Answers for a Friend – The Test of a False Prophet
March 16, 2003
Dear Friends,
The next question my friend asked me was “Have Christadelphian Church leaders predicted dates for the return of Christ and if so why doesn’t this make them a false teacher? (I realize they could have been wrong as ‘humans’, but if they err on such a doctrine, doesn’t that mean they could err on other interpretations?)”
I think that the question stems from Deut. 18:20-22 where it states “the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak…that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.”
Dr. John Thomas, a Christadelphian, predicted that Christ would return in 1866. Obviously, this prediction did not come to pass. The importance difference between what John Thomas did and the false prophet of Deut. 18 is John Thomas never suggested that he was speaking under inspiration from God or had any personal visions. John Thomas came to his conclusions through interpreting what he read in the Bible. On this particular point, he obviously missed the mark.
Could he err on doctrine? Sure he could. Some religions claim infallibility for their leaders, but the Christadelphians are not among them. John Thomas changed his mind several times during the course of his life on many Biblical matters as his understanding became clearer. He was a Bible student of the first order whose main purpose in life was to sift through the myths and dogmas and understand what was the original teaching of Christianity. John Thomas never wanted or desired for people to follow him. His desire was that people would follow God and Jesus Christ as taught in the Holy Scriptures.
Despite being wrong on the date of Christ’s return, John Thomas was amazingly accurate in many of his interpretations of prophecy. He predicted with uncanny accuracy, among other things, the establishment of the state of Israel a hundred years before the fact. Again, the only credit John Thomas can take for this accurate prediction is for the countless hours he put in as a Bible student and not as a prophet.
Other Christadelphians have predicted the date of Christ’s return only to see the time come and go. I, for one, am not a big fan of the practice. To me, Mark 13:32 should put an end to the practice. Speaking of the Second Coming, Jesus states “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” If Jesus could not figure out the date of his own return from the Scriptures (including the prophecy of Daniel – a prophecy oft used in this endeavor) in his mortal existence, I don’t see why we think we can.
The bottom line is that neither John Thomas nor any other Christadelphian is a prophet or has claimed to be. What Moses said in Deuteronomy is as true today as it was when he said it. If a man claims to be a prophet (speaking under Divine authority or inspiration) as many church leaders do today, then let them tell us the future and see if it happens. Until then, let us go to the infallible word of God for our prophetic visions and most importantly for our understanding of the Hope of Israel (Acts 28:20).
Have a great week!
Comments»
The point about John Thomas was that he wasn’t just a leader, he was the Christadelphian founder. It is on his teachings that the Christadelphian statements of faith were formulated. Those who never agreed with his interpretations were separated through a very divisive creed setting process which in his early preaching tours he advocated against.
Yes, he never proclaimed himself to be a prophet, only an expositor of the scripture. Yet that is the role he took for the community. In fact in scripture false prophets are often referred to as speaking from their own spirits.
You make a good point by noting that he “interpreted scripture” but that was not the modest position he adopted, nor is it one that by and large Christadelphians have adopted. They have taken the position they are right and others are wrong. In fact others have been lumped together frequently as “the harlot and her daughters”. In addition if Christadelphians only “interpret scripture” why do they consider they have the authority to disfellowship people from a community they often claim to b “the body of Christ”?
The standard Christadelphian position is that we are led by God and by understanding scripture do state what God has told us. It is claimed to be the spirit for us today because God does not lead by the Holy Spirit. Indirectly or directly a false prophecy is a false prophecy whether or not we claim direct inspiration by God.
We have to be honest.
Here’s an article of interest, http://www.christadelphianresearch.com/gods7000yearplan.htm
Consider the couplet: “I am not a prophet; Jesus will return by 2050AD.”
Jesus said that date-setters for His return are false prophets regardless of their not-a-prophet claims.
Clearly the couplet is an oxymoron.
John Thomas certainly changed his mind: 1866, 1910… whatever next?! LOL!
Unstable: http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=unstable&qs_version=NIV
Tim, Your logic is not sound. It matters entirely how one sets the date. If one sets the date through pure Bible study with no claims of inspiration, then they cannot by definition be a false prophet since they were never a prophet of any kind. If they do claim inspiration of God and it proves false, then they are by definition a false prophet. I am not a proponent, by the way, of date-setting by any means. Slander is, however, very sinful so I suggest caution on your part in making accusations. Kyle