I suggest that you work your way through E.J. Young's "My Servants the Prophets", where he discusses all the relevant passages to construct a definition.

JD, I object to the insinuation that this the "spin" which I place on the OT Canon. It is well recognised by all Hebraists (which you are not) that (i) this was the accepted division in NT times by the Jews, as can be seen in Josephus, Against Apion, Bk.I.8, and (ii) that Jesus accepted the Jewish canon, and its subdivisions, as did the Jews of His day. If you wish to quarrel with this because of your naive and utterly false equation of prophecy=prediction and only that, then that is your own arrogant and obscurantist folly. (JD knows best, and JD knows all!)

I work with this constantly when I open my Hebrew Bible: the former Prophets are the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. They do not merely record history, they use it to preach a message. That is prophecy: declaring God's message concerning the past, the present, and the future. Your blinkered little idea would eliminate the first two, and fasten on to the third alone.

We can see further Jesus' acknowledgement of the arrangement of the OT Canon in Matt.23:35, where He indicates the death of Abel (Gen.4:8) at one end of the canon, and Zechariah (2Chron.24:20-22) at the other end, and all other martyrs in between.

JD,
"What about answering my question about the revelation, MurrayA. Is it a prophecy or not? A simple yes or no will do, my friend."
This is a "have you stopped beating your wife?" type of question, because it presupposes your simplistic definition of prophecy.
In reply, of course it is, but not if you mean it is all prediction. At least the first three chapters are not.

I have made clear my definition of prophecy in the plainest terms.

Then you give me this false contrast:
"...history, not prophecy."
I have made clear as well that history, the way the Bible presents it, is also prophecy. That is why the historical books of the OT are called "the Former Prophets."

I have made clear my definition of prophecy in the plainest terms.

Then you give me this false contrast:
"...history, not prophecy."
I have made clear as well that history, the way the Bible presents it, is also prophecy. That is why the historical books of the OT are called "the Former Prophets."

Mike wrote:
"91% of Christian workers minister to less than 10% of world population. How do you feel about this?"
So, JD and Murray, how do you feel about this?

However, we should transfer the discussion to one of the eschatology threads.

As to the subject of this thread, it is really a question of the decline in missionary zeal and candidature.
There are several reasons for this:
1. A growing universalism in so-called evangelicalism, such that many no longer believe that the heathen really are lost, that somehow the Lord will let them in if they do their best.

2. A loss of consciousness of sin, both in themselves and in others. "Sin" has become the "s-word".

I could hardly have put myself clearer. I would guarantee that most others on this board know what I am getting at. Yet you blame me for opaqueness, when it's your own inability to understand the issues involved.

It's not that John and Jesus were wrong, it's that you are - in your narrow - and naive - definition of "prophecy" as "all prediction".

An old definition has it, summarising the Biblical evidence:
"a prophet is someone with God-given hindsight, insight, and foresight." Add to that the element of Divine call and commission and that is it in a nutshell.

BTW, what happened to your "Bible-only" criterion? I remember how you castigated me once for defining an argument form by quoting a textbook on logic!

Tell me why, for example, the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings - histories - are called in the Jewish Canon "the former PROPHETS". There is almost nothing predictive in them at all.

Take also, Revelation, the book under discussion: in Rev.19:10, "For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy". That is, when I testify to Christ, I am telling what He has done, is doing, and yes, will do. ALL of these are "prophecy".

However, you have fallen for the silly equation that all prophecy is prediction. That is simply not true. Read the OT prophets: how much of say the prophecy of Micah is prediction? Some, yes, but not all; not even most.

The 7 churches of Revelation (Ephesus, Smyrna, Thyatira, Laodicea etc.) are real places in Western Asia Minor; there were churches at each of these centres. There is not the slightest evidence that they are mere ciphers for historical periods. It is indeed curious that you, who boasts of literalism, will indulge in this sort of fantasy. Right now I am being far more literal than you claim to be.

I called on you for evidence that the 7 churches are to be read the way you indicate. You submitted none.

We can see the correct approach in Rev.1:19 and 4:1. The "things which are" have to be the 7 churches, present and existent in the apostle's own time. "The things which shall be hereafter" is likewise explained for us in 4:1, when the apostle, Ezekiel-style (cf. Ezek.8:3), is brought up to heaven to see "the things which shall be after these things", i.e. events after the present situation of the 7 churches.

The only way is ultimately to use the interpretation as its own evidence, which is circularity with a vengeance. But then, I very much doubt that you would understand that. Logical reasoning is not your strong suit, any more than sound hermeneutics is.

As you saying that one must accept the Dispensational system to be saved??

I've seen that comment from you several times.
Your head seems to do quite a lot of spinning. No wonder it's not screwed on!

It certainly sounds like the position I hold, viz. that hymn singing is in line with the regulative principle.

I think that is the point that Psalms-only people should wrestle with: are they being too narrow in their application of the principle? It's not enough to trot out the tired old arguments for exclusive Psalmody that I have heard time and again - and found supremely unconvincing.

The medicine glasses, and the tiny cubes of leavened bread, so dear to the hearts of most Protestant church folk seems to me to violate the principle of 1 Cor.10:16-17.

As to the contents of the cup, Jesus would certainly have used wine, as Jews do to this day in their Passover ritual. And they use matzo - unleavened biscuit - in their ritual also.

Now of course this is just banter, and doesn't really prove anything, but it does in a way highlight how paedobaptism is based to a considerable degree on inferences and not on the express statements of Scripture.

Thus when one resorts to this dubious procedure, all I need do in reply is to present a plausible and consistent alternative view. With no criterion by which to arbitrate between the two positions an impasse results, and the doctrinal edifice crashes to the ground for lack of a solid foundation.

3. If baptism=circumcision, how far are you prepared to go? Shall you insist that baptism take place on the eighth day, not a day less nor a day more?

Shall you forbid females? Appeal to Gal.3:28 is inadequate here, since one could argue that the male represents the household.

R.K., I never claimed that infant baptism was based solely on 1 Cor.7:14. What I claimed was that the argument from the noun "hagia" in that text to buttress the practice was latching on to straws in the wind, plus some non-sequiturs.

I am well aware of the various strands of the paedobaptist case, but I would claim that they by no means amount to anything like a conclusive, QED-style verdict.

I hope it clear that I speak as a Reformed Baptist, in the English Dissenting tradition. I accept the WCF, the Belgic Conf, and the Heid Cat, save on those points which touch baptism and church government. So we have much in common, albeit not 100% agreement.

Now as to your question, I hold that baptism testifies to and proclaims the salvation status of its recipients (Gal.3:27 et al), i.e. when received with due regard to its significance and in saving faith. That is, baptism presupposes faith.
Now we cannot discern ultimately whether the recipient has true faith, so we must go on his profession (Rom.10:9-10). Hence I prefer to talk about confessional baptism rather than believer's baptism.

R. K. Borill wrote:
Notice how although the unbelieving husband is "sanctified" by the believing wife, the difference of "holy" is not applied to him but only to the children. The sign of the covenant is applied to those upon whom "the difference is set" and that is to the children of believers.

2. As to this 'hagia' status, I ask again, whatever this is construed to mean, is this seriously a basis for (infant) baptism, when the latter is a testimony to the salvation status of the recipient, as I have argued before?
The "Covenant status" theory is but a possible explanation, but then, does it hold up, and (as I would insist) does it not undermine and overthrow the meaning of baptism taught elsewhere in the NT?