Did you know there is an organization that meets before the start of each year to determine what God has told the prophets will happen in the upcoming year? As noted by Doug Geivett and Holly Pivec in A New Apostolic Revelation, the Apostolic Council of Prophetic Elders (ACPE) annually compiles a consensus of what the gathered prophetic voices believe God told them about the upcoming year. Their “revelations” are compiled in what is called the “Word of the Lord.” In the ACPE Word for 2025, the gathered prophets thought 2025 will be a year of global and personal transitions. Not only will there be “opportunities to make investments that will cause large amounts of funds to be released for Kingdom purposes,” but you also learn it’s not God’s will for WWIII to break out.
The ACPE was founded in 1999 by C. Peter Wagner and when he retired in 2010, Cindy Jacobs was appointed by Wagner as the convener. Originally there were 20 to 25 prophets. Cindy Jacobs reported in 2024 that 200 prophets from 32 nations gathered together in Dallas. In The Violent Take It by Force, Matthew Taylor said Cindy Jacobs was perhaps the most recognizable and respected modern-day charismatic prophet in the world. She was said by Charisma magazine “to exemplify the prophetic movement” over the last 30 years. Taylor thought she had mainstreamed the Latter Rain-inspired idea of individuals who claimed the church governing office of prophet: “they are prophets; they don’t just practice prophecy.”
The Modern Office of Prophet is Not for Today
In A New Apostolic Reformation? Geivett and Pivec asked the obvious question, can people today have the gift of prophecy? They focused their critique on the more radical NAR continuist view, that prophets hold a formal office and have a position in church government with “authority extending to nations—and who reveal new truths.” This is the position of the ACPE and the NAR, and the assumed understanding of those individuals who gather together in Dallas for the annual ACPE meetings.
Even those Protestants who have recognized a present-day gift of prophecy have not, by and large, recognized a present-day office of prophet. The main reason is that there is no biblical precedent for it. There’s no evidence that New Testament prophets held governing offices in the early churches. If they did, both the Bible and history are completely silent about it and we have no reason to believe it.
Given the Bible’s silence on the topic, it’s likely that prophets spoken of in the New Testament did not govern. There seems to be no sense in which those who prophesied then also functioned as governors within the churches. In fact, there’s no good evidence that the governing role attributed to prophets by NAR leaders was practiced by any leaders in the early church. If God thought it important for prophets, or anyone else for that matter, to rule churches after the fashion asserted by NAR leaders, why is this not clearly taught in Scripture? Why must NAR leaders rely on specious inferences from poorly assimilated evidence regarding the role of a prophet in the Old Testament?
After reviewing typical verses cited to support the NAR belief in a modern office for prophets in the church (such as Amos 3:7, Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11, and 1 Corinthians 12:28), Geivett and Pivec noted other than the apostles of Christ, who did have an exclusive office, “the only two church offices clearly identifiable in the New Testament are elders and deacons.” If NAR leaders are then tempted to suggest prophets were appointed directly by God, they challenge the teaching of Bill Hamon, who is another well-known NAR prophet. In Prophets and Personal Prophecy, Hamon said that those who hold an office must be commissioned to that office “by a prophetic presbytery,” that is by a group of people.
In short, there are no New Testament passages that prescribe an office of prophet in church government. Nor are there any passages that so much as describe prophets as holding an office. There is, then, no biblical basis for affirming the present-day office of prophet. NAR leaders have erected a huge doctrine over a gaping hole.
Gievett and Pivec went on and demonstrated additional problems in believing that present-day prophets have authority to prophesy to nations. The purpose of New Testament prophets was to edify the church (1 Corinthians 14:4-5); not the nations. Besides John the Baptist, Jesus and the two witnesses in the book of Revelations, “there’s not a single example of a New Testament prophet pronouncing judgments on a nation.” Attempting to justify that present-day apostles can prophesy to the nations, as in the ACPE Word for 2025, illegitimately assumes they have the authority to do so.
Modern-day prophets, according to Bill Hamon, can claim to reveal “new truths,” including illumination into Scripture that allows for new interpretations no one has seen before. “By insisting that all Christians must accept prophets’ new interpretations, he confers on those interpretations the same authority enjoyed by Scripture.” But then he insists these truths arern’t equal to Scripture. He said, “Only a false prophet would ever believe or proclaim that what he speaks or writes is or would ever be equivalent to Scripture in inspiration or authority.”
In short, it doesn’t matter how strongly Hamon denies that NAR prophets’ revelation is equal to Scripture. When he demands that all Christians must accept such prophets’ new truths, is he not claiming, in effect, that their words are equal to Scripture? But recall Hamon’s own words, “Only a false prophet would ever believe or proclaim that what he speaks or writes is or would ever be equivalent to Scripture in inspiration or authority.” It is also inconsistent—as well being an irony and a delusion—to hold that, in order to be regarded as a true prophet, you must allow that your prophecies may not always be true.
So, it seems modern-day NAR prophets presume God has spoken to them truly and authoritatively, while also weakly acknowledging the authority of Scripture. This is evident in the annual predictions of the ACPE and other similar organizations and seers. And it leads to the false doctrine of open theism and other aberrant practices. This unnecessarily intensifies the divide between cessationists and continuists within the church.
The Analogy of Modern-Day Prophecy
I’ve found the thoughts of Vern Poythress in “Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts” helpful in suggesting a middle way to the typical dichotomy on modern spiritual gifts. Dr. Poythress had a broader discussion of spiritual gifts, but here we will focus our attention on what he said with regard to prophecy. In his abstract, Poythress made a key distinction between what he called the rationally explicit processes used by Luke when writing his Gospel, and the “intuitive” processes evident in the book of Revelation. “One type of process is not inherently more ‘spiritual’ than the other. Both the Gospel of Luke and Revelation were inspired.”
Modern preaching is analogous to how Luke wrote. Rationally explicit processes are dominant in a sermon and in the Gospel of Luke. But intuitive processes are dominant in the prophesies of the book of Revelation. Seen in this way, modern “prophecy” is analogous to the book of Revelation, but not authoritative. This suggests that rationally explicit processes and intuitive processes “can both be used by the Spirit today.”
Cessationists argue that New Testament prophecy was inspired and has therefore ceased with the completion of the canon. But there are still noninspired intuitive gifts analogous to prophecy. Therefore, in order not to despise the gifts of the Spirit, cessationists must allow for a place for intuitive gifts in their ecclesiology.
There are certain restraints with Poythress’ sense of the analogy of modern spiritual gifts such as prophecy. He said modern intuitive phenomena such as prophecy are subject to the same restraints as preaching. “Everything must be checked for conformity to Scripture.”
Within a section titled “The debate about the cessation of prophecy,” Poythress presented the position of Richard Gaffin, who argued “prophecy” in the New Testament and the early church was divinely inspired, possessing full divine authority. He then noted where Wayne Grudem argued it was not. These two theologians represent the sides of the cessationist-continuationist debate. Gaffin wrote Perspectives on Pentecost (1978), a classic cessationist text; while Grudem wrote The Gift of Prophecy: In the New Testament and Today (1989).
Suppose Gaffin is right. Then “prophecy” ceased with the completion of the apostolic era and the completion of the canon of Scripture. Modern phenomena are fallible and hence are not identical with New Testament prophecy. But modern nondiscursive processes with teaching content is analogous to prophecy, just as modern preaching is analogous to apostolic preaching. Hence the general principles concerning spiritual gifts, as articulated in 1 Cor 12-14 and elsewhere, are still applicable. What charismatics call “prophecy” is not really the “prophecy” mentioned in the New Testament. Rather, it is a fallible analogue. It is really a spiritual gift for speaking fallibly through nondiscursive processes. It contrasts with preaching, which is a spiritual gift for speaking fallibly through discursive processes.
Modern nondiscursive processes with circumstantial content are in a sense not really analogous to inspired biblical prophecy. But they can function positively in the service of the Spirit, just as does circumstantial content through discursive processes.
On the other hand, suppose that Grudem is right. Then “prophecy” continues. But such “prophecy” is fallible. It is not identical with the inspired prophecy of the Old Testament. It is in fact a spiritual gift for speaking fallibly through nondiscursive processes. If the content is biblical, its authority derives from the Bible. If the content is circumstantial, it is not an addition to the Bible (not divinely authoritative). Hence it is just information and has no special authority. Hence Grudem ends up with substantially the same practical conclusions as does Gaffin.
Poythress thought there was no need for Gaffin or Grudem to disagree about the modern phenomena of what is called prophecy. They both acknowledge the fallibility of the modern phenomena. “They disagree only about the label given to the phenomena (“not-prophecy” versus “prophecy”), and about whether the New Testament phenomena were identical or merely analogous to the modern phenomena.” If charismatics and noncharismatics could agree on these points, Poythress thought the debate on prophecy and other modern spiritual gifts would be largely over.
The NAR position on modern-day prophecy as new revelation from God, with what seems to be a belief it was divinely inspired and possesses divine authority, sits beyond a middle, biblical way to affirm the extraordinary works of the Spirit that could be acknowledged by cessationists and continuists alike. See “Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts” or “Believing in Modern Spiritual Gifts” for a further discussion of spiritual gifts.
