Another great post, but one that still raises some improtant questions. Let’s raise them according to your catgories:

1. THE ALLEGED PROPHET: General character would not have been a good gauge for Balaam or Caiaphas, both of whom prophesied despite being thoroughgoing scoundrels. Theological competence has a partisan air to it: would you as a nonremonstrant Baptist recognize the gift of prophecy in, say, an EO monk? As for reliability, the benchmark is 100% accuracy; anything else warrants precipitation, and fails to distinguish between prophecy and sage counsel.

2. THE ALLEGED PROPHECY: Not all prophets saw God enthroned in heaven or hechal, so this criterion could exclude bona fide prophecies. What, btw, constitutes a strange dream, and what differentiates this from some of the visions recorded by the prophets (eg Ezekiel’s creatures)? This criterion smacks of subjectivity for, had major tranquilizers been available at Ezekeil’s time, he probably would have had a court order for forced medication.

“Ring of truth” and “edifying” are also subjective and harken to the Mormon’s pyrosis, bringing us from psychotropics to proton pump inhibitors. Assuming is really (unintentially, ot coutse) presuming to tell God how He had better address His envelopes if He expects His mailings to be received and read by His creatures. If you aren’t thinking about what God thinks you should be thinking about, perhaps He’d send a prophet as a wake-up call. Elijah was Elisha’s mentor, but not all prophets were necessarily mentors to their hearers; some appeared to be Divine Jackboots. Isaiah’s prediction of the reign of Cyrus and many of the messianic prophecies were not verifiable or falsifiable by the immediate audience, so I’m not sure those criteria are helpful.

While I can’t argue about praying over difficult matters or having a sense of rightness or wrongness, this also sounds a bit like Jiminy Cricket, as my conscience is fallible and I can perceive amiss. The question is not how I feel, but is this a message from God or no? If yes, I must obey and bring my conscience into conformity therewith; if no, then my feelings are irrelevant. No doubt you will have an interesting and informative riposte.

I don’t think showing counterexamples in Scripture weakens the overall usefulness of these sorts of questions as guides.

Given that what we’re discussing here is explicitly something that cannot be decided from Scripture, all our tests will by definition be subjective and error-prone. So complaining that they are subjective seems to miss the point.

Theological competence has a partisan air to it

So you think Paul’s instructions to Titus about the qualifications for eldership have a partisan air to them? (Titus 1:9)

As for reliability, the benchmark is 100% accuracy

The problem is, we need to distinguish between accuracy of prophecy and accuracy of interpretation. A true prophecy can be badly interpreted.

I beg to differ about the Scriptural counterexamples, as they illustrate just how difficult discerning truth from falsehood can be – especially without urim and thummim or magisterium. Prophets also objectively authenticated their office, which can’t be said of any latter-day putative prophet. Not only can true prophecies be falsely interpretetd and false prophecies be taken for true, but a correct guess can also appear prophetic.

While St Paul was no partisan, the same can’t be said of churches, councils, and ourselves, which can and do err despite acting like they believe otherwise (eg, quia subscription and closed communion). Doubtless you will agree that we have a tendency to view ourselves, our pet theologians, and our churches as the sword proceeding from the mouth of Christ, often failing to see the charismata of the Holy Ghost upon those bodies and believers who differ with us – hence my question about recognizing an EO monk as a true prophet. I hope I’ve made myself clearer on what I meant by partisan.

As for the 100% accuracy mark, false prophets in the OT were to meet a sudden and violent end. While tossing such mordern scoundrels from our stteples, certainly those folks should be under excommunication; this might help to prophylax sorting truth from error.

I beg to differ about the Scriptural counterexamples, as they illustrate just how difficult discerning truth from falsehood can be

“Can” being the operative word. These aren’t exactly normative cases. There’s no reason to throw out sound principles of discernment just because they can be thwarted by unusual cases. Most cases, by definition, are not unusual.

Prophets also objectively authenticated their office, which can’t be said of any latter-day putative prophet.

That seems question-begging. Prophets authenticate their office by prophesying.

I hope I’ve made myself clearer on what I meant by partisan.

I’m not sure. It seems like you’re taking a rather skeptical position on the confidence we can have in what doctrines Scripture teaches. In any event, an EO monk is going to deny basic gospel truths like sola fide. If prophecy is a gift of the Spirit, there’s no reason to expect an EO monk to be given it.

certainly those folks should be under excommunication; this might help to prophylax sorting truth from error.

I couldn’t agree more heartily. Just because we can’t shoot the wolves doesn’t mean we shouldn’t chase them away. A church that won’t protect its congregation isn’t worthy of the name.

How normative is prophesying today, and how do we know? The apostolic age was an unusual age, and mission fields are outside of the normal western Christian experience only…although our rapidly paganizing culture may change that. My reading of the NT suggests prophesying to be normal; what of today? Yes, I am an arch-skeptic about claims of charismata, especially given how common these are in pentecostal and catholic circles. I am not skeptical about what Scripture teaches, but merely differing from you on what those teachings are – as do historic Lutherans and Reformed. Are they skeptical about Scripture too?

It gets worse for me, for like you I’d call all catholic charismata bogus. Our problem doesn’t disappear by staying on the safe bank of the Tiber, because: Wesleyans believe in the synergystic model of salvation just as the EO’s do; you are a nonremonstrant credobaptist while I am a Lutheran with Calvinistic sympathies (and very much a paedobaptist); remonstrants are on the slippery slope to open theism and works-righteousness; IOW we could hold each other’s churches in suspicion as well. Where do we draw the line, and how do we know?

Per authentication, Scripture is replete with signs and wonders authenticating prophets’ office; eg rods becoming serpents or bearing almonds, bears butchering thugs, droughts, retrograde sundial shadows, ignis e coelo, etc. Early church history is replete with similar accounts performed by called men (some more credible than others). Just as I should expect putative church officers to display proof of their charismata, I expect putative prophets to show me the same before I recognize them as such. I also recognize that there is no fool-proofing this recognition process, given the years of improvements and inovations used in making the modern fool.

Those all seem like questions that plague the church regardless of whether anyone prophecies or not :)

bears butchering thugs, droughts

On the face of it, those aren’t signs or wonders. Those are natural events. The only reason we know they were miraculous is because the prophet said so. Which seems to make your appeal somewhat circular. Furthermore, while some prophets perform miracles, miracle-working is not a requirement of the office.

Just as I should expect putative church officers to display proof of their charismata, I expect putative prophets to show me the same before I recognize them as such.

So in your view, the gift of prophecy can never be bestowed in isolation? If you have that gift, you also have to have others?

None of the events I listed were natural as they were called down by the prophets; there is no reason to assume that those bears would just happen to show up where and when they did, not to mention the feat of killing so many thugs. We could use a few more bears like those near where I live ;-). The rods and ignis e coelo, on the other hand, were clearly supernatural.

I guess I’m not certain as to the mechanics and particulars of gifting, and so can’t really answer your question. There is the Text of Scripture, church history (hardly free from embellishment and revision), our symbols, and modern accounts (some more credible than others), and I’m not sure of what to make of it all. ISTM a Berean approach of healthy skepticism and due diligence/means of grace is the safest approach.

“The problem is, we need to distinguish between accuracy of prophecy and accuracy of interpretation. A true prophecy can be badly interpreted.”

coming from a pentecostal charismatic church, hearing this argument always bugged me
if someone gets prophecy, why are they filtering it through their own understanding first before presenting it to people?
if God tells you a prophecy, shouldn’t you repeat that exact same thing word for word?
the whole “it was a true prophesy, they just interpreted it incorrectly” is a cop out anyone can use anytime a prophecy doesn’t come true

the prophets of the Bible didn’t give us their interpretation or thoughts regarding a revelation, they told us exactly what God commanded, word for word
and with visions, they simply described the vision, they didn’t try to interpret their own dream/vision unless God gave them the meaning to it (like Daniel)
again, these were from prophets who were established and known to be prophets, Daniel’s interpretation of dreams and the writing of the wall came to pass exactly as described

my question is do we have people like that today? someone with Daniel’s track record, perfect accounting of a dream along with an interpretation and fulfillment of their other past prophecies?

the “prophets” we have today compared to the ones we see in Scripture, the difference is night and day
I for once do not believe the Spirit degraded over 2000 years or that accuracy of prophets depends on us rather than God

the idea that of a true prophet giving false prophecy means:
1. God intended for the prophet to prophesy falsely(are they a prophet of God then? also, when God wanted to test Israel, He would send a prophet who’s prophecies were true but they tried to get them to follow other gods)
2. God gave the prophecy not knowing it would be misinterpreted (we are Calvinist/determinists, that’s ridiculous of course He would know)

I cannot square the idea of determinism with the idea of a true prophet ever given a false prophecy or even a false interpretation

Thomas, your argument hinges on the presupposition that the gift of prophecy is of a single kind modeled in the plenary verbal inspiration of the Bible.

In other words, all revelation is of the same quality and character — the exemplar of which is the public revelation of scripture.

This presupposition has a prima facie logic to it; if God is of a single quality and character, then it seems to follow that his word must be also. Therefore, it follows that any private revelation should share the quality and character of public revelation.

The trouble is, scripture explicitly denies this:

if there be a prophet among you, I Yahweh will in a vision unto him make myself known; in a dream I speak unto him. 7 Not so my servant Moses; in all my house, he is faithful: 8 mouth to mouth I speak with him, and manifestly, and not in riddles; and the form of Yahweh he beholdeth. (Nu 12:6–8)

Three facts are plain in this passage:

1. The revelation given to Moses — i.e., the public revelation of scripture — is of a unique quality and character compared to that received by all other prophets;
2. The revelation received by all other prophets has the quality and character of dreams and riddles (we all know, if we reflect for a moment, that dreams are riddles);
3. The revelation received by Moses has the quality and character of plain verbal speech.

We can easily infer a couple of other points from this:

1. Firstly, the reason for the distinction in quality and character is that public revelation has a different purpose that requires greater clarity. The prophecy given to Moses, in fact, establishes the quality and character of scripture itself — the Bible begins with the books of Moses, and these set the pattern for the rest of the books which follow.
2. Secondly, by the same token, this means that the quality and character of scripture is not normative for private revelations. In fact, the opposite is true. We should expect the gift of prophecy to manifest with a dream-like, riddlish nature, because God says that is how he works. Scripture is greatly superior to such private revelations, but to complain that private revelations are false because of their inferior quality is to contradict God himself.

Needless to say, none of this offers any presumption that some claimed prophecy is true, nor even that it continues. But it does give us a proper biblical framework for understanding the nature of private revelation compared to scripture, and makes clear the fallacy required to reject prophecy on the basis of its inferior quality and character.