The following is a video produced by an Evangelical Protestant entitled, "We don't need Mormon prophets":
The transcript can be found here.
This paper will respond to the (eisegetical) arguments contained therein. The comments (taken from the article) will be indented and in red; my responses will be in black.
The Old Testament teaches that God had a special and unique relationship with certain individuals who held the office of “prophet”. Men like Moses, Isaiah, and Daniel had uncommon access to God due to their positions.
This is true, but it was God's desire, even in the Old Testament, for everyone, not a select few, to be prophets; as Moses stated:
And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? Would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them! (Num 11:29)
Joseph Smith himself taught that, in some limited way, every believer is a “prophet.” Referring to 19:10 (“the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy”), Joseph Smith, in response to the question, “Do you believe Joseph Smith, Jun, to be a Prophet?” answered, “Yes, and every other man who has the testimony of Jesus. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (History of the Church 3:29). Joseph cited this passage on a number of other occasions as well (History of the Church 3:389; 4:222; 5:215, 231, 400, 407, 427, 516; 6:77, 290).
On another occasion, the Prophet Joseph Smith declared that all who claim to be ministers of Christ must be “true and honest witnesses of Jesus Christ, they would acknowledge they have the testimony of Him, and that is the spirit of prophecy; and every man who possesses that spirit is a prophet” (History of the Church 5:408). Similarly, in an 1839 discourse, he declared that “No man is a minister of Jesus Christ without being a prophet. No man can be the minister of Jesus Christ, except he has the testimony of Jesus, and this is the spirit of prophecy” (Journal of Discourses 6:239).
Amos 3:7 says, “For the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets.” Whenever God wanted to communicate something to His people, He spoke through these prophets.
I only reference this portion to plug an excellent article by David Bokovoy on how Amos 3 (including v. 7) is strong biblical proof of a concept of a Divine Council:
#1: Jesus replaces the Prophets
Before Jesus’ time, God’s people needed mediators to stand between them and God. These priests and prophets provided a way for sinful people to communicate to and hear from God.
But today, we no longer need these roles! Why? Because we have JESUS, the greater priest and prophet.
Hebrews 1:1 says, “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…”
Jesus supersedes the Old Testament Prophet! In every way, He replaces our need for another man to stand between us and God.
“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all…”
In this one short paragraph, there is a mountain range of eisegesis.
Firstly, with respect to Heb 1:1, this does not state that there would be no prophets or apostles after Jesus. Let us actually exegete the text:
The problem is that, by taking the absolutist view that many critics (e.g., Kurt Van Gorden in his booklet, Mormonism) is that it would preclude the letters of Paul, the Catholic epistles, the Revelation of St. John, etc., being divinely inspired Scripture, because for it to be "God-breathed" revelation, God would have to inspire the authors of such texts. Indeed, it would mean that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was not inspired when he wrote it, as it would preclude post-ascension revelation!
In reality, all that these verses state is that God spoke in the past through the prophets and during the time of Christ, through His Son, Jesus Christ. It does not touch upon the question of post-ascension revelation, apostles, and prophets, so in reality, critics who bring up this passage against LDS teachings are, essentially, begging the question.
Interestingly enough, appealing to such an absolutised reading of Heb 1:1-2 results in one rejecting the personal pre-existence of Jesus; to quote Dave Burke, a Christadelphian apologist:
I find it interesting that you cite Hebrews 1:1-13 as your text and then completely ignore verse 1. Perhaps it’s because you’re not sure how to deal with this verse, which clearly states that God formerly spoke to people through His prophets, but has spoken through His Son ‘in these last days.’ Such a statement has obvious implications for the concept of Jesus’ pre-existence and undermines the popular claim that OT angelic theophanies were actually appearances of the pre-incarnate Christ.In response to this, the Evangelical apologist in the debate answered Burke rather cogently. In spite of my disagreement with this critic about the essentials of the gospel, I think he is spot-on in (1) answering the common Socinian abuse of this pericope (Anthony Buzzard often appeals to this text, for instance) and (2) that it does not preclude post-ascension prophets and apostles (this point will be fleshed out more later in this section):
You seem to reach for arguments from silence a lot, Dave. I said nothing specifically about verse 1 because I had a lot of ground to cover and little room to cover it. Verse 1 poses absolutely no problem for my Christology. God spoke in the past in the prophets; in these last days he has spoken to us in the Son. This statement has no implications, obvious or otherwise, as to when the Son began to exist. Nor does this statement mean that the Son could not have spoken as the preincarnate angel of the LORD. By your reasoning, the order is rigidly (1) prophets and no Son, (2) Son and no prophets. But we know, as it turns out, that there were prophets after the Son came (Acts 11:27; 13:1; 15:32; 21:10; 1 Cor. 12:28-29; 14:29, 32, 37; Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11). The author’s point is simply that the revelation that came through the Son “in these last days” represents the climax, the high point, of the history of revelation. (source)Furthermore, note that the New Testament affirms true prophets after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus:
And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. (Acts 11:27-28)
Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul (Acts 13:1)
And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. (Acts 15:32)
And God hath sent some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (1 Cor 12:28)
Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge . . . And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. (1 Cor 14:29, 32)
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his apostles and prophets by the Spirit. (Eph 3:5)
Even in the teachings of Jesus, there is an expectation of true prophets that would come after Him:
Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city . . . (Matt 23:34; cf. Luke 11:49)
Additionally, Christ not only would send/commission prophets, but His followers were to accept them as true prophets of God:
He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. (Matt 10:40-41; cf. John 13:20; 15:20)
While it is true that Christ warned against false prophets (Matt 7:15), this only makes sense is there would be true prophets that would have to be distinguished from false prophets (cf. Matt 7:15-20).
Furthermore, in Rev 11:3-12, there is a promise of two eschatological prophets who would serve as two (true) witnesses of God against a fallen world and who would be killed.
All these considerations blows the author of the piece out of the water; furthermore, this also serves as a refutation of Luke 16:16, which will be discussed more carefully later in this response.
Additionally, this also refutes the claim, based on 1 Tim 2:5 which the author cited after Heb 1:1. However, let us examine the text in a bit more detail:
εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς.
There is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ (my translation)
The term translated as “mediator” is μεσιτης, and is used in the New Testament corpus to refer to an individual who inaugurates a covenant, which is what Jesus did:
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator [Moses] (μεσιτης). Now a mediator is not a mediator (μεσιτης) of one, but God is one. (Gal 3:19-20)
But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator (μεσιτης) of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. (Heb 8:6)
And for this cause he is the mediator (μεσιτης) of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. (Heb 9:15)
And to Jesus the mediator (μεσιτης) of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. (Heb 12:24)
Louw and Nida (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains [2d ed.]) offers the following definition of the term:
μεσίτης, ου m: (derivative of μεσιτεύω 'to bring about an agreement,' 31.21) one who causes or helps parties to come to an agreement, with the implication of guaranteeing the certainty of the arrangement - 'go between, mediator.' διαταγεὶς δι᾽ ἀγγέλων ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου '(the Law) was put into effect through angels by a mediator'
What Evangelicals wants to read into this verse is that there is no need for human instruments helping people come closer to God, similar to Luther’s claims in 1520 in The Babylonian Captivity of the Church against the sacerdotal priesthood of Roman Catholicism, and continuing to the present in many Protestant circles. The problem is that the New Testament evidences the use of such instrumentality, consistent with the LDS concept of priesthood (e.g., Matt 16:16-19; 18:18; John 20:23; also, note the rather potent words of Paul in 1 Cor 4:15, "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel"), and there are a plethora of Old Testament prophecies about the New Covenant having an ordained, ministerial priesthood (e.g., Isa 66:18-22; Jer 33:17-22, as discussed in my paper on the NT evidence of a New Covenant priesthood). The author is in the unenviable position of having to reject an ordained, ministerial priesthood as part of the New Covenant which would mean if he was consistent, his rejecting Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other Old Testament prophets as false prophets. For a fuller discussion, one should pursue this page.
One has to wonder how the author would react to passages where mortal persons are said to have spiritually begotten believers? Would the apostle Paul fall under the same condemnation Evangelicals often place under the Latter-day Saint view of Joseph Smith that is, depreciating the efficacy of the atoning work of Christ?
One has to wonder how the author would react to passages where mortal persons are said to have spiritually begotten believers? Would the apostle Paul fall under the same condemnation Evangelicals often place under the Latter-day Saint view of Joseph Smith that is, depreciating the efficacy of the atoning work of Christ?
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. (1 Cor 4:15)
The underlying Greek of the phrase in bold is ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς ἐγέννησα. It is through the human instrumentality of the apostle Paul believers were begotten (εγεννησα the indicative aorist of γενναω, "I [Paul] have begotten [you]") through (δια) the gospel.
In Phlm 1:10, Paul wrote:
I beseech thee [Philemon] for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds.
Paul teaches that he (spiritually) fathered (εγεννησα "I have begotten") the slave Onesimus. Now, if were Evangelicals consistent, he would he arguing that Paul was an anti-Christ, as he was clearly teaching "no salvation in Christ without Paul!" Of course, he won't be consistent, but that only shows how fallacious his hermeneutic is, as well as his approach to "Mormonism" is with respect to his own theology (inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument, after all). In reality, God uses human instrumentality, as well as other instruments, even in the meeting out of salvation and the efficacious benefits of the atonement, something that is consistent with both biblical and Latter-day Saint theology (e.g., as seen in the theology of baptism in Acts 2:38 [and all throughout the New Testament], where water baptism is the instrumental means of one having one’s sins remitted). This is entirely consistent with Latter-day Saint and biblical theology (cf. 2 Nephi 1:24; 3:24; Mosiah 23:30; 27:36; Alma 1:8; 2:30; 17:9, 11; 26:3, 15; 29:9; 35:14; 3 Nephi 22:16 D&C 111:2; 112:1 for expressions of this theological concept in uniquely LDS Scriptural texts). It is not a case of Jesus being insufficient; instead, it is following the entirety of biblical teaching on soteriology and related fields. On this score, Latter-day Saints are on firmer exegetical grounds biblically than Evangelical Protestants!
Another prime example would be the agentival relationship between Christ and His apostles, which mirrors that of the Father and the Son vis-à-vis the forgiveness of sins, as discussed by Daniel in his article.
In John 20:23, we read:
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained. (NRSV)
A similar concept is found in uniquely Latter-day Saint Scripture; mirroring Matt 16:19 and John 20:23, we read the following in D&C 132:46:
And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven.
Some may object to any appeal to John 20:23 as evidence of commissioned apostles of Christ having a role to play in granting forgiveness of sins. Some critics have argued that, as the Greek of John 20:23 uses the perfect tense, some have argued that the apostles were not being commissioned by Christ to be agents in forgiving sins, but merely declaring that their sins have been forgiven.
There are a number of problems with this type of reasoning.
Firstly, it makes the action of Christ nonsensical. If the person being told their sins were forgiven by the apostles already had their sins forgiven, such a declaration would not be required, as sins can only be forgiven once, and no man can usurp or trump God, making the declaration a moot point.
Secondly, one should note that the perfect tense in Koine Greek is used for a variety of purposes and cannot be translated adequately in all instances, nor can English properly express the idea of existing result which the Greek perfect conveys.
Thirdly, with respect to ἀφέωνται ("have been forgiven"), let us examine all other instances of this form (indicative perfect passive of αφιημι) in the Greek New Testament:
And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven (ἀφέωνται) thee. (Luke 5:20)
Whether it is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven (ἀφέωνται) thee; or to say, Rise up and walk? (Luke 5:23)
Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven (ἀφέωνται), for she loved much; but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. (ἀφέωνται) (Luke 7:47-48)
I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake. (1 John 2:12)
In Luke 5:20 and 23, ἀφέωνται is used as a present tense, since the man’s sins were not forgiven prior to meeting with Jesus. The same applies for the adulterous woman in Luke 7:47-48--her sins, also, were not forgiven by Christ prior to her encounter with Jesus. This is confirmed by the fact that the present tense "is forgiven" (ἀφίεται) is used in v. 47 alongside ἀφέωνται with respect to people's recognition of a then-present forgiveness of sins.
In light of this, John 20:23 supports the apostles being commissioned agents of Jesus to act in his stead (just as Christ acts, as supreme agent, in the stead of the Father) with respect to forgiving sins, as it would be contradictory for the apostles to be told to forgive sins if the sins have already been forgiven by God. The use of the perfect tense, far from diminishing the apostles' abilities to forgive sins, only heighten the reality thereof.
A parallel in modern English would be how a person, if in receipt of a command to do an action, would state something akin to "consider it done" before it has been done; the use of the perfect tense would be to show that one is determined to do the task, not necessarily that the task has already been completed.
As with the language Christ used in the Last Supper accounts, this is another piece of exegetical evidence for an ordained New Covenant Priesthood, as well as providing important insights into the concept of the agentival relationship between the Father and the Son, as well as that of the Son and his apostles.
#2: Today, God’s Spirit is given to all Christians!Under the Old Covenant, God’s Spirit was specially given to His prophets to equip them for their unique role. But this special giving of His Spirit was extremely limited. At any given time in Israel’s history only a small handful of people were gifted in this way. The rest of the people then, were dependent upon these Spirit-filled men as intermediaries between them and God.
But NOW…God’s Spirit is given freely to EVERY Christian! Before Jesus’s crucifixion, He taught His disciples… “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of Truth…The Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”
This promise was fulfilled after Jesus’ ascension on the day of Pentecost. On that day God gave His Holy Spirit to the men and women waiting in Jerusalem. These 120 Christians immediately began preaching the Gospel in different languages…and when the crowd asked what was happening, Peter explained that this had always been God’s plan:
In Acts 2:17 Peter quotes the prophet Joel saying, “And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy…”
There are no longer just a few who are Spirit-filled amongst God’s people, because now He gives the Holy Spirit to every believer.
Ephesians 1:13-14 says, “When you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, [you] were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it.”
We no longer need Prophets for God to speak to us because every Christian has immediate and unrestricted access to God by His Spirit who dwells within us!
With the refutation of Heb 1:1, where post-ascension prophets and apostles were proven to be part of the New Testament Church, much of the false assumptions that colours this Protestant's eisgesis has already been refuted. The fact that believers have the Holy Spirit in a level greater than those under the Old Covenant does not result in a cessation in there being special offices of prophet and apostle; to claim such is really a non sequitur. One of the greatest refutations of this, as well as the obvious need for post-ascension prophets, it that of Protestantism itself and its 10,000 denominations all disagreeing, not just on minor issues, but central issues that effect salvation, such as:
· Baptismal regeneration
· Mode of baptism
· Infant Baptism
· Eternal Security
· Nature of the Eucharist (e.g., consubstantiation vs. spiritual presence view vs. purely symbolic view)
· The nature of sola fide
· The nature of “saving faith”
· The intent of the atonement (limited vs. universal vs. hypothetical universal views)
· Nature of predestination
· Whether God is active or passive in reprobation (supralapsarian vs. infra/sublapsarian perspectives)
· If God’s saving grace can be resisted
· Whether repentance is necessary for salvation and/or if repentance is just once-off for a believer
· Nature of justification
· Nature of sanctification
· Nature of “righteousness” in justification
· Whether Christ has one will or two wills
· The nature and limits of sola scriptura itself
If Protestantism is true, the Holy Spirit has been doing a botched job at leading people into the truth.
With respect to Eph 1:13-14, the context is about the spiritual rebirth of a Christian, but notice how the term "down-payment" (αρραβων) does not mean that the Spirit will always lead the person (both into truth as well as salvifically). For instance, in 2 Cor 1:22, the apostle Paul writes:
Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
This is repeated in 2 Cor 5:5:
Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given us the earnest of the Spirit.
The phrase translated as "the earnest" is αρραβων, meaning a deposit/pledge. Notice how it is used in the LXX to denote a down-payment:
And he said, I will send thee a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge (αρραβων), till you send it? And he said, What pledge (αρραβων) shall I give unto thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him . . . And Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive his pledge (αρραβων) from the woman's hand: but he found her not. (Gen 38:17-18, 20)
This meaning of αρραβων also appears in another important soteriological text where Paul is discussing the corporate election of the Church and the αρραβων of those therein:
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will; that we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with the holy spirit of promise. Which is the earnest (αρραβων) of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. (Eph 1:11-14)
In reality, a believer has great confidence in their obtaining eternal life, which is qualitative (the type of life the Father has, per John 17); however, they only have a “pledge” or “down payment” at this point in time, with the full ramifications of which will not be seen until the life to come (cf. 1 Cor 2:9), predicated upon their being faithful to the end (Phil 2:12). Furthermore, when one examines the context of Eph 1:13-14, we see, yet again, the author is guilty of eisegesis.
#3: Today, God’s message is proclaimed by all ChristiansThe primary purpose of Prophets was to receive a message from God, then deliver it to the people. God’s chosen messengers in the Old Testament were prophets, and His summary message was that people needed a Savior.
Jesus teaches us that God’s message for people today is the good news, and that the ones charged to deliver this message are all of His disciples.
In Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus says, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
This is why the Bible teaches that the last prophet in history was John the Baptist, who concluded his ministry before Jesus’ death.
(Luke 16:16) “The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached…”
Today, God sends His disciples to proclaim His message rather than Prophets.
With respect to Luke 16:16, we have already shown, by refuting the author's disingenuous comments about the meaning of Heb 1:1, that there were prophets and apostles after the ascension of Jesus, which itself post-dates the murder of John the Baptist, so obviously, Luke 16;16 does not have the meaning the author (eisegetically) imposes onto this verse.
Jeff Lindsay, in answering the question, "Didn't Christ say that there would be no prophets after John?" quotes an answer given by Raymond Woodworth, which I will quote in part:
THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS
"The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." (Luke 16:16)
In their attempt to undermine the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, some individuals quote Luke 16:16 to show that prophets ended with John and are no longer needed, claiming that the belief in living prophets is unbiblical. However, the "John" mentioned in Luke 16:16 is John the Baptist (see Matthew 11:12-13). If it were true that living prophets ended with him, then there certainly would not have been prophets of God long after John's death (e.g., Acts 11:27; 21:10-11). So, what does Luke 16:16 really mean; and more specifically, what are "the law and the prophets"?
Simply stated, the law and the prophets are books of Old Testament scriptures:
1. The law is a book.
". . . cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." (Gal 3:10)
2. The prophets is a book.
". . . as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?" (Acts 7:42)
3. The law and the prophets are read in a synagogue.
"And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on." (Acts 13:15)
4. Things are written in the law and in the prophets.
". . . so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets." (Acts 24:14 )
5. The law and the prophets are scriptures.
"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27)
The law and the prophets are two of the three main groups of Jewish scriptures; which over time Christians called the "Old Testament," and Jews called the "Tanakh" (a.k.a. the Hebrew Bible). The Hebrew Bible is divided into three groups of books: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. During the time of Christ, the third group or division was called "the psalms":
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses and in the prophets and in the psalms concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." (Luke 24:44-45)
Realizing that the law and the prophets are books of Old Testament scriptures helps us to better understand other New Testament verses. For instance, during the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus explained:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17)
In other words, Christ came not to destroy the scriptures, but to fulfill them (for more examples, see Matthew 22:36-40, Luke 16:19-31, and Acts 28:23).
As Christians in general and Latter-day Saints in particular, it is important not to confuse or equivocate between "the law and the prophets" and "apostles and prophets." The former are books of scriptures, while the latter are members of the true church of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 12:28, Eph 4:11). Nevertheless, the question still remains: why were the law and the prophets until John?
They were until him in the same sense that they prophesied until John:
"And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John." (Matthew 11:12-13)
The law and the prophets prophesied until John because they were prophesying of Christ. When Jesus came after John, He fulfilled those scriptures concerning Christ, as they are written in the law and in the prophets (Matthew 5:17, Luke 24:27, 44-45).
The apostle Paul testified:
"Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: that Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles." (Acts 26:22-23)
Therefore, Luke 16:16 refers to the fulfillment of the scriptures, "the law and the prophets," concerning Christ. But this verse says nothing about "apostles and prophets" as living servants of God, who received new revelation, prophesied, and served in the church long after John's death. "The law and the prophets" were until John, not "apostles and prophets."
Prophets after Christ
Another scripture some wrest along with Luke 16:16 is Hebrews 1:1-2:
"GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, . . ."
Some argue that God spoke unto the fathers by the prophets "in time past" during the Old Testament. But now that we have Jesus, we no longer need prophets. Therefore, they say that there will be no true prophets after Christ.
Deceitfully, they neglect to mention that, when God spoke unto us by His Son, one of the things He said He would do is send us prophets (Matthew 23:34, Luke 11:49). God also said by His Son that, if we receive those He sends, we receive Him (John 13:20). Since we will be judged in the last day by what Christ has spoken, shouldn't we heed His words and accept those He sends (John 12:48-49)? So, how can it be true that we no longer need prophets or that there will be no true prophets after Christ?
The fact of the matter is they, who cite Hebrews 1:1-2 to support their argument against true prophets after Christ, are reading into these verses their own ideas (i.e. eisegesis). Hebrews 1:1-2 states that (a) "GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets," and (b) "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, . . ." But nowhere does it say that (1) we no longer need prophets nor that (2) there will be no true prophets after Christ. These last two statements are their private interpretations. And according the Bible, these interpretations are false.
Interpretation (1): We no longer need prophets. The apostle Paul refuted this interpretation in one of his epistles written years after Christ's Ascension. Paul compared the church to the body of Christ, where every member of the church is an essential member of Christ's body. Note that Paul specifically identified "prophets" as current members of the New Testament church:
"But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you: . . . Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way." (1 Corinthians 12:18-22, 27-31)
Hence, as "the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee," neither can one member of the church say unto a prophet, "I have no need of thee"; for all the members of the body of Christ need to be "fitly joined together," so that, by working together as a whole, they "maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love" (Ephesians 4:16, cp. 2:21).
To be sure, Paul gave additional reasons why and how long we need prophets in the church:
"And [Christ] gave some apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." (Ephesians 4:11-14)
Thus, the reasons why we need prophets along with the other members of the church are: "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: . . . That we hence forth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine."
How long we need these members in the church is: "Till we all come in the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God." Have we achieved these ends? No! Then, we still need prophets along with the other members of the church.
Interpretation (2): There will be no true prophets after Christ. The Bible contradicts this interpretation, bearing record that there were true prophets in the church after Christ's Ascension (Acts 13:1, 15:32, 1 Corinthians 12:28). These prophets in the New Testament not only taught and preached, but they also received new revelation and prophesied (Ephesians 3:1-6, Acts 11:27-30, 21:10-11). In fact, apostles and prophets formed the very foundation of the church, of which Jesus Christ Himself is the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:19-21). And since these apostles and prophets had a testimony of Jesus, the "spirit of prophecy" was present in the very leadership of the church (Revelation 19:10). This also means that the apostles themselves were prophets as well, who received and brought forth further revelation and prophecy after Christ (e.g. the Book of Revelation).
Even in the latter days, the Bible foretells that God will pour out His spirit, and our sons and daughters will prophesy (Joel 2:28). In addition, the Bible reveals that in the last days there will be two witnesses who will prophesy 1,260 days. These prophets will also have power to devour their enemies with fire, to shut heaven that it does not rain, to turn water to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues as often as they will. After they prophesy, they will be killed and lie in a street in Jerusalem for three and a half days. Then God will raise them from the dead, and they will ascend up to heaven in a cloud (Revelation 11:1-12). As the Lord lives, there will be true prophets in the latter days like those in the Old Testament. Therefore, those individuals who claim there will be no Old Testament-style or -type prophets in the latter days, "do err, not knowing the scriptures."
"The Law and the Prophets" is not about the office of prophets, but two of the divisions of the Law of Moses. Taking the absolutist hermeneutic the author took in his article/video, this would force him into becoming a modern disciple of Marcion, rejecting at least two of the three divisions of the Old Testament!
That Luke 16:16 is about the divisions of the Old Testament (the Torah [Law] and the Nevim [prophets]) can be seen in any scholarly commentary on the Bible. Take, for instance, the following from a conservative Evangelical Protestant on Luke 16:16-17:
In each of its nine uses in Luke-Acts, “Law and Prophets” designates not a historical epoch but a body of sacred Jewish literature, “the Old Testament” (16:16, 9, 31, 24:27, 44; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23) . . . John and the Pharisees therefore adhered to the theological framework of the “Law and the Prophets.” This proclamation of “the kingdom of God” does not arise with John, but with Jesus, for whom the “kingdom of God” (see at 4:43) is the dominant theme of his proclamation and ministry, as well as of his disciples (9:2; 10:11). “The good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and all are being pressed [Gk. biazetai] into it” (v. 16; my translation) . . . What remains of “the Law and the Prophets” with the advent of the gospel era? Are they superseded and supplanted by the fulfillment of the gospel? The concept of salvation unfolding in successive historical stages or dispensations, discussed above, might suggest so. V. 17, however, maintains the validity of “law” in the era of “gospel,” the “promise” in the era of “fulfilment”: “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than to drop a serif from the law” (my translation; cf. Matt 5:18). Solomon’s dedicatory prayer at the completion of the temple in Jerusalem declared that not “one word” of God had failed (1Kgs 8:56); Jesus declares that not “one keraia” will fail. Keraia means a “little horn,” i.e., not one pen-stroke of the law will fail. Marcion, the second-century heresiarch who sought to purge the gospel of Jewish elements and influences, substituted “my words” for “the law,” thus retaining Jesus and dispensing with Israel. This is a violent misunderstanding of Luke’s theology. Especially in the infancy narrative, but also in the Elijah-Elisha typology of chaps. 7-9 and the recurrent emphasis on Jerusalem throughout the Gospel. Luke reminds readers that “the Law and the Prophets” provide the indispensable pretext and context for the gospel. Israel is the nourishing “root,” to use Paul’s metaphor (Rom 11:18), from which the olive tree grows, and which supports the tree. The extravagant contrast between “heaven and earth” and a minute pen-stroke, a “little horn” (Gk. keraia) of a Hebrew letter in “the Law and the Prophets,” expresses the issue in Hebrew hyperbole The rise of the gospel does not signal the “fall” (Gk. piptein) of the law. “Law and Prophets” are more durable than the physical universe. They are the presupposition and promise of the gospel, which is their fulfillment. (James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Luke [Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2015], 463, 464)
Conclusion
As we have seen, the author of this article/video failed on any meaningful exegetical level to show us that Latter-day Saints are incorrect in stating there is a need for modern prophets and apostles. Instead, the author is guilty of the grossest form of eisegesis and illogical thinking one will ever encounter.
Additionally, it should be noted that the author’s eisegesis is informed due to a (false) a priori assumption of Sola Scriptura. I openly challenge the author of the piece, using the historical-grammatical method of exegesis, where the formal sufficiency of the Protestant Bible is found. In reality, sola scriptura cannot be proven, using sound exegesis, from the Bible.
In an old exchange with Robert Sungenis, James White wrote the following on 2 Tim 3:16-17 and how it relates to the formal doctrine of the Reformation, sola scriptura:
It is a common error to drag the *extent* of the graphe into this passage: that is obviously not Paul's intention. Paul's point is plain: the man of God can be artios and exartizo only through the work of the graphe.
Here, White concedes that 2 Tim 3:16-17 is not about the extent (the "tota" of scriptura), but just the nature of scripture. Why is this significant? It again shows that Protestants, to support the idea that special/general revelation ended with the inscripturation of the final book of the New Testament, will have to go outside of the Bible and privilege such a teaching/tradition en par with the written word to support such a dogmatic view, which is contrary to sola scriptura, as all other sources of truth are to be subordinated to the Bible! Again, this proves sola scriptura to be theological "quicksand" which inevitably traps its defenders as it is actually anti-biblical.
I will reproduce a quote that I have cited many times on this blog, as it proves how apologists for sola scriptura are incapable of proving their doctrine from biblical exegesis:
Appendix: Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies
Evangelical James White admits: “Protestants do not assert that Sola Scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at the very time coming into being?” (“A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray's Article Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura,” 1997, on web site of Alpha and Omega Ministries). By this admission, White has unwittingly proven that Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura, for if it cannot be a “valid concept during times of revelation,” how can Scripture teach such a doctrine since Scripture was written precisely when divine oral revelation was being produced? Scripture cannot contradict itself. Since both the 1st century Christian and the 21st century Christian cannot extract differing interpretations from the same verse, thus, whatever was true about Scripture then also be true today. If the first Christians did not, and could not extract sola scriptura from Scripture because oral revelation was still existent, then obviously those verses could not, in principle, be teaching Sola Scriptura, and thus we cannot interpret them as teaching it either. (“Does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?” in Robert A. Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [2d ed: Catholic Apologetics International: 2009], pp. 101-53, here p. 118 n. 24]
Appendix: Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies
Often, one will hear the claim that Joseph Smith made false prophecies, and, in light of Deut 18:18-20, fails the test of a prophet. Furthermore, one will hear the claim that Joseph Smith never made any significant prophecies. Both these claims are false and based on (1) very poor exegetical skills and (2) equally poor research skills. Here is a listing of
Resources on Allegedly False Prophecies
Stephen O. Smoot, “Joel Kramer vs. the Bible and Joseph Smith” (a review of Joseph Smith vs. the Bible which I helped research)
John A. Tvedtnes, “The Nature of Prophecies and Prophecy”
Idem. “A Reply to Dick Baer” (challenges a list of 52 purportedly false prophecies of Joseph Smith)
The FairMormon Wiki page, “Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies”
Kevin Christensen, "Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets"
Richard L. Pratt (non-LDS [Presbyterian] scholar), "Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions"
Resources on Fulfilled Prophecies of Joseph Smith
The above resources do offer a number of fulfilled prophecies of Joseph Smith, but for articles and books with a focus on providing such, I would recommend the following:
Articles:
Jeff Lindsay, “Fulfilled Prophecies of Joseph Smith”
Gilbert Scharffs, “Samples of Prophecies of Joseph Smith that have been fulfilled” (this is appendix C of The Truth about the Godmakers)
Kerry A. Shirts, "A War on the Civil War Prophecy"
Books:
Pat Ament, Joseph Smith’s Prophetic Gifts
Duane Crowther, The Prophecies of Joseph Smith
Daniel C. Peterson, The Last Days (2 vol.) (doesn't deal exclusively with Joseph Smith's prophetic utterances, but is still a good resource)
Another important article would be George Cobabe's debunking of the "White Horse Prophecy"