Why born or made?

Scripture and tradition would seem (IMO) to say it is a both/and.

I am not a big believer in fate.  I think we may be born with a set of skills but that as we grow those who nurture us choose how (or if) to nurutre them and that we choose how (or if) to use them.

But John, before they are called..........

Is the gift just there waiting to be awakened (as it would be in being born) or is the gift created in the act of being called?

Hi GordW,

Fair enough.

I opt for the both/and.

The ability is there by nature.  It refined by nurture and comes into being with the call.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Yes in the terms of the context and the times..... to use formally educated has to be understood in the biblical context - even Amos makes a claim of coming from another school of prophets than the normal one.    The NT  'formal education' is hanging with Jesus and then the apostles or Paul - it was to be open within a community to the Spirit - no individual calling as we now understand. Yes it was not formal in the sense we use the word to control who has authority - the Spirit was given to the individual through a trajectory of some community.

It isn't actually clear in the Scripture texts that the OT Prophets had large followings or not....

Certainly it appears that at times the prophets gave people no choice but to pay attention

More modern prophets like Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard and David Koresh are widely regarded as con men outside of their groups of followers.  Lots of self-described prophets exhibit symptoms that are rather indistinguishable from mental illnesses.  Some have been diagnosed with mental illnesses.  I don't see a whole lot of differences between the claims of the ancient prophets, and the claims of the more modern variety.  They typically claim to possess some knowledge or information from one or more supernatural being(s).

Now, I can believe it used to be easier to gain the trust of people in the past, but there have been thousands and thousands of "prophets".  I think the better question is, why did the stories from a few prophets endure, while others died out?

I am aware of a king who wanted counsel prior to making a decision. The king called his prophets to speak concerning the matter. They came to a general consensus and gave blessing to the proposed undertaking of the king.

For some reason the king wonders about any contrary opinion. One more prophet is discovered and summoned. That prophet spells out doom for the enterprise and its architect. Gets thrown in jail for speaking his point of view contrary to consensus.

Here is a question commonly put to one called to prophetic presence: "Who do you make yourself out to be?"

chansen if had done some contextual studies you would have learned that the OT prophets did not fortell the future but spoke to the issues of their time.  They used the theological understandings of the tradition to call the people back to the covenant.  There is a history of how to be a people that God works through to bring hospitiality and justice to the world.  When this is forgotten prophets arise.

Cross culturally at the same time there were a group called the cynic whose vocation was to question the way things were and to call the people to a more humane life style.

Of course the OT prophets were mystics.  It is incorrect to say or apply our term supernatural to them.  They experienced God in daily life and in history and in how people acted.  They experienced a transcendent reality ( to use our terms) in the daily life.

Now I know you resist any sense of a more to life -  however here is a quote from another atheist ""Every sane person recognizes at some level that dance, music, poetry, and ritualo may be just what you need as you prepare for a battle, or desolation, grief, failure, or death."   The pragmatic and realistic view of life suggest we are more than atoms crashing into one anotherr, there is a more to our experience. This is what the mystics point to and what good religion and art and love point to.  Some people are the poets and artists of this and the prophets fall into that reality.

Prophets, Poets, and Painters. All three have to die to be recognised.

Witch again yes and no - just read some poet who is still alive and he is well recognized... and ch yes and no - ot prophets knew as did Jesus.

Oscar Romero was a prophet.

David Suzuki is a prophet.

During my first internship I appeared as the prophet Amos one Sunday morning. This was preceded by two study sessions on Amos and his time. It was followed by two study sessions reflecting on implications in our experience. Here, I hope, is an audio link to the Amos presentation:

 http://sermonplayer.com/download.php?c=2471-count_audio_download-17052&play=1

Prohets do not predict the future - they warn.

In both testaments the prophet warns about how the turning from God could lead to problems - but it is a warning so people could turn around..... even today there are those who look at what we are doing and are able to give a probablity of this outcome if one does not ( or society does not) change.

We can do that to ourselves as well for others.

Jesus was reminding the people God is always here and the Spirit of God is in the now.   Then the church ( and read back into this passage) the theology of the trinity.

A prophet is one who speaks truth, often from a spiritual source. Predictions could be part of it, but more often they are predictions of what calamity will befall the people if they do not heed the prophet's call or what bounty lies ahead if the do/because they have. In other words, they do not so much foretell the future (that would be a soothsayer or fortune-teller) as tell us what is true and call on us to follow that truth and tell us what the consequences will be if we do or do not. Muhammad is a good example. He may have made some predictions (I forget, maybe Omni call help), but the primary focus of his prophecy is revealing Allah's will for humanity and how to follow that will.

Mendalla

This is an good question. I am going to address it on the secular side, by considering Socrates as a prophetic personality. Here I am taking the word prophet to signify one who states the truth as that truth has been apprehended in experience; veracity. Socrates demonstrates the distortions of Athenian democracy initiated and endorsed by the prevailing practice of politics. He does all in his rhetorical power to persuade others to turn from pandering and indulgence to ethics and responsibility.

Plato's "Gorgias" shows us Socrates in conversation with Callicles. Callicles ridicules Socrates as a childish person who has no understanding of politics. Because of this Socrates could not defend himself against even a slight legal charge. He would be a victim because of his persistence in philosophy.

The quarrel is about philosophy, as a way of life leading to the enjoyment of life as life itself, and politics, as a means for the obtaining, exercising and enjoying of power. The evidence of power being given in the ability to order outcomes and take spoil.

Perhaps Callicles had it right. Socrates is found guilty of subverting Athenian youth by his teaching and demeanour. For his crime he is executed; silenced.

Then again, who in the modern world knows about Callicles? This while Socrates continues to exert a persuasive influence by inscrutable ways and means in particular persons distributed through the general population.

It steam engines when it's steam engine time

Here is what the tradition claims:

There are large problems with assuming prophets arise out of schools, by which they are affirmed and authorized. Amos, in the narrative snippet above, stands face to face with Amaziah. These represent differing perspectives.

Amaziah represents institutional theology of the day. That theology rationalizes and blesses status quo. Priests and prophets of this theology pronounced invocations at the installation of officers, the inauguration of orders, and the establishment of institutions.

The text narrates the distancing posture assumed by Amos. The tradition tells us that Amos is not to be considered as someone authorized by any institutional norm or standard. Paul picks this tradition up in his opening words to the Galatians: "For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation..."

I am still surprised that the consensus takes suspicion concerning professional ministry as counter-indicated; amounting to a betrayal of the guild. Many here have graduated some seminary or other. Most are astute readers of diverse traditions. Each of us knows about the perennial and pernicious corruption of institutions by the degradation of personal and corporate integrity.

The tradition is clearly self-aware concerning this. We see it in the relationship of the priest Eli and his sons; a defunct institution of religion become self-serving and avaricious. The strongest and most sustained indictment of the phenomenon is found in Ezekiel's diatribe concerning the shepherds (link to text). We notice that this text is expressed in the word and deed of Jesus, a layman; raising the ire of institutional priests and prophets of the day.

The phenomenon is not limited to the ancient world. Did we not study Wesley and the religious institution of his day? Does Jane Austin not make the point with alacrity and wit? Priests and prophets serving the interest of principalities and powers fare well in the social economy. This at the high cost of integrity compromised and opportunity lost.

 I wonder what word was pronounced from pulpits on the thirteenth Sunday following Pentecost? 

Did any one or more of you hear something intriguing or challenging?

Indeed!

(I wonder what revjohn might add to or take away from the suggestion of predestination to prophecy?)

I take it that God is the shaper of my days. Going forward along this way, I notice that my word and deed have their origins in God. They serve purposes known to God, even though, for the most part, unknown to me.

I speak in the first person. The word of the lord came to me, at a specific time and a specific place, under a particular set of circumstances.

I am very little interested in talk about prophets. I am much interested in making manifest in maturity that gift sown in me by divine appointment.

At sixty, I have some small confidence emerging. What was thought and speech in its earliest appearance is now existential. The word has taken root and the branch is showing signs of fruit.

In another Forum, United Online, I have posted for several years. A boiling down of all those posts would leave a fairly straightforward thesis. We are in a time of peril that calls for a reconsideration of status quo.

This involves dedicated critical inquiry guided by deep personal and corporate prayer. Heart, mind, soul and strength dedicated to the obtaining one goal - the prize of the high calling in Christ.  A radical turning away from the traditions of political hedonism to make manifest the social economies of God in human experience; an alternative consciousness made manifest as witness and testimony.

All run, but not all obtain.

As we adopt new forms to express new convictions and concerns, old forms of communication slip into memory. This presents prevailing powers and principalities an indication of the future. That indication will make plain an approaching final failure in the economic realm. Deep and radical alienation will generate a steep slide into social chaos and a consequent rise of police power to serve the interests of control.

Just realizing that prophets are not only called. They are also sent - particular persons, to particular persons in particular circumstances. 

I agree.

I am wondering: why limited and, limited by whom, or what?

My point is similar to yours George - it is a rejection of the institutionalized traditions.  Many scholars ( John Bowker for one) says this does not deny he was from a school but a new school had emerged to  resist the status quo.