Homer wrote:If 1 Cor. 1:7 is about outward spiritual gifts in particlar, especially the office of prophet, why would they be gifted with this and not any churches today, if being off course is the criteria? Paul seemed to think the Corinthians were pretty far off course.
Hi Homer! You bring up a good point, bro. The Corinthians were far off course, and they needed Paul to correct them. Perhaps there were prophets in the church who knew that things needed to change but only Paul was one who had the authority to correct them so firmly. Even so, this would not prove to me that there is no office of the prophet, but that there is still a possibility for prophets today despite the church being off course in many ways. Maybe what TK said is right. I think there are many anointed servants of God who are in tune with the heart of God, and accurately speak His heart to people. In addition to AW Tozer and Keith Green, I've often thought a pastor named Zac Poonen in India also fits that category. However, none of those men had ever predicted something short-term or long-term that was to come to pass. They never thought to, because God hadn't gifted them in that way. Therefore, I would hesitate to call them prophets.
Homer wrote:Why would we need prophets to give us "thus sayeth the Lord" statements when we have received all we need from Jesus and His apostles:
Hebrews 1:1-2
1. God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2. has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
We have far better than the Corinthians; we have the words of Jesus and the Apostles in compact form that we can take with us wherever we go. Seems our problem is not one of lack of information.
I agree that we have the Scriptures, which are infinitely valuable. However, I'm not talking about needing prophets for "progressive revelation". In other words, I don't think we need more doctrine or more information. Some of those things would be nice to have because they would solve some debates that Christians have over non-essential doctrines, but they are still not necessary, in my opinion. I still think that having prophets would be helpful though. For instance, Agabus in the book of Acts was able to inform the church of a coming famine in Jerusalem, and how the church could respond to that immediate need. I think that having a prophet nearby would help a lot with these kinds of things. Let's say God revealed to someone that a nuclear bomb was going to hit the east coast and that all Christians in the northeast should flee to the West. That would be something that would classify as important information which is not revealed in the pages of Scripture.
Maybe I'm thinking of the office of a prophet too narrowly. Perhaps the OT prophets just had a deep impression on their hearts and they wrote in their own words what God impressed upon them. Maybe it wasn't an audible voice from God, or maybe it was, I don't know. Maybe some people are prophets without even knowing it, and they have beneficial revelation from God that can build up and equip the saints for ministry, even though they would hesitate to predict a future event.
However, I'm also open-minded to the possibility that the office of apostleship and prophecy has left the church since its foundation, per
Eph 2:20. The foundation of a building doesn't have to be laid twice, so perhaps the apostles and prophets were only relevant for that special time. I still have hope that it's possible for God to raise up true prophets, I just haven't seen anything convincing that there are any at this time.
