Any One Know What This Scripture Means

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Rico

Brother Strange, if you really believe what that scripture says then you are obligated to go to him and tell him what you felt.

The setting of I Co 14:29-32 does NOT seem to make the obligation you are stating, it does NOT instruct that the 2nd or 3rd call for a private meeting.

We read that:
The first one (that is now expected to hold his peace) if something is revealed to another:

If [any thing] be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.

This counsel is offered for the setting that is described as being;
"If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, ..."
If the whole church heard the first guy, the whole church should have the benefit of "anything that be revealed to another that sitteth by".

The problem is we NEVER conduct our assemblying in this manner. So, instead, a poor substitute of this scriptural admonition is being clumsily engaged on a discusssion board.

In this discussion we are not partaking in God's designed remedy or protection. We are just exploring and learning and growing and maturing in the components that would need to be in operation if I Co 14:28-32 was generally in operation when ..."the whole church be come together into one place".

We are much more skilled and in tune with a good dog-fight among humans. That is why we need threads like this to help us get acquainted with the witness and considerations that should be at work in mature servants who have God's Spirit indwelling them.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Goooooood counsel Rico. I sure admire good folk that are led of the Holy Ghost. Takes a lot of prayer and dedication.

How would you interpret those scriptures, Rico?

Brother, they mean what they say. A prophet needs to submit to other prophets. That's why I think you would have been much better served to contact this man privately, rather than posting your feelings in an open forum.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by tbpew

The setting of I Co 14:29-32 does NOT seem to make the obligation you are stating, it does NOT instruct that the 2nd or 3rd call for a private meeting.

We read that:
The first one (that is now expected to hold his peace) if something is revealed to another:

This counsel is offered for the setting that is described as being;
"If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, ..."
If the whole church heard the first guy, the whole church should have the benefit of "anything that be revealed to another that sitteth by".

The problem is we NEVER conduct our assemblying in this manner. So, instead, a poor substitute of this scriptural admonition is being clumsily engaged on a discusssion board.

In this discussion we are not partaking in God's designed remedy or protection. We are just exploring and learning and growing and maturing in the components that would need to be in operation if I Co 14:28-32 was generally in operation when ..."the whole church be come together into one place".

We are much more skilled and in tune with a good dog-fight among humans. That is why we need threads like this to help us get acquainted with the witness and considerations that should be at work in mature servants who have God's Spirit indwelling them.

Ok. Let's take a look at that setting of scripture.


1co 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.


Honestly, how often do we see this happening? Usually it's just one prophet reading people's beads for them.

1co 14:30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.

I believe the next verse continues this thought and explains what he is saying. I believe he is saying the prophets need to take turns, rather than them speaking at the same time.

1co 14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all .

1co 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.



I believe this is saying prophets need to be accountable to each other primarily because people not used in prophetic ministry may not understand how this gift operates.



With that said, I believe if Brother Strange truly felt that what was being said was being done via the wrong spirit, he, being a prophet, should have gone to this brother and made his feelings known, prophet to prophet.

What purpose does it serve for him to come to an internet forum and share what he was feeling, rather than go directly to the source of what made him so uncomfortable?

[Scott Hutchinson]

Brother Strange I love you and do not ever believe that you would do anything to harm the Kingdom Of God and the cause of Christ.

[tbpew]

Rico,
thanks for taking the time to reply.

My focus point was that the scripture does not admonish the other prophet to go to 1st prophet in private.

If that were God's remedy, the real "losers" would be those that heard the 1st without the benefit of the 2nd who "had a thing revealed to him".

We seem to be in agreement that this section of scripture is NOT in operation in our assemblies. I was submitting that a "post-event" to a 1st prophetic utterence impacting another person (who would be used in prophetic utterences) gains some benefit within the limitations of an internet discussioin board.

It is a means for a "similar edification or correction or 'additional revealing' to be shared publically since the scriptural setting is not generally encouraged and/or manifested among groups of men who gather together.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by tbpew

Rico,
thanks for taking the time to reply.

My focus point was that the scripture does not admonish the other prophet to go to 1st prophet in private.

If that were God's remedy, the real "losers" would be those that heard the 1st without the benefit of the 2nd who "had a thing revealed to him".

We seem to be in agreement that this section of scripture is NOT in operation in our assemblies. I was submitting that a "post-event" to a 1st prophetic utterence impacting another person (who would be used in prophetic utterences) gains some benefit within the limitations of an internet discussioin board.

It is a means for a "similar edification or correction or 'additional revealing' to be shared publically since the scriptural setting is not generally encouraged and/or manifested among groups of men who gather together.

Brother, if prophets are subject to other prophets then doesn't it stand to reason that one prophet should go to the other prophet if he feels that the other is in error? Why is it ok for a prophet to come on a website and give enough information away concerning another prophet so others will be able to figure who it is he's talking about, when sharing his feeling about what was said? How can this be justified in light of what the scripture says about prophets being subject to each other? The appropriate course of action would have been to go directly to the prophet with his concerns, in my opinion.

BTW, yes, we are in agreement that things aren't practiced the way the scripture says they should.

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Rico

Brother, if prophets are subject to other prophets then doesn't it stand to reason that one prophet should go to the other prophet if he feels that the other is in error? Why is it ok for a prophet to come on a website and give enough information away concerning another prophet so others will be able to figure who it is he's talking about, when sharing his feeling about what was said? How can this be justified in light of what the scripture says about prophets being subject to each other? The appropriate course of action would have been to go directly to the prophet with his concerns, in my opinion.

BTW, yes, we are in agreement that things aren't practiced the way the scripture says they should.

My answer to your first paragraph is this:
It was NOT an issue between a prophet and prophet, it was an issue between hearers and a prophesy.

Among members of the Kingdom of God, there are no longer prophets and non-prophets, there are only those who are yielded to be used in prophetic utterances and those who hear the utterances come forth.

Originally Posted by tbpew

My answer to your first paragraph is this:
It was NOT an issue between a prophet and prophet, it was an issue between hearers and a prophesy.

Among members of the Kingdom of God, there are no longer prophets and non-prophets, there are only those who are yielded to be used in prophetic utterances and those who hear the utterances come forth.

Now there are no prophets.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by tbpew

My answer to your first paragraph is this:
It was NOT an issue between a prophet and prophet, it was an issue between hearers and a prophesy.

Among members of the Kingdom of God, there are no longer prophets and non-prophets, there are only those who are yielded to be used in prophetic utterances and those who hear the utterances come forth.

There are no longer prophets? How can you say that when Paul was addressing a New Testament church?

[NLYP]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Judging from some of the remarks made on other threads, condemning me as though I attacked an individual, which I did not, neither did I call a name, it would appear that they are so scripturally illerate as to NOT understand it. Here is the scripture:

1Cr 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

Does anyone know what THIS scritpture mean:?

1Cr 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.


1Cr 14:33 For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Apparantly some are so spiritually illerate as to not understand these two verses either, judging only from past remarks. It is disheartening to learn that some of those remarks came from one who claims to be a pastor and has been in the ministry for more than three decades, if I rightly recall. It makes one to grieve over the church that he pastors.

I am in a somewhat shocked mood right now.....YOU are are better than this...