If prophecy continues and is infallible it competes with Scripture. If it is fallible, it redefines prophecy itself.
So, if the last days are "this age", the time period between the first and second coming of Christ, what does Acts 2:17 mean?
Since this prophecy of Joel is tied to Pentecost and the Spirit being poured out, it could refer to, not revelatory prophecy, but the preaching and teaching of the word as revealed in the apostles laying of the foundation of the church and extended--to Spirit filled believers preaching and teaching that word of God. Spreading the gospel, giving understanding of the word of God. Staying always on that foundation and not adding to it or taking away from it.
Three comments and one question.
Comment 1: Very commendable answer.
Comment 2: Wow
. That is a lot to add to scripture.
Comment 3: There is an easier explanation. It is
very much related to what you've said but this isn't quite it.
Question: I know you cannot speak for others but.... Why is it
@JesusFan and
@Carbon have so much difficulty answering the question when you, apparently, can do so
and do so on the correct track? One attempt and that is a commendable
(though incomplete, imo) response.
This is not complicated, folks. Joel and Peter reported there would be people prophesying in the last days. Those who say we are in the last days
(a very commonly heled point of view, especially among the Reformed) and also say there are no prophets place
themselves in a position to explain the seeming inconsistency. It has absolutely nothing to do with any opposing point of view. It is an easily addressed matter, so I genuinely wonder how the question - merely asking this very valid and op-relevant question - prompts so much obfuscation (he must be a preterist!
One who doesn't understand the difference between preterism and partial preterism
). Just answer the question,
@JesusFan and
@Carbon. You do not need to be rescued by
@Arial. Once the answer is posted both you (
@JesusFan and
@Carbon) are going to facepalm yourselves and whisper to yourselves, "
Ah! Of course! Such a simple answer!" The correct answer ties all the seemingly disparate comments of this thread together. (Given
@makesends previous comment, I suspect others have been lurking, knowing the answer, waiting on
@JesusFan or
@Carbon. The correct answer explains why the "office" of prophet no longer exists, and it explains why the WoF get it wrong, and it explains how conversion events like the one I previously described may occur
(those are all hints, btw). It provides a unifying standard by which prophecy today can be correctly understood and when it must unilaterally be dismissed. It's not complicated.
The problem with those in the modern church who claim the office of prophet and also claim they are not adding to the word---they have stepped off the foundation and mostly don't even know it. Acts 2:17 does not say the office of prophet as we see in the OT will continue. It ceased with the apostolic age and the death of the apostles.
I appreciate that but it is not relevant to the answer to the question asked and there has been enough delay and obfuscation already. I would normally ask something like, "
What's the rest of it?" or affirm the answer and ask you to say more, "
Yep. That's good. Given what you've said, how can there be people today through whom the Spirit speaks prophetically without adding to scripture?" but
@JesusFan prompted the inquiry and
@Carbon thought to step in for JF, so I'd really like to hear from one of them, if you do not mind
. They are the specific ones getting hung up by the inquiry.
How can it be said there are no prophets today when Acts 2:17 explicitly states there will be people prophesying in the last days and you two say we are in the last days?
