is to set up Christ's kingdom now (not wait on Christ to return and set it up Himself). Of course the leadership of this kingdom will be comprised of—you guessed it—the NAR prophets and apostles.

If this sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, just look into it, you'll see I'm right.

“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.”

Run from a man who claims such things. However, in the light of Ephesians 4, prophets are given to the body to build up the body. Primarily, they should be imparting the truth that all believers can hear from the Lord.

These clowns give Matthew 7:15-20, Jeremiah 23:9-40 and Ezekiel 13:23 as their basis for distinguishing between true and false prophets. So let's look at these

I'd agree, provided that this is something the author actually stated. It's a synopsis by a detractor, which always leaves me wondering a little.

These clowns give Matthew 7:15-20, Jeremiah 23:9-40 and Ezekiel 13:23 as their basis for distinguishing between true and false prophets. So let's look at these:

"But beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grape clusters from thorns, or figs from thistles? Thus every good tree produces good fruit, but a corrupt tree produces evil fruit. A good tree cannot produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit. Every tree not producing good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire. Consequently, by their fruits you shall know them."—Matthew 7:15-20

They (that is, the signers of this document), no doubt would say they're the good guys, the true prophets. . .the ones qualified to evaluate and decide who bears good fruit and who doesn't. My only comment is just look at the fruit of some these deceivers and then decide who bears good fruit and who doesn't. Their only problem is they compare themselves by themselves, not God's word.

"Thus says the Lord of hosts:


I absolutely agree with this scripture, only the people it's talking about are the NAR false prophets themselves!

And finally:

"Because you have disheartened the righteous with your lies, even though I have caused them no grief, and because you have encouraged the wicked not to turn from their evil ways to save their lives, therefore you will no longer see false visions or practice divination. I will deliver My people from your hands. Then you will know that I am the Lord."—Ezekiel 23:22-23

Again I totally agree with their choice of scripture. However, they're the liars, they're the ones who haven't encouraged the wicked to turn from their evil ways; but they heartily endorse them.

These people are correct in saying we need to distinguish between true and false prophets; they just don't have the sense to see they're the false prophets.

Can you show me what I said that leads you to believe I'm saying Ezekiel and Jeremiah are false prophets? Help me understand how you could take it that way.

"These people" are the NAR false prophets.

"These people" are the NAR false prophets.