I’ll claim to be wiser, but I’m not that much older than you. :-)

Tim,
The definitions of prophecy I gave were what I thought were present in the article. I think he uses both definitions. I didn’t include preaching because I didn’t see that in his article. I agree with you that preaching is important to understanding prophecy (and vice versa) and that Dr. Flemming equivocated on prophecy. In the beginning he is talking about people who received verbal plenary inspiration directly from God and were charged to speak that to people unaltered. By the end of his article he speaks of the prophet speaking his thoughts feelings and opinions. The definition he is using has changed from the biblical usage to the more modern usage.

I was hoping to sidestep that issue and see if his last 5 paragraphs could stand on their own (the earlier paragraphs can’t support because of the equivocation). I also agree with you that what is expressed in the article is a problem as far as the confession is concerned.

Chuck,
I think he uses prophets it at least two different ways and that is what is causing the friction. More to the point, I think he sees an evolution of the prophetic office over time such that its fundamental nature is changed (bloggers aren’t delivering authoritative revelation, but that was the central task of Isaiah). Whereas others would say that the prophetic office ended and a new office was inaugurated in the New Covenant and though it follows in the footsteps of the prophets, this new office is not that of the prophet.

We might be able to make headway by saying that a speech or writing is prophetic in the sense that it is reminiscent of OT prophesy, instead of identifying the writer as a prophet. But then it shares a place with preaching, an issue Tim has already raised.

Anyway, all of this to say: I do think there are problems in the article, but I also think there is something worth thinking about and discussing in the final 5 paragraphs.

I, for one, have no delusions of grandeur and hopefully no hidden hubris about comparing my own puny efforts at blogging with prophecy. Blogs (and similar media) may be useful in some ways, such as instructing or exhorting, and if this is all that the original article was saying, I am fine with that. But it’s not like similar media has not previously existed. I don’t see the Reformers or Puritans, for instance, thinking that their written works were on par with Scripture. Just because we have the ability to write something that can be read by a great number of people, it does not give us the right to hang a prophetic mantle around our necks. We need to be very wary of the warnings of James 3:1 here.

Bill and I have been friends since about 1978. We often disagree; however, I weigh what he says carefully because he is cut so differently from what I am. His life experiences are very different from mine. Intellectually and emotionally, we approach issues from opposite angels. Therefore, I read his blog in an attempt to fathom his perspective.

I invited Bill to post his article on ARPTalk. I think he has something to say – something important.

1. He uses the term “prophets” not in the sense of forthtelling the future. He uses the term “prophet” in the sense of warning of God’s judgments of sin.

2. His article is a call for the prophetic voice to be embrace by us.

3. He sees the blog as an appropriate venue for the prophet’s message.

4. He says the prophet’s message is to be judged on the basis of truth – truth told on the basis of facts and truth told in obedience to and representation of the Word of God written, the Bible.

I says “Amen!” to Bill “faltering and stammering” efforts. He is bold. I like the way he says it better than what others don’t say. I always know where Bill stands – even when I disagree with him. Both of us will say at the end of the day, “Let the words of the Bible judge us!”

Bill, have I missed something?

Regards,

Chuck Wilson
ARPTalk

It seems clear to me (and I may be wrong) that Dr. Fleming is taking a position that, while it may partake of certain elements in your point # 2, certainly blurs the lines between your points # 1 and # 2. Hence, I would like to have my original question answered and have that point established before we move to your question.