Prophecy

Having been in self-imposed excommunication from the church for seven years, my reintroduction was bound to introduce me to various new themes floating around in Christian culture. One of the most prominent themes that I hear thrown around is ‘prophecy’. I have heard a number of people being flippantly referred to as prophets, and even more people claiming to ‘speak words of prophecy’, or having had such prophetic ‘words’ spoken over them. The common use of term ‘prophecy’ in the today’s parlance seems to be conveniently pliant and hopelessly confused and vague.

But just what is prophecy, and what function did the prophet play in history? Like usual, Scripture gives quite clear answers.

The Bible describes the prophet as having a very precise purpose and function, prophets were not people who just predicted the future as is commonly thought. To use a modern analogy, they were basically God’s ‘prosecuting attorneys’, whose specific purpose was to bring God’s lawsuit against both God’s people and the nations that surrounded Israel. So just as a modern prosecuting attorney will represent the government in charging a criminal for an alleged crime, God also sent His prophets to charge His people with a particular crime.

At the start of Ezekiel’s prophetic mission, God enunciated a very clear definition of what prophecy exactly is:

“When I say to a wicked person, “You will surely die,” and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. But if you do warn the wicked person and they do not turn from their wickedness or from their evil ways, they will die for their sin; but you will have saved yourself.” Ezekiel 3:18-19.

Here we see four clear attributes of a prophecy: 1) identification of sin, 2) dissuasion from sin/call to repentance, 3) pronouncement of punishment for unrepented sin, 4) accountability of the prophet to his task.

So while a prophet would certainly pronounce a future punishment, this was only a small part of the prophet’s purpose. It is important to note that the prediction of the future was always contingent on repentance. If the offending people did repent of their sin, then God’s punishment would be revoked. We see this in Jonah’s prophecy of the destruction of Nineveh where the prediction of their destruction did not come to pass because the people did heed God’s warning and repented.

So the primary purpose of the prophet was not to warn the people of God’s impending wrath, but rather to persuade them to cease their sinful ways and turn back to God. It is God’s love that motivates the prophecy, not wrath.

1 Corinthians 14:3-4 gives another good general guide to what the effect of prophecy is; “everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort”, and “he who prophesies edifies the church”. These verses should not be misconstrued to mean that the prophecy of the New Testament should be solely positive and feel-good. One only has to look at the prophecy in the book of Revelation where the seven churches are addressed to see that quite a lot of harsh words were said of them. Also, while the Old Testament prophecy contained a lot of harsh rebuke, it also contained much encouragement and comfort too (Hos 11:14, 14, Joel 3:17-21, Amos 9:11-15, Mic 7:8-20). And what would be a more effective way to edify the church than for it’s sins to be made known? Progress can not be made unless one’s stumbling blocks are known.

So we see that prophecy also contains encouragement and comfort in tandem with warnings of God’s wrath. Both are integral parts of prophecy. 

The Bible makes it clear that there are just as many false prophets as true prophets, so we need to be discerning when listening to anybody who claims to be speaking prophecy. The two most effective methods for identifying a true prophet from a false prophet are:   1) to see if the specific prophecy comes true. “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously” Deuteronomy 18:22.               2) “By their fruit you will recognise them.” Matt 2:15,16. The fruit of the spirit is of course a reference to Gal 5:22-23, which is in contrast to the works of the flesh Gal 5:19-21, which would be manifest in the false prophet.

Also prophets are always described as spreading their message on the streets to all the people concerned with total conviction and a desperate vehemence. Prophets do not timidly whisper their message in a church corner.

So in summery we find a number of principles in the Bible for discerning between true and false prophets. These are the characteristics that the Bible describes of a true prophet:

1)      The prophet must be prophesying directly to the people concerned

2)      Specific sins will be identified

3)      The prophet will call the offending people to repent

4)      Specific punishment will be identified for unrepentant sin

5)      Specific blessings with be identified for repentance

6)      The prophecy must identify a path to edification

7)      The prophecy must come true

8)      The fruit of the prophet must be of spirit, not of the flesh

          It is obvious from all this that prophecy isn’t the mere prediction of calamity or blessing- this would be better defined as ‘revelation’- but instead true prophecy will include the above biblical principles. Also it is a quite poignant note that an extremely high responsibility is upon the shoulders of the prophet to do his job properly. This should serve as a dire warning to anybody who wishes to call their words prophecy; it is not a risk-free and glamorous job, and it is also your life that is on the line. So people should be extremely cautious that their compulsion to call their words prophecy is not in anyway a whimsical or self-aggrandizing compulsion. God takes prophecy extremely seriously:

“Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing!”, “My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations” Ezekiel 13:3, 9.

“But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’” Deut 18:20

           The whole modern understanding of ‘prophecy’ seems to be based on a confusion between ‘prophecy’ and ‘revelation’. If someone is only stating what will happen in the future, then this is revelation, NOT prophecy. The two are categorically different things.

How Should We Pray?

Recently, in the wake of my spiritual revolution, I have been pondering and re-evaluating the purpose and efficacy of prayer. Prayer to me always seemed somewhat awkward, which made me wonder if I was doing it wrong. That got me thinking about what prayer really is and whether the Western concept of prayer that I am familiar with is wrong or unbiblical, as many things in modern Christianity so often are.

Upon introspection on how I personally pray, and reflecting on the group prayers that I have been part of, I found that the vast majority of prayers consisted of little more than ‘gift requests’, as though God is some kind of genie-in-a-bottle.

While there is nothing wrong with petitioning God for divine intervention per se, when this is the main focus of prayer, or even the only purpose of prayer, then it struck me that there may be something fundamentally wrong.

This type of prayer always left me thinking something along these lines; “God knows what He is doing, He doesn’t need me to tell Him what to do!” and “Half the things I pray about are probably contrary to His plan anyway, so why bother praying?”

So it was then after this most recent contemplation that it really became obvious to me that my method of prayer had to be deficient in some way. Surely there was more to prayer than what honestly felt like little more than just an egocentric ‘gift request’?

I spent ages trawling the net looking for answers with no success. It was after this that it hit me; why not try the Bible! (It was one of those face-palm moments, lol. Why didn’t I think of that earlier?) When I started looking at the examples of prayer throughout the Bible I immediately noticed a significant trend; an actual ‘formula’ for proper prayer! It was a surprise to me because I can not remember ever hearing any preacher or scholar mention it or use it. Please note that I am NOT claiming that I am the first to notice this proffered formula.

The formula is present in every example of prayer in the Bible, and always follows the exact sequence which I describe below. What really cemented the reality of the formula in my mind was the fact that the Lords Prayer itself follows this formula. This leaves me with little doubt that God wants us to pray to Him in the manner which is set out below.

What I found was a sequential five tier structure in all the examples of prayer in both the Old and New Testaments. The sequence of the structure never changes, but each prayer does omit one part of the formula, depending on the purpose of the prayer. But the general structure is clear, and I think undeniable.

So have a look and see what you think!

Scriptural Principles of Proper Prayer:

1) Honour God

We are to acknowledge God as the supreme and sovereign Lord of lords

Nehemiah gives a perfect example to start his prayer: “O Lord, God of heaven, the great and awesome God” Nehemiah 1:5, or Solomon: “O Lord, God of Israel there is no God like you in heaven or on earth” 2 Chronicles 6:14.

2) Identification of God’s previous promise/covenant, or the petition for its continuance

The purpose of this is to acknowledge what God has already done for us, and give thanks for previous prayers that have been answered.

This is Solomon’s example; “LORD, the God of Israel, there is no God like you in heaven or on earth—you who keep your covenant of love with your servants who continue wholeheartedly in your way.  You have kept your promise to your servant David my father; with your mouth you have promised and with your hand you have fulfilled it—as it is today.  [….] And now, LORD, the God of Israel, let your word that you promised your servant David come true. ” 2 Chronicles 14-17

3) Confession/identification of sins

We all sin, and we do it all the time. It seems important to me to acknowledge this to God before asking a favour of Him.

This is Daniel’s example on behalf of Israel; “Lord, you are righteous, but this day we are covered with shame—the people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and all Israel [….]are covered with shame, LORD, because we have sinned against you. [….] All Israel has transgressed your law and turned away, refusing to obey you. “Therefore the curses and sworn judgments written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God, have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against you” Daniel 9:5-16

4) Supplication for Divine intercession

This is when to petition God to intercede in your life. Notice that it is only after the three steps above that it was considered appropriate in the examples in Scripture to then make requests of God.

5) Praise of God

Praise Him with joyous hallelujah, because He is truly worthy of all praise. Whether or not He answers specific aspects of our prayers, He has our best interests at heart.

 This is the praise that Habakkuk expressed at the end of His prayer; “I will rejoice in the Lord, I will be joyful in God my saviour. The sovereign Lord is my strength, he makes my feet like the feet of a deer, he enables me to go on the heights.” Habakkuk 3:18-19

Take note that these steps occur in order of the most important to the least important. The order should not be altered.
While the finer details could be quibbled over and the categories further refined, I think the general five parts of the structure are beyond dispute. But hey, if you disagree then let me know!

	1  Honour God	2 Petition/Identification of God’s Promises	3 Confession/ identification of Sins	4 Supplication for Intercession	5 Praise of God
Hezekiah’s Prayer 2 Kings	19:15		19:16-18	19:19*	19:19*
David’s Prayer 2 Samuel	7:18-23	7:24-25		7:25	7:26-29
Solomon’s Prayer 2 Chronicles	6:14	14-17		6:18-39	6:40-42
Nehemiah’s Prayer Nehemiah	1:5	1:5	1:6-7	1:6** 1:11
Daniel’s Prayer Daniel	9:4	9:4	9:5-16	9:17-19
Habakkuk’s Prayer Habakkuk	3:2	3:2	3:5-17		3:18-19
Jesus’ Teaching on Prayer Luke	11:2		11:4	11:4	Apocryphal addition ***
The Believers Prayer Acts	4:24		4:25-28	4:29-30	4:31

*It should be noted that when a single verse is placed in two of the categories, then the first half of the verse belongs to one category and the second half of the verse belongs to the other category.

**Verses highlighted by italics are verses that seem to be out of the general order of the formula.

***The addition to the Lord’s Prayer that is commonly recited -but not found in the earliest manuscripts- fits this category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Prayer#English_versions

I noticed that when I previously changed the way that I interacted with God by including more praise and honour of Him -which this formula uses- then my whole relationship with God changed to be far deeper and more spiritual experience. So when I introduced this formula into my normal prayer, praying turned from being a somewhat perfunctory practice into a dynamic and joyous experience.

Maybe this more scripturally ‘correct’ way of praying/interacting with God is why I am starting to see my ‘gift requests’ in prayer actually now working with powerful results?

Interpreting Scripture

It is generally agreed by laymen and Biblical scholars alike that the best way to interpret the meaning of Scripture is to compare it to itself (that is, cross-referencing with itself), and that a good rule is that the Bible should be taken as literal unless it obviously means otherwise, as is obviously the case with Psalms or Revelations.


Yet when the topic of Creation and the Flood is discussed, the rules suddenly change and we are told that Scripture should also be interpreted by "science" whenever the two disagree.



Essentially what is implied-consciously or not- is that the Christian worldview is to be subordinate to all other worldviews, particularly the currently reigning secular worldview. Whenever there is a disagreement between these two, the Bible is always the one that is reinterpreted. It is claimed that the “science” of the secular worldview is the acme of human knowledge and as such all other forms of knowledge must be subservient.



But what is meant by the term 'science'? It seems that the two terms ‘science’ and ‘naturalistic evolution’ are used synonymously. It is certainly true that most of the public have the fallacious impression that ‘science’ inherently means naturalistic evolution to the exclusion of all other worldviews such as YEC, OLC, theistic evolution etc. And vice versa it is believed that naturalistic evolution has exclusive rights over the term ‘science’, to the exclusion of all other worldviews (Hence why so many religious people feel compelled to reject all ‘science’ outright; they wrongly think that in order to reject evolution they must also reject ‘science’).

Science certainly is a powerful explanatory tool for acquiring knowledge. Therefore because naturalistic evolution claims exclusive rights over ‘science’ it is wrongly assumed that ‘naturalistic evolution’ must similarly be regarded as just as powerful and authoritative by synonymous association alone. Thus, it is claimed that the philosophical worldview of naturalism must be the rule to which all other worldviews conform.

It is for this reason alone that the Biblical account of origins is demanded by secularists to be subservient and must genuflect to their own worldview of naturalistic evolution.





What secularists are erroneously claiming is that any Biblical idea that conflicts with science is wrong.

But what they really mean is that any Biblical idea that conflicts with their philosophy of naturalism is wrong! It has NOTHING to do with science at all!



But what mus be remembered is that science is rather like statistics; you can pick or ignore whatever pieces of science that you like to suit whatever worldview you like; YEC, OEC, IDism, theistic evolution, deistic evolution, atheistic evolution etc, the fact is that ALL worldviews have some sort of science behind them.



So in the end we see that scientific evidence actually does comport with Scripture-rather; it is only the philosophical worldview of naturalistic evolution that does not fit with Scripture. And considering that it was originally designed to oppose the Biblical model, the fact that the two conflict should come as no surprise to anyone.

The conflict is not between ‘science’ vs the Bible at all. Instead the real conflict is between the worldviews of naturalism vs the Bible, as well as between naturalistic science vs Biblical science.



So what Christians are actually doing when trying to compromise the Bible with evolution is making the Bible subservient to the most popular worldview of today in a vain attempt to avoid embarrassment in the face of ungodly man, rather than being concerned with truth in the face of God.



Should the perspicacious Word of God really be subservient to the capricious vogue of man?

Man and Dinosaurs Together?

Can you spot the Dinosaur in this ancient carving?

One contentious facet of Young Earth Creationism is the belief that humans walked the earth with dinosaurs only 4000 years ago.



This belief is rubbished by evolutionists because it is in complete contradiction with their own beliefs. They believe that dinosaurs ceased to exist over 65 million years ago.

They come to this conclusion because their interpretation of the earth’s rocks shows no fossilised dinosaurs which is dated by radiometric dating methods to be younger than 65 million years.

The dating methods that produce these dates are not the topic of this particular article, and have been adequately refuted many times by others.



The reason why this logic is fundamentally flawed is that it relies on the absence of evidence, rather than the presence of evidence. This is a logical fallacy called an Argument from Ignorance.





Even if we accept their false dates for the sake of the argument (which I will for this article), the absence of fossils from a certain period of hypothetical time does not mean that that particular animal did not live at that particular time.

Three basic ways that a species of animal could be alive and not leave fossils is if 1) it moved to an environment where the fossilization process just didn’t occur. 2) a species population size temporarily and dramatically decreased to a size where fossilization would never occur. Or 3) we just haven’t found any fossils yet! Remember that palaeontologists have only dug a few miniscule little holes when compared to the vast volumes of fossil-laden soils of the earth’s surface.



But what is even more significant is that even according to the evolutionist’s own models, it is incontrovertibly accepted that species routinely lived for vast amounts of time without ever leaving even a hint of fossil evidence!
Some gaps are so large that when put in context of the whole fossil record, the gaps turn into vast chasms, some as large as three quarters of the whole fossil record!





The fact is that, even assuming the corrupt radiometric dates of the theory of evolution for arguments sake, if the fossil record fails to record the existence of a species for such vast amounts of time, then how can we trust the alleged finely graduated sequence of evolution that is claimed of the fossil record?

Similarly, how can we really trust that dinosaurs haven’t been on earth in the last 65 million years (assuming the evolutionist’s theory) based on an absence of fossils, when other species are claimed by evolutionists to live for hundreds of millions of years without leaving any fossil evidence at all???







So when all this is combined with the corrupt dates ascribed to the fossils, we have even more reason to disregard the alleged evolutionary history as nothing more than dubious speculation.

And no amount of dubious speculation, no matter how frequently and dogmatically parroted, will ever match the veracity of the clear and omniscient word of God.

Authority and Truth

Obtained from http://pw0nd.com/tag/faith

It is a natural human trait that each and every one of us must have some source of authoritative truth.




A Christian will no doubt place his faith in God. He does this because the Christian God is considered omniscient, omnipotent and wholly benevolent. These traits ensure that God is capable of knowing all things, and is not going to lie to us. Thus Christians put their faith in this God that anything He says to us, such as in the form of the Bible, will be considered to be wholly truthful.



Atheists on the other hand, have no such source of truth, so they must transfer this yearning for truth and authority to some other source; science.

In fact, they will boast that their source of authority is a superior source of truth than putting ones faith in an invisible God. But is it really? Does it take any less faith to believe that science is the fountain of all truth?



The fact is that all sources of truth and authority have to be taken as such by faith, especially science. The scientific method of investigation is not some sort of holy and infallible fountain of truth. It simply can not be if it is operated by fallible and biased operators. The truth of this is demonstrated in the fact that science textbooks go out of date every few years or so. Very few texts last longer than a decade, and you can be sure of the fact that they too will be superseded at some point in the future.
You can be guaranteed that what is known to be scientific truth today will most certainly be overturned some time in the future. Is science really an appropriate source of authoritative truth? Only through faith, can so many atheists say yes.



The Christian has faith that our God is the ultimate source of truth, which is what would be expected from an omnipotent and omniscient creator deity. But atheists only have the scientific method which is constantly in revolution.



Faith in God or faith in science, take your pick.