Roundtable Discussion with Phil Johnson and Jim Osman

The Prophetic Standards Statement and the 2020 Charismatic Failures

Welcome to the program, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Justin Peters. I hope that you and your family are doing well today. I don't even know which, am I supposed to be looking at that camera? I hope you're doing well.

Thank you very much for joining us. And I am joined today by Jim Osmond, pastor of Kootenai Community Church. We are here in Sandpoint, Idaho, as well as Phil Johnson, executive director of Grace to You.

And we are doing a live event, so this is very unscripted and we're just going to kind of have a discussion here about the prophetic standards statement that Michael Brown and Joseph Matera, leader of the United States Coalition of Apostolic Leaders, they were the two primary figures in drafting this statement, came about in February.

And this statement was written in response to the undeniable, massive face plant that all, literally all of the prominent leaders in the charismatic slash prophetic movement have done in the last calendar year or a little bit better.

In 2020, they failed to prophesy COVID coming. After COVID came, they decreed it, they banished it to be gone. Of course, that didn't work. They failed to see the riots coming, the George Floyd incident and the riots that ensued nightly all across the entire country.

None of the prophets saw that coming. None of the prophets saw the president of the United States contracting COVID. None of, and literally 100 of the prominent prophets all prophesied that Donald Trump would win the United States presidential election.

Of course, they got that wrong. Issues of voting irregularities and all that aside, even if you believe that and hold to that, they failed to prophesy that that would happen. So they literally missed it on everything.

They didn't see the riots on January 6th, whatever you want to call them. So an undeniable face plant brought a lot of deserved, in our opinion, embarrassment to the charismatic movement, the prophetic movement.

And so they drafted this statement beginning in February. And according to articles that we have all read here, it says, it is said to have been, the statement has been checked over by a dozen individuals during subsequent Zoom meetings.

So this was not, this is not just a rough draft. This is a statement that was drafted, went through many revisions, went through a number of prominent prophetic leaders, their approval, got their approval.

So, and they put this up on the website. And so we're going to talk about this. The desire, the stated desire, it was to bring some accountability to the prophetic movement in light of this embarrassment.

So we're going to talk about this and why none of the three of us believe that this has really helped their position any. We're going to talk about some of the theological problems and indeed just logical problems with this movement.

So, Jim, Phil, thank you, brothers, for joining us.

Thank you for having us.

All right.

False Prophets, False Prophecies, and the Failure of Accountability

So I gave a little bit of background there and why the statement was necessary and how it came about. So let's talk just a little bit about some of the initial signatories to this statement. We have, of course, Michael Brown and Joseph Matera.

We also have the CEO of Charisma Magazine, Stephen Strang. Stacey Campbell. Stacey Campbell, you might remember, was one of the ones that gave her endorsement to Todd.

Bentley.

Stacey Campbell is a lady that shakes her head back and forth violently. Mark Chirona, Randy Clark. Mark Driscoll is a signer. James Gall, Jeremiah Johnson, Chris Vallotton of Bethel. And so those people, Stacey Campbell, Mark Chirona, James Gall, Jeremiah Johnson, clear false prophets.

But then you also have some men like Sam Storms and Wayne Grudem that signed this statement. So, brothers, what are your thoughts on this?

Yeah, you've got Craig Keener as well, who's a bit more of a respectable theologian. Lee Grady, who was the editor of Charisma, right?

Yeah.

Or at least he was a commenter in there who frequently criticized charismatic overreach and things like that. So it doesn't surprise me that he would sign this. But right alongside them, you've got, you know, Mark Driscoll actually doesn't lend any credibility to this.

Jennifer LeClaire, Patricia King, Chris Vallotton. It's a mix of people who are credible and people who have a long, long record of making false prophecies. And it doesn't really solve anything. We'll talk about that.

But I don't think this solves anything. There are things in this statement that I would fully agree with, but those things, I don't think these people really believe. Because if they did believe them, they wouldn't be making false prophecies and they wouldn't be defending the practice of prophets who consistently make false prophecies.

Repeatedly, year after year after year. It just so happened that in 2020, there were enough significant events that anyone who was a true prophet should have foreseen or talked about, and none of them did.

And what they did say they got wrong.

Right.

So it discredits the movement. And this is a desperate attempt to try to regain some credibility for a movement that has squandered all the credibility it ever had, and it really didn't deserve any credibility to begin with.

Honestly, I don't think this is going to have any long-lasting impact or do any good. And my advice to people is read through it and ask yourself, if all of these measures had been instituted prior to 2020, would that have derailed the problem that they're trying to deal with here?

Would they have solved the problem of all of those wrong prophecies with what they call accountability? And the answer is no, because their idea of accountability is to get all of these false prophets together collectively and share one another's words from the Lord, and if they all agree, then they can embrace that as a matter of faith.

And that's exactly what they would have done with the prediction that Trump was going to win the election. And they would have all been wrong still.

Right.

So none of the measures that they've set up here really would deter any future disasters like we've just seen. I think the movement has squandered credibility. There are enough superstitious and gullible people that they'll still have followers.

But I honestly don't see how any thoughtful person who genuinely believes the Scriptures and goes by the biblical standard of Deuteronomy 18, that if a prophet pretends to speak in the name of the Lord and what he says is going to come to pass doesn't come to pass, Scripture says not only do you have no obligation to believe him or give him any credibility ever in the future, in the Old Testament, that was a capital offense.

The person was to be put to death.

Right.

So it's a sin to do that. It's a sin on the same level as adultery or murder or any other crimes that were capital crimes in the Old Testament. And to embrace a theology that says, no, no, no, that's changed in the New Testament era so that it's okay to make false statements and still claim to be a prophet from the Lord.

When Scripture says no such thing, gives nobody any permission to change the Lord's standard like that, that just compounds one sin with a worse sin. And I think whatever scorn or criticism this movement gets is richly deserved.

Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And you're exactly right. When all of these prophets were saying the exact same thing, of course, they were all.

Wrong.

It wouldn't have fixed anything.

Right.

They would have simply reinforced one another.

Right, which is what they did.

As I read this, I think, why didn't that occur to any of these people that, you know, if they do what they claim they want to do here, and before they proclaim a prophecy as a word from the Lord, they test that with other prophets.

Wouldn't it not occur to them that had they done that here, it wouldn't have changed a thing? In fact, probably what it would have done would have emboldened them to make even stronger statements to people pretending to be messages from God that were no such thing.

Well, this statement is, as I have it numbered, has 22 individual we believe statements or we affirm or we reject. And so we don't have time, of course, to go through all of those in detail, but we're going to hit a few of the high points.

And I want to start with number one. Of course, to lay our cards on the table, all three of us, we are cessationists. We do not believe that the apostolic gifts, the signed gifts continue to be in operation, but we do affirm gifts like teaching, mercy, administration, exhortation, those gifts.

But I want to deal with one of the common charismatic objections to our position because in 1 Corinthians 14, it says that we are to earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.

That's what Apostle Paul says. So, Jim, as a cessationist, how do you answer that objection?

Well, sometimes people ask me, are you a cessationist?

And I say, yes.

And then they say, they make a statement something like, so you don't believe in the gifts. And I always have to clarify, you're talking about, you're lumping in all gifts. Of course, I believe in the gifts.

I actually believe that all of the gifts that Scripture lists and many more, probably, have been active at various times in the history of the church. So, I believe that all of those gifts that Scripture describes were given.

Some of them were given at a specific time for a specific purpose, and then the gifts have either ceased to be given or they have fulfilled their function and they're no longer given because they fulfilled their function.

So, I believe in all kinds of, all the spiritual gifts, the gift of teaching, administration, the gift of leadership, etc. All those gifts are still active in the church today. And I still believe the Holy Spirit gives those gifts.

But that's not what... Our position is not that no more spiritual gifts are being given or that no spiritual gifts are active. That's not the cessationist position. The cessationist position is that all of the gifts are given for a specific purpose and with a specific goal in mind.

If the gift that was given has accomplished that goal and that purpose is no longer necessary to be accomplished, then that gift no longer needs to be given. And we would put some of the miraculous and apostolic gifts that we see in the New Testament, the gift of miracles, the gift of healing, the gift of tongues, the gift of prophecy, as they're describing it, and the gift of discernment, or not discernment, but word of knowledge.

Those miraculous revelatory gifts, having fulfilled their purpose, are no longer given. And we still benefit from those gifts today because we have the New Testament, we have the results and the fruit of those gifts being given.

But having accomplished their purpose, there's no reason for those gifts to be given in the modern church. So, that's strictly the cessationist position. So, when we have a command in Scripture that says we are to pursue earnestly those gifts, especially that we may prophesy, I would say, well, that, of course, was given at a time when prophecy was still actively given as a gift before the completion of the New Testament canon, before the purpose of the gift of prophecy had been fulfilled.

And probably the closest thing to a gift of prophecy that we would have today would be the gift of teaching or preaching, that exertory gift that we operate from the pulpit or we proclaim the truth. That would be a prophetic gift in a sense, but it's not the gift of...that's not prophecy as they're describing it in this statement, but that is prophecy as we as cessationists would probably describe it, the closest thing to that would be the proclamation of the Word of the Lord.

But it wouldn't be a new word, it would be the word that's already been given that we are to explain and to preach and to teach. So, we ought to pursue even that gift today, the nearest equivalent of that being the gift of teaching and preaching, and we should value that gift for what it does in the church.

Today.

Right, okay.

Yeah, and good preaching is a form of prophecy because you're speaking the Word of the Lord if you're preaching the Word. And you have to take that text in context. Paul is writing to the Corinthian church, which was full of extreme charismatics, let's.

Say.

That would be the closest parallel today. People who were enthralled with the idea of speaking in tongues so much that they would do it all at once, and it was a cacophony of noise, and Paul scolds them for that.

If an unbeliever walks in, he's going to think you're all crazy because you're saying stuff that nobody understands in languages that nobody speaks. And that's why he says, so desire the best gifts, especially that you may prophesy.

Because prophecy as opposed to tongues, tongues was actually also a form of prophecy because it was a translatable message. And Paul says, don't do it unless somebody's there to translate. But it was a translatable message, a prophetic word from the Lord.

But if nobody understands it, he says, who's edified by that other than you yourself? You build yourself up at the expense of legitimate use of the spiritual gifts. So he says, desire they may prophesy.

That is, speak a word from the Lord in a language that people understand. So that's the point. And the context there is he's contrasting a misuse of spiritual gifts that does nothing but build up the person who's doing it with a legitimate use of the spiritual gifts, which edifies others.

And so he's saying, if you really want a valuable spiritual gift, if you want to do something that will truly edify the church, ask to prophesy, not to speak in a language that nobody understands. So that's the idea.

That text doesn't prove that these gifts were ongoing and forever. In fact, that's one of the criticisms I would have of this statement. It refuses to make any distinction between foundational things like prophets and apostles, which Scripture says in Ephesians 2, that's the foundation on which the church is built.

If it's foundational, you don't keep using that, you know?

You don't keep building a foundation.

Right, you just don't keep doing it. And Paul in 2 Corinthians 12, 12 refers to these miraculous manifestations as the signs of an apostle. These were signs that signified an apostle. So that in the New Testament, the only time you ever see anybody exercising miraculous gifts like healing and speaking in tongues and prophecy, it's always before the canon of Scripture is complete, obviously, because it's in the canon of Scripture.

And it's always in the presence of an apostle. So an apostle could convey that gift to someone else by the laying on of hands, but it was always associated with the apostle himself. It's a sign of an apostle, one of the proofs that they are an apostle.

And that was one of the defenses the apostle Paul used when people said, well, he's not a real apostle because he wasn't one of the 12, right? But he said, no, I've done all the signs of an apostle. He could convey these miraculous gifts by the laying on of his hands.

That isn't how these gifts are used today. So when you say we're all cessationists, my answer is, yes, I'm a principled cessationist, convinced by Scripture itself that these gifts are not for everyone at all times.

But I would also argue that even the most wild-eyed charismatic is to some degree a cessationist. I don't know of a single serious charismatic today who believes that all the gifts are functioning exactly as they did in the New Testament.

In fact, Jack Deere, who famously converted to charismatic views back in the 1990s, wrote a book in which he said the same thing as a charismatic. He didn't know a single charismatic. He felt it was unfair for non-charismatics to suggest that charismatic gifts of healing today are not biblical quality gifts because we don't heal lame people.

We don't see any people born lame or blind receive their sight or ability to walk. He says it's different because it's not like it happened in the apostolic year. And my answer to that is he has just confessed that he is a cessationist of sorts.

And so why not look at this realistically and acknowledge that a lot, in fact, if not all of what you see on television from these televangelists who claim to have gifts of healing, that's just chicanery and not real.

And it bears no resemblance whatsoever to what we see in Scripture, which these are verifiable miracles done in the presence of large crowds that no one could gainsay. But today the miracles are all...the supposed miracles are all invisible and unprovable.

Right.

Todd, go ahead.

I was going to say they do the same thing then with prophecy that they do with the gift of healing. They'll say that the gift of healing as it functions today is not the same as what the apostles did in the first century.

They make the same argument with prophecy saying that the prophecy of today is not the same as it was in the Old Testament or even in the early church.

Right.

That God could speak in the Old Testament infallibly and authoritatively and inherently through those prophets.

Right.

But that He's not Not the same gift of prophecy today, which is why they make a distinction in the statement about the Old Testament prophets could be stoned and executed for getting it wrong.

They want to have a totally different standard for New Testament prophets, and the New Testament prophet is less authoritative, less inerrant, less infallible, and less accountable than the Old Testament prophecy is.

So they're actually making the case that that gift of prophecy as it functions today is not the same as it was in the early church. That's right.

By sheer...

And that's a cessationist argument.

The sheer power of reality forces them to a kind of cessationism no matter what view they hold. They're going to have to say, no, this isn't the same as it was because they simply cannot do apostolic quality miracles, and they don't get apostolic quality prophecies.

And then my question is, if it's so fallible, and it's more fallible than the fortune cookies I get at the Chinese restaurant, what good is it? How can you view this as a gift from God if it's so dangerous on the one hand and completely unedifying on the other?

Yeah, I've quit before that. A magic eight ball has far more prophetic power in it than any of these so-called prophets do in them.

And that's not just a joke.

No, it's true.

That is literally the case.

And riddle me this, Batman. Going to the point that we were just making, that even they, the people who wrote and drafted and signed this statement acknowledge that New Testament prophets are held to a lesser standard than Old Testament.

How is it that in the New Testament, we have Jesus, who is our better high priest, offered a better sacrifice, instituted a better covenant? Everything about the new covenant is better. That's the whole theme of the book of Hebrews that you're preaching through right now.

How is it that everything is better except the gift of prophecy? The gift of prophecy tanked. It is tanked in the New Testament. How is it that...

I would add to that, Justin, nobody in the history of biblical belief has ever issued more and more severe warnings against the dangers of false prophets than Jesus Himself.

That's right.

And He constantly was warning to beware of false prophets. So we have all these people prophesying falsely, and this statement has the gall to say that just because someone prophesies falsely, it doesn't make them a false prophet.

That, in my view, is the heart of the problem with this statement. It comes at the end.

I'll read it.

We do not believe that a sincere prophet who delivers an inaccurate message is therefore a false prophet. I just don't get that because they've done this not only once, but they do it repeatedly. If I stole your wallet frequently or lied to you frequently, you would call me a thief or a liar, right?

So, how is it that someone who constantly prophesies falsely is not to be regarded as a false prophet? That beggars common sense.

Yeah, exactly. They've literally redefined the biblical definition of a prophet. They've made up their own definition that simply cannot be found in Scripture.

Well, they've actually created a third category. So they want to have true prophets, false prophets, and then true believers who say wrong things, speak inaccurately. They say that in the 21st statement that they make in the second paragraph.

They say, finally, while we believe in holding prophets accountable for their words in accordance with Scriptures, we do not believe that a sincere prophet who delivers inaccurate messages is therefore a false prophet.

And instead, that's the statement that Phil just read, instead, as Jesus explained, as the Old Testament emphasized, false prophets, wolves in sheep's clothing, in contrast to true believers who might speak inaccurately.

That's a false prophet is someone who operates under a false spirit masquerading as a Holy.

Spirit.

I would argue that a false prophet is somebody who operates under a different spirit masquerading as a Holy Spirit, that would include those people, but it would also include people who say, thus saith the Lord, and get it wrong.

So they've created, they want to create a third category, false prophets, true prophets, and then these folks in the middle who speak for God, say, thus saith the Lord, they get it wrong, and they are just, in their words, true believers who might speak inaccurately.

And of course, that's a straw man argument. We're not, true believers say inaccurate things. Isaiah said inaccurate things, but not when he was functioning as a prophet speaking for the Word of the Lord.

I think every preacher, no matter how good he is or how careful he is with his study, probably at some point in his lifetime is going to say wrong things as well.

That just puts you in that middle category.

That's right. So I'm in, and I would confess that, I'm in the middle category. I've said things in the past that I wouldn't stand by now, I think they were wrong, but the difference is I didn't do that in the name of the Lord.

I didn't say, God told me to say this. I'm speaking to the best of my understanding, and that's a huge difference. I think they see it as not much difference, but it's a huge difference. On the one hand, to say, at times I trust my own intuition.

You know, I'll get a feeling that I should do this thing or do that thing, and I don't know any other reason why not to. It doesn't violate any biblical standard or whatever. So I go with my instinct or my intuition, and if it turns out to be right, I thank God for the providence that used that to, but I wouldn't call it inspiration or revelation, and I wouldn't call it a prophecy.

They call it a prophecy up front before they know whether it's true or false, and by attributing to the Lord words that He has not said, they sin a sin that literally would have cost them their lives under the Old Testament.

Absolutely, and that's actually a point I made in a recent video that I uploaded my YouTube channel, The Problem with the Charismatic Movement in a Nutshell, and I put a video of Mario Murillo, who's another one of these guys, and he was talking about the failed prophets and failed prophecies.

And he said, that's not the real issue. He said, that's not the serious issue. He said, the more serious issue at hand is that an election has been stolen. That is more serious to him. And I just said, there you go, that right there encapsulates what is wrong with the Charismatic Movement because for them, the serious issue is not that you put words in God's mouth that He did not say.

That's not the serious issue. The serious issue is what happened with the election. And I was like, there you go, that right there, that's the problem.

The Mixed Signatories and the Problem of Selective Accountability

Yeah.

All right.

I want us to look at, and I might point out that in this article from Christianity Daily, it says that the, quote, the overwhelming majority of prophets have not even signed this statement.

So you have a list there of the prophets who haven't signed it?

Yeah, a very partial list. Chuck Pierce, and he's a guy who literally made up out of whole cloth this prophecy that he supposedly made, and I've proven that to be a lie. Chuck Pierce, Cindy Jacobs, she's out there.

Kenneth Copeland. If Kenneth Copeland is not a false prophet, the term has no meaning. Lance Wallnau, Dutch Sheets, Benny Hinn, some of those prominent names have not. But the overwhelming majority of prophets in this movement have not, I mean, even this statement, extremely flawed as it is, it's too much for them.

Yeah.

So we talked about a couple of the people who signed that. You went through the list of the charismatic Stephen Strange and other charismatic extremists, the wingnuts of the movement, what were some of the names you mentioned earlier that had signed it?

Patricia King, Jennifer LeClaire.

But in that group, grouped in with those signatories to this letter, this statement, was also Wayne Grudem and Sam Storms.

Right.

Now, Wayne Grudem has lent a lot of intellectual heft to the continuationist reformed camp, these people who want to have a foot in each camp and be a continuationist and be reformed. And some of Wayne Grudem's exegesis on passages of the New Testament is some of the best work that I can find in any of my commentaries.

He is very sharp, and he's a godly man who loves the Lord, and theologically rich and sound in so many areas, and yet in this area, he attaches his name to this. So, now you have this group, this mixed group of people where you have a good reformed theologian who is very solid in most areas, who signs on to this, and you have the extreme charismatic group that has signed on to this.

And then you have this group of extreme charismatics who refuse to submit to the standards of this statement. So, now the question, this creates a very interesting dilemma because in the statement they say that anybody who refuses to be part of the oversight or submit themselves to the oversight of the type of people who signed this statement are no longer fit to be in ministry.

They should not be recognized as being in prophetic ministry. So, now this creates a division amongst the extreme charismatics. Are the people like Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Lance Wallnau, are they going...

If they're not going to submit to this statement and the oversight of the people who signed this statement, then the people who did sign this statement cannot have anything to do with the people who didn't sign the statement if they're going to be abiding by the terms of the statement.

Yeah, but I don't think any of us expect that to happen. No, I think...

I won't hold my breath.

I mean, I started out saying there are some things... Actually, I didn't say this yet, but let me say it. There are some things, some statements in this document that I would affirm myself. The problem is I don't think the people who signed it really believe these things.

For example, they say, this is your paragraph 19 and 20, we reject any threatening words from prophets today, warning their followers that judgment will fall on them if they fail to obey the prophet's words.

We see this as a dangerous form of spiritual manipulation. A lot of the signatories actually have been constantly guilty of that. I would include even Michael Brown who is afraid, I think, to criticize by name anyone who claims to be a prophet because he lives with the fear that blaspheming the Holy Spirit might be an unpardonable sin.

He believes he could lose his salvation, and so he's not going to actually say anything, and he'll warn us, you know, you're flirting with blaspheming the Holy Spirit. So he's actually doing what this paragraph says they shouldn't do.

Then the next paragraph, we reject the spiritual manipulation of the prophetic gift for the personal benefit of the prophet or of his or her ministry, whether to garner favor, power, or financial gain, and under no circumstances can a prophet charge money to deliver a prophetic.

Word.

This is spiritual abuse of the worst kind and is detestable in God's sight. Now, I wish they meant that, but I don't expect that to be enforced or followed on a large scale by any number of these people because that would undermine what they're doing.

And I think there are provisions in this statement that if they tried to actually do it consistently, it would mean the end of the movement. So I don't really believe they mean this or that it will happen.

We'll see, but if they do mean it, if the people who signed it meant this and they're saying, anyone who doesn't sign this, we're not going to partner with them in ministry, then what you're going to see is a massive split between the prophetic wing of the charismatic movement.

Yeah.

And when I read this, I thought, well, this puts Michael Brown in a real pickle because by his own admission, he has been good personal friends with Sid Roth for nearly 40 years now.

Yeah, and Benny Hinn.

And Benny Hinn. He's been on his program, gave him a high five. Sid Roth is the nuttiest of the nuttiest.

Yeah.

Sid Roth is what Babylon Bee wants to be when it grows up.

Actually, Michael Brown said he didn't know Benny Hinn well enough to be critical of him. So he was on his television broadcast for several broadcasts. But I asked him, why don't you point out his errors?

He said he wasn't familiar enough with it to do that. But still, if you don't have enough discernment to watch Benny Hinn and see what he said over the years and look at his annual prophecies that have always been wrong, and you can't say, no, this man is a false prophet, then I don't trust you to hold anyone accountable in this movement.

It's not going to happen.

Yeah, that's right.

So on number eight, it says that we believe that prophecy should first be tested by the word, then if the prophetic word is not contrary to scriptures, it should be evaluated by other mature leaders. Now, a couple of points.

I hear the charismatic say this a lot. You know, when you get a prophetic word from someone, test it by the scriptures, and as long as it agrees with scripture, then it's okay. But that's just not true.

Because if I were to go up to, say, a young man who's graduating from high school, 18 years old, and he's trying to figure out what he's going to do with the rest of his life, let's call him Bob. And I said, Bob, you know, the Lord has just been laying you on my heart, and I've been dreaming, I've been getting these dreams about you, Bob, that you're supposed to be a missionary, that you're supposed to go to Zimbabwe and be a missionary.

Well, that's certainly not contrary to scripture to tell someone that, hey, maybe you should think about missions. But if I say God has told me that you're supposed to be a missionary, that's not contrary to scripture, but if he believes that I'm getting this from God, and then this young man named Bob, he goes off to Zimbabwe and becomes a missionary when that's not at all what he's supposed to do, I could completely wreck that man's life.

That's right.

Plus, what they suggest in that paragraph, letting mature leaders, I don't...I'd love to know who they would put in that classification, but let them evaluate it. You take that and just let's take two or three of the more significant prophecies from 2020 that they got wrong, the election prediction or Kenneth Copeland blowing COVID away.

Let's take those two. Suppose they submitted that to this sort of evaluation. Well, in the first place, neither of those prophecies have anything to do with anything that's in scripture. You can't really say this contradicts scripture.

We'll take the election of the president, for example. Since every prophet in the movement made the same prophecy, they're definitely going to affirm that. I wonder what they would have done with Kenneth Copeland claiming to have blown COVID away, but the point is a lot of us and a lot of secular people latched onto a video of him doing that and made fun of it, but I don't know of anyone in the prophetic movement who actually condemned him when that happened.

So, what sort of willingness do they have to actually practice this kind of accountability? I saw your notes on this. On that paragraph, you wrote, this has never happened. They've never done this.

They didn't do it when the prophecies were given.

That's right.

None of them called them to account and said, hey, you're violating clear biblical standards because this statement is them trying to say this codifies what scripture teaches. But Michael Brown, at no point that I'm aware of, ever called any of these false prophets out and said, what you're saying is unbiblical.

So, this never happened before when they were making the false prophecies. This never happened, them calling one another to account or evaluating anything in the movement. It never happened back then.