I'm going to comment on this post:
(1) First, a true prophet must be doctrinally orthodox. Conversely, any self-proclaimed prophet who deceives people by leading them into theological error is a false prophet…In other words, this passage makes it clear that, if a prophet comes to you and even if the prophet makes predictions that come true — if the prophet leads you away from the truth and into error, then that prophet is a false prophet.
What about "false prophets" who, by God's overruling providence, unwittingly point people in the direction of theological truth (e.g. Balaam, Caiaphas)?
Second, a true prophet must have moral integrity. Any self-proclaimed prophet who lives in unrestrained lust and greed shows himself to be a false prophet…when we see the fruit of gross immorality and impurity in someone’s life, we can be confident that he is a false prophet no matter what he might claim.
The Psalms of David constitute the core of the Psalter. And there were 73 Psalms attributed to David.
Yet Scripture also attributes at least 19 wives and concubines to David–not to mention the Bathsheba affair, involving adultery and murder.
Likewise, Scripture attributes Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the bulk of Proverbs, and Pss 72 and 127 to Solomon. Yet Scripture also attributes 700 wives and 300 concubines to Solomon. And Solomon enjoyed a palatial standard of living.
Since both David and Solomon had licentious lifestyles (not to mention the royal palace), does that make their false prophets? Should their writings be excised from the canon?
Now, there's often a connection between heresy and immorality. That can take two different forms:
i) A false prophet may exempt himself from normal morality. Claim that he is above the law. Muhammad is a good example.
ii) A the false prophet may rewrite morality to fit his degenerate lifestyle. Brigham Young is a good example.
By contrast, David and Solomon were immoral in spite of Scriptural standards to the contrary.
Perhaps Busenitz could claim that just as the NT has a stricter position on divorce, it has a stricter position on the morals of a true prophet. My immediate point is that his criterion overlooks obvious counterexamples in the Biblical canon.
(3) Third, a true prophet must demonstrate predictive accuracy. Or to put this in the negative, if someone claims to speak prophetic revelation from God about the future (or about some other secret thing), but then that prediction does not come to pass or proves to be false, we can safely conclude that person to be a false prophet.
That's true in principle, but it's more complicated in practice:
i) Shortterm prophecies are easier to verify or falsify than longterm prophecies, which extend beyond the lifetime of the prophet's contemporary's.
ii) Ezekiel was accused of making false predictions.
iii) It sometimes takes patience to discern how some NT fulfillments correspond to their OT prooftexts. Many scholars appeal to a sensus plenior principle. I don't think that's necessary. But it does illustrate the fact that prophetic fulfillment isn't always transparent.
No comments:
Post a Comment