Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Brian Stoffregen

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 2748
1
Is anyone familiar with the argument that the word "indivisible" in the Pledge was written against Southern sentiment of the day that still thought that states had the right to secede from the Union?  I don't know where I heard this or if there is any validity to it.


Yes, it was related to the civil war. See the quote from Bellamy I offered in post #146.

2
That is, Peter, the classic distinction without a difference.
"One nation, under God" still requires a thought as to which God and whose God.
Otherwise, we would say "one nation, under (we think) some God somewhere (if there is a God), indivisible, with liberty and..."
It is not a distinction without a difference. Unlike Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union, we insist our state is at best penultimate.


For about 1/2 of the 129 years since the Pledge of Allegiance was created, "under God," was not part of it. It was added in 1954 to show that America was not like atheistic communist Russia.


The three different versions are listed below.


Original: 1892 Francis Bellamy
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
1923
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
1954
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
That’s because it went without saying among people whose culture was formed by Christendom that every nation and government is under God. Only when confronted by overt denial of it by the Soviets, Nazis, and in a different way Imperial Japan did it suddenly become necessary to state the obvious.


Perhaps. Francis Bellamy was a "Christian socialist." He was a Baptist minister (as was his father), until he run out of his congregation in Boston in 1891 for preaching against capitalism. He went to Florida and the racism he saw that caused him to leave the church all together. He saw Jesus as a socialist. That wasn't well accepted. He wrote the pledge in 1892 after his difficulties with the congregation.

The wiki article states that he also believed in the separation of church and state, so he purposely didn't include anything about God in the pledge. The article quotes Bellamy about the language of the pledge:

It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution... with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...

The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands'. ...And what does that last thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation – the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity'. No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...


Bellamy "viewed his Pledge as an 'inoculation' that would protect immigrants and native-born but insufficiently patriotic Americans from the 'virus' of radicalism and subversion." [Jones, Jeffrey Owen; Meyer, Peter (2010). The Pledge: A History of the Pledge of Allegiance. Thomas Dunne Books.]

Nothing in his reasoning to believe that he saw the pledge affirming that our nation was "under God."

3
Your Turn / Re: Church and weddings...
« on: Today at 12:11:36 PM »
How many have considered having a wedding (or memorial service) on Sunday morning as part of the normal Eucharist? For many active church people, the congregation is their family. They often see them more often than relatives who may live in different states. It makes these occasional rites feel more like a church worship service.


(I have done both: weddings and memorial services during the Sunday morning worship. They were appreciated.)

4
It’s amazing how the non-Lutheran churches are always inspiration for us to learn from until they stop parroting progressives. Then they’re dangerous heretics. And we are always too strict about policing doctrine unless it is other conservative churches. Then we’re too lax in putting up with them.

Why so salty, Pr. Speckhard?

I think the article is illuminative regarding one very important aspect of understanding the current intersections between church and government and governing. To respond as if it's just a matter of progressives good, conservatives bad or vice versa seems one-dimensional to me.

The charismatic/pentecostal stream of Christianity (which is significant statistically in the US and even more so globally) has a vastly different view of the interplay between church and government. Seems worth being aware of without importing other beefs into the mix. My two cents, anyway.


Since the charismatic/pentecostal stream of Christianity tends to take the Bible literally ("God said it. I believe it; and that's that.") They run into an issue with Deuteronomy 18:20-22 about prophets:


[And the LORD said to me, ….] "But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?' - when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him." (NIV)


It's understandable why the "prophets" whose predictions didn't come to pass might be afraid; and why their followers now oppose them.

5
We don't have a version of God. We have God. When we recite the pledge, He is the God we're talking about. When those who are perishing recite the pledge, it may be the Flying Spaghetti Monster they have in mind for all I know. That matters is that they are not claiming the highest place for the constitution, the elected government, or the general existence of the United States.

This distinction matters. Our rights are not conferred by the constitution or government. They are recognized by the constitution and government as coming from a higher power that the Constitution and government have no authority to contradict.


And when Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, and others recite the pledge, they each are talking about the god they believe in.


Deism (a belief in god) is the God of the U.S.A. Jesus Christ is removed from the America's Civil Religion. He, as part of the Trinity, is what makes Christianity a unique religion with a unique God - different from all the others.


When you sing, "God bless America," you may be thinking of the Triune God, but that's not what the Jewish composer, Irving Berlin was thinking when he wrote it.




6
That is, Peter, the classic distinction without a difference.
"One nation, under God" still requires a thought as to which God and whose God.
Otherwise, we would say "one nation, under (we think) some God somewhere (if there is a God), indivisible, with liberty and..."
It is not a distinction without a difference. Unlike Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union, we insist our state is at best penultimate.


For about 1/2 of the 129 years since the Pledge of Allegiance was created, "under God," was not part of it. It was added in 1954 to show that America was not like atheistic communist Russia.


The three different versions are listed below.


Original: 1892 Francis Bellamy
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
1923
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
1954
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

7
Your Turn / Re: Church and weddings...
« on: January 15, 2021, 11:01:37 AM »
It is helpful for a parish to have a wedding policy which states who is allowed to get married
in their church.  When weddings are allowed for members only, it removes the hassle of
non-Christian and non-member couples who are desperately seeking a building.  Most parishes
have pre-marital counseling sessions which assume the couple is Lutheran and are members of
the congregation.  Most pastors want to be available for the couple in the years after the wedding
for support and counseling.  Weddings were never intended to be evangelism tools to meet the
needs of those who have no interest in Christ and His church.


A pastor could tell the couple asking for a wedding, "By asking me to officiate at your wedding, you are making me your pastor. I will be checking up on you periodically to see how the marriage is going as well as your spiritual life." After the wedding, treat the couple as members of the flock. Be their pastor.

8
Your Turn / Re: Valpo mascot task force
« on: January 14, 2021, 04:26:14 PM »
Yuma High School may be the only school whose nickname is "The Criminals." Graduates are proud to call themselves "Criminals." They got the name when the school used the Territorial Prison for its school from 1910 -1914 after the school building had burned. The prisoners had been moved to a new facility in 1909.


https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk012kFcWj6moWK2r3JKJBn54OTjJvQ:1610659019097&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=yuma+high+criminals&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjG0L-1rJzuAhXWHDQIHd_MCmIQjJkEegQIAxAB&biw=1369&bih=764

9
Your Turn / Re: Valpo mascot task force
« on: January 14, 2021, 01:05:50 PM »
To avoid partisanship or cultural vagaries, and given the nature of Valpo's stands on many things:
Valpo Enigmas
Valpo Ambiguities

I like the KulturKampf mascot suggestions, not with animals, but with hypostatic ideas:
Enigma = mascot/costume is a question mark (?)
Ambiguities = mascot/costume is two question marks (??) or two arrows pointed in opposite directions

Then Valpo could play Hillsdale, team
The Truth (or The Verity, same thing) = a belt (ephesians 6) or
The Absolutes = I haven't figured costume out yet or
The Absolute Truth = a belt with studs
The Answer = Exclamation points

We have a local team very near my home, St. John's University.  They switched from the RedMen (which if you think about it was doubly bad) to The Red Storm. 
My belief is they didn't want to change the school colors, so they came up with something that isn't an actual thing  =  The Red Storm. 
Haven't seen one, sounds fungal though.

Semi-finally, I have spent a calendar day with my siblings determining the mascot/name of our Lutheran Grade School, Christ Memorial in Milwaukee.  We wore black and gold, and my sister and sister-in-law could recite the cheers which ended "Hail to the Black and Gold."  But after serious outreach to old people who could still even remember the school at all, we were The Tigers.  Black and gold stripes.  Nice.  We won a lot.  We won in fact almost all the time. 
But we didn't remember that we were the Tigers.  We were Christ Memorial - CM.  Black and Gold Champions.

I think the same kind of thing is the case at Valpo.  That's what my family members, many of whom are graduates, go back to - Valpo.  Not as much the Crusaders; Valpo.  If the Cresset goes out of publication, that to me is a more serious topic and loss.  That's philosophical/theological/academic anchor.  Why stop that?  But the Crusader could be a Knight.  My favorite is SW's - The Valpo Alpos.

Finally, I grew up in Milwaukee in the 50s.  And we could go to the home team's baseball games for 35 cents.  So we went to every doubleheader - 17 1/2 cents per game.  There were a lot of those then.  And we went for batting practice and stayed til the final out.  So that's where we - the northside mates - learned the national anthem.  "The land of the free," we belted it out with our little hands over our hearts, "and the hoomme of the ...........Braves."  Play ball.

Dave Benke
A theologically significant nickname would be the Valpo Mysteries (or just the Valpo Mystery). The mascot could come out on the field floor wrapped in a riddle, (like the Batman villain), fling off that cape or disguise to reveal an enigma, which would be harder to pull off as a costume-- maybe the WWII enigma machine or something. Then fling that off and, like a magician, disappear in smoke. All the kids in the stands would be amazed. It would be a lot more entertaining than a lot of their football games. Plus, when the fans in the stand ask each other such things as "What the heck kind of a play call was that," or, "What was that guy thinking," there would be a a stock answer to redirect people's attention to the mascot, who would keep appearing and disappearing periodically throughout the game.


There are universities whose nicknames do not lend themselves to a mascot. Our son went to Miami. The "Hurricanes" use an ibis as their mascot. Stanford "Cardinal" (no "s" - it's for the color, not the bird). The students voted for "Robber Barons" as their mascot a negative homage to their founder. The school did not approve. While a Redwood Tree dances around at games, that is not their official mascot.


Thus, a schools nickname doesn't necessarily have to connected to the mascot (if there is one).

10
Your Turn / Re: The Church's Response to Government and Governing
« on: January 14, 2021, 12:55:23 PM »
As I continue to monitor the news I hear that law enforcement is ramping up in anticipation of even more protests and possible violence.  I don't know if it will occur, or if it's just heated online rhetoric, but after last week I understand why they must be proactive this time and prepare for the worst. 

But underneath all this is a seething anger.  And I'm not just referring to the so-called far right.  We saw it last summer in the repeated protests and violence in cities all over the country.  Some encouraged and justified the anger then.  Now it is roundly condemned.  But regardless it remains.

An article from last September by Cal Thomas taps into these questions in "Why So Much Anger?" He notes: "People who are angry at government, instead of looking to Washington, should be looking in the mirror.

There have been injustices as long as humans have walked the Earth. The U.S. government has tried mightily and at great expense to fix them, but most are matters of the heart, not matters for politicians.

If the latter, would not those injustices by now have been solved? While it is possible for government to impose or tolerate immorality, it is close to impossible to impose its opposite. This is the role of churches and of individuals making the right decisions for themselves and their families."


https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/09/17/why-so-much-anger/

Now this was written before the events of last week, but I think that the anger issue is similar.  At its heart is the ability and willingness of people to suffer perceived injustice.  The psalmists cry out "How long?" waiting for vindication from God against their enemies. Even in Revelation we hear a similar cry: "They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” (Rev. 6:10).  God's people have long lived under injustice in a broken and sinful world.

In the spirit of this thread I believe that that the church has a heightened responsibility in the midst of this angry turmoil that has engulfed our nation to call for patience in the midst of injustice, prayer for those who hurt us (Luke 6:28), and intercessions for our leaders to make wise decisions.  We, as the church, are not called to 'fix Caesar,' if I might coin a phrase.  We are not called to push Caesar to do what we want him to do and apply our own political pressure.  We are called to proclaim the Prince of Peace in the midst of a violent and angry world, and if we do not point people to Him, we fail to give real hope. We are also called to live lives of Christ-like love in our own contexts and communities.  It starts there, not in Washington. 

People of faith from the left and the right have too often put their "trust in princes" who "cannot save"(Psalm 146:3).  We have turned away from the transcendent and almighty God forgetting that "when their spirit departs, they return to the ground;on that very day their plans come to nothing." 

Church leaders may choose to call for impeachment and removal of the president.  And if he is removed, which seems a bit unlikely at the moment given the very short time he has left, will we feel that the ongoing anger that flows under our nation will then disappear?  Will we believe that once Trump is no longer there that violence will no longer occur?  Do we believe that Biden is the chosen deliverer that can miraculously calm the troubled waters of a deeply divided nation?

We believe that God has given us the Kingdom of the Left as a First Article gift for our protection. But ultimately it is to God, not princes, that we look in trust. It is to Him that we pray in the midst of an unhealthy anger consuming people from both ends of the spectrum.  Let not the church be consumed with the rest of fallen humanity.


Getting angry is letting someone else control my emotions. It is a reaction; and thus, says more about the angry person than the situation that caused that reaction. One can oppose injustice without getting angry. In fact, that is what law officers are trained to do: to try and be a "non-anxious presence" in situations where they could easily become angry at those yelling at them or even physically attacking them.

11
Your Turn / Re: The Church's Response to Government and Governing
« on: January 13, 2021, 01:21:58 PM »

Has Trump been lying about winning the election?
Were all those who solemnly assured us that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians and that the conclusive evidence was there and would be shortly revealed by the Mueller investigation lying? Or were they simply mistaken?


Is Trump lying about winning the election of has he been mistaken?


I wasn't willing to believe those who claimed collusion until the evidence was in. What they believed was wrong, but they also didn't have all the evidence when they made their claims.


According to Georgia's Secretary of State, Giuliano certainly lied about their election. He knew the truth about the ballot containers, but lied about them. They are pretty sure that Trump also knew the truth, but continued to claim victory there. That was a lie.

12
Your Turn / Re: The Church's Response to Government and Governing
« on: January 13, 2021, 11:26:38 AM »
So, to clarify again - You do believe that pastors and theologians should inject themselves into the political process; that is, speak out on issues that are distinctly partisan in terms of political affiliation and interpretation, or issues that concern the structure and workings of the government itself.  Or to put it another way, you believe that pastors and theologians should join the general chorus in telling the government what it should do and how it should to it. 

I think the above is different than a prophetic voice that calls out sin, which is what the prophets did.  Also, they often addressed themselves to kings within a specific theocratic system, which is more than a bit different than what we have in our situation here.


I said nothing about "partisan" issues; unless Christian beliefs and scriptural truths are seen as partisan. When folks act against Christian beliefs and scriptural truths, that is sin. Shouldn't we call out bearing false witness when political leaders are lying? Is it a partisan issue when one's language leads to riots and the death of a police officer?
Is it our role as Christians to rush to judgement and pronounce guilt before the facts have been ascertained and the investigation has hardly begun? Is it our role as Christian leaders, whether as pastors of church communities or leaders of national churches, to bring the authority of our position and churches and render judgement on initial perceptions and in accord with one's prevailing attitudes and prejudices? It may be politically expedient to do so, just as the Democrats and those Republicans eager score political points on Trump, but should we as Christians and Christian leaders join in the feeding frenzy?


There are two narratives emerging of the events of the Epiphany insurrection. What has become the standard narrative in news and social media (and apparently to be enforced by deplatforming any dissent) and the basis of swift political action is that President Trump instigated the riots and invasion of the Capitol amounting to an insurrection by his refusal to admit defeat in the election, claims that there was rampant fraud in the voting and vote counting, and then his inflammatory rhetoric at his January 6 rally drove the crowd to spontaneous violence and the storming of the Capitol. He started it and he is responsible for it.


There is, however, another narrative emerging in the news coverage (and not just on Fox). The evidence suggests that there was advance planning and preparation for the invasion of the Capitol. Some of the individuals involved showed training in urban warfare. Before January 6, warnings had been issued to the Capitol Police that some such invasion of the Capitol was being planned. Apparently, the Capitol Police leadership were so concerned that they had asked for reinforcements ahead of time. While some of those who stormed the Capitol were apparently caught up in the moment and the mob, others had intended to do what they did all along and came to the events of the day with that intent. This was not a spontaneous uprising sparked by Trump's speech, but a planned and prepared event that took advantage of Trump's Rally and picked up cannon fodder from it. It was not just Trump's Insurrection.


Just who did that planning and preparation is not immediately apparent. And again, should we rush to assume that we already know who is responsible?

Should Trump bear some responsibility for the events of January 6? Likely. Was it all his fault, that he instigated the violence of that day? Apparently not. But is it our role as Christians and especially Christian leaders to jump on the expedient bandwagon and rush to judgement? And for what? What does it benefit the Gospel and Gospel proclamation for the leaders of the NCC to issue their denunciation of Trump as instigator of the violence of that day? Is that rush to judgement any better than those dreaded Evangelicals (can anything good come out of Evangelical land?) who rushed to support Trump, make excuses for Trump, and jump on his bandwagon?


Has Trump been lying about winning the election?

13
Your Turn / Re: The Church's Response to Government and Governing
« on: January 13, 2021, 11:21:20 AM »
Where someone exactly like Warnock but on the political/cultural right would be subjected to criticism of his shallow sacramental theology and liturgical practice, triumphalist mixing of the two kingdoms, and reduction of the faith into culture war power structures, Warnock gets a pass because he's a talented gy from a historic congregation who takes leftist political positions.

(snip)

Second point - triumphalist mixing of the two kingdoms.  How did you ascertain that?  An evangelical black preacher such as Rev. Warnock understands the atonement the same as I/we do, in these words:  Christ died for all.  He as the inheritor of the Ebenezer pulpit from its predecessor knows better than anyone the temporal and hard-fought nature of all gains in the realm of the left, so engages in the struggle for justice knowing it's penultimate.  The black preachers I know, and I'm believing the pedigree of Rev. Warnock is right in that line, believe in eternal destiny as the ultimate destiny.  And good grief, the failure of triumphalist mixing is being writ large from the right end of the church/political spectrum as we speak. 

This seems to me to be emphasizing commonality in service of ignoring differences.  It's also somewhat reductionist in that, even though Senator-elect Warnock is black, and is a preacher, he is not the same as every other black preacher you have met.  He might have similarities, but as noted above, you seem to emphasize those while ignoring differences.

Warnock is a liberation theologian.  This is utterly uncontroversial, as you can see from this piece lamenting the "demonization" of the same.

https://baptistnews.com/article/in-georgia-demonizing-black-liberation-theology-yet-again/#.X_7dPC2ZNjQ

"The most unsparing attack on Warnock is based on a superficial reading of selected statements by Warnock’s doctoral mentor James H. Cone, the 'father of Black Liberation Theology' who died in 2018. Cone’s classic 1970 book, Black Liberation Theology, provided both the name and theological framework for one of the most significant theological movements of the 20th and 21st centuries."

Here is the author's defense in that piece:

"When Cone writes about 'Satanic whiteness,' he is denouncing the notion of white normativity, which stems from that which is rightly called demonic. When Cone advocates 'the destruction of everything white,' he is urging Black theology to take as its task the purging of this idolatrous notion of white normativity from the theology of Black people of faith. When Cone contends that God is Black, he is affirming God’s solidarity with the oppressed rather than the oppressor. And when Cone insists that those who want to join God in God’s solidarity with blackness must lose their white identity, he is calling whites to abandon this notion of white normativity and relinquish attachment to its privileges."

So you have a theology that is designed to help the oppressed by precisely doing to the oppressor what the oppressor has done to the oppressed historically.  And even that is too shorthand, for the truth is the theology separates God's children into oppressor and oppressed classes.  That is, it is functionally Marxist.  It sets up class distinctions for the purpose of tearing down power structures.  It therefore puts secular political goals above theology, and uses them to destroy proper theology (the ways it does this are far too numerous to mention, but I assume we can all agree that Christian theology does not call on any person to "lose their (racial) identity," since that superficial attribute was given by God Himself).  It is, let us be blunt, racist.

So when you say above:

the failure of triumphalist mixing is being writ large from the right end of the church/political spectrum as we speak. 

.....my question is simply, why do you seem to endorse it from the left, then?  Because it seems from here the reason is you support the political goals of Warnock, but not (say) Ralph Reed.  The latter is well and good.  The former strikes me as driving in the opposite ditch.


I think that the Christian church did exactly that: they had been the oppressed under the Roman empire; but when they became the empire, they also became oppressors.


One of our problems is that (some) Christians have talked about the great reversal, e.g., from the Magnificat: lowly are lifted up and the mighty are brought down. However, the picture is not that valleys become mountains and mountains become valleys; but that there is a leveling. When the high are brought down and the low are raised up; they meet on an equal plain. Better to talk about the "great leveling" - everyone is equal. No one is oppressed. There are no oppressors. No one is high. No one is low.


This still is good news for the oppressed; and it is still not-so-good for the oppressors. They will lose some of their power and authority.

14
Your Turn / Re: The Church's Response to Government and Governing
« on: January 12, 2021, 08:28:36 PM »
So, to clarify again - You do believe that pastors and theologians should inject themselves into the political process; that is, speak out on issues that are distinctly partisan in terms of political affiliation and interpretation, or issues that concern the structure and workings of the government itself.  Or to put it another way, you believe that pastors and theologians should join the general chorus in telling the government what it should do and how it should to it. 

I think the above is different than a prophetic voice that calls out sin, which is what the prophets did.  Also, they often addressed themselves to kings within a specific theocratic system, which is more than a bit different than what we have in our situation here.


I said nothing about "partisan" issues; unless Christian beliefs and scriptural truths are seen as partisan. When folks act against Christian beliefs and scriptural truths, that is sin. Shouldn't we call out bearing false witness when political leaders are lying? Is it a partisan issue when one's language leads to riots and the death of a police officer?

15
Your Turn / Re: The Church's Response to Government and Governing
« on: January 12, 2021, 01:27:37 PM »
What argument? I asked for examples of the ELCA implementing the referenced social statement in ways that weren't predictably leftist politically. You apparently can think of none. I acknowledged that the LCMS is uniformly conservative, with the caveat that the LCMS generally doesn't pontificate on every political topic, but only those with clear application to core Christian teaching. You apparently don't thing that is relevant.

If you don't think it is significant that you can find no space between standard DNC talking points and the ELCA's application of its social statements, then just say so. But at least acknowledge the fact of the matter.


As I recall, the presiding bishop is to make statements only inline with our approved social statements. They can be found here. These are approved by a 2/3 majority at a churchwide assembly. Since we are a leftist-leaning, liberal church body, it's likely that our social statements will reflect the nature of our church body. We see God as being liberal with grace. We call our people to be liberal; that is generous with their finances, giving of their time, loving others as Christ loves us - unconditionally. I find the leftist positions more closely resemble what I read about Jesus in scriptures.


I find the rightist positions to confuse following Jesus with morality rather than grace.

So to return to the original theme of the thread: Do you believe that the most recent NCC document signed by the bishop of the ELCA resembles what you read in the scriptures?  Do you believe that God has called us to inject ourselves into the political process by dictating how government should remove its own elected officials?  Do you think that scripture directs us to be political advisors to the government?


Yes. The prophets called governments to task for their misdeeds and often named the leaders by name. I understand the words προφητεύω/προφήτης to be primarily about the public proclamation of God's Word, (not about foretelling the future). The prophets publicly proclaimed God's Word against the sins of the nations.


Without delving deeper into texts, it seems to me that besides exposing the kings' evil behaviors, they also predicted the demise of the king through the normal means of their time, i.e., being conquered by an enemy nation.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 2748