POLEMICS: PUBLIC OR PRIVATE (PART 11)
LESSONS FROM PROPHET MICAIAH
Another thing we can learn from Micaiah is how focused he was. He was not distracted; not by two kings, political power and agenda, 400 prophets and their prophecies, or even a slap in the face. We can learn what the goals of Micaiah were from his statements in the passage under study (1 Kings 22).
I. SAY WHAT GOD SAYS
First of all, he aimed to speak what God shows or tells him. There was no hidden agenda to set. He was not interested in the faces or the names and what they expected of him. God was his Master. God had the real message. He was just a messenger. God cooked the meal. He would only serve it. Prophet Micaiah said, I will say what God says to me. That was the focus.
‘And Micaiah said, “As the Lord lives, whatever the Lord says to me, that I will speak.”’ (1 Kings 22:14 NKJV)
You see, preachers are not really supposed to say anything else. The Bible tasks us all to endeavor to speak as oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11). Sermons must be God’s messages served and explained to His people. Micaiah had no better, lovelier, sweeter, friendlier message than what God gave him. We can also have no better doctrine than what God has given us in the Bible. We preach the Word of God, not what anyone wants or does not want. We preach what God has said. Our focus must be to preach what the Bible says. The Bible is the word of God, God-breathed, our ultimate doctrinal and training manual.
“All Scripture is God-breathed [given by divine inspiration] and is profitable for instruction, for conviction [of sin], for correction [of error and restoration to obedience], for training in righteousness [learning to live in conformity to God’s will, both publicly and privately—behaving honorably with personal integrity and moral courage]; so that the man of God may be complete and proficient, outfitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, AMP)
Now, why do we allow Prophet Micaiah’s controversial vision but won’t allow a vision that says parts of the Bible are false? That is a good question. I pray I give a good answer.
For example, Micaiah could not have been right to condemn or correct the Torah. The God of Israel was not now introducing Himself. He had done that through Moses (convincingly so!) and stipulated some core information about Himself and how to relate with Him. So despite the prophetic gift of continuous hearing from God, they could not change the Ten Commandments for instance, unless they were false prophets.
Similarly, no prophet today and no person by any title can strike out the Bible’s revelations of God on the basis of a fresh revelation unless they are creating a separate and false religion. To state more simply, no one can cancel what God revealed to and through Apostle Paul unless he is prescribing a religion other than Paul’s. If and since God spoke through Apostle Paul to His Church, what He is telling any other person today will not contradict what He told Apostle Paul. Any such contradiction raises suspicion because God is not an author of confusion. He is the Spirit of truth, and truth must be consistent. More than being suspicious therefore, claims that oppose God’s word are evidently false. They are plain falsehoods rather than merely suspicious assertions. We must not mince words.
This is one reason why, even though we are learning from Prophet Micaiah’s communication of his visions, we are throwing away Suleman’s vision. His vision opposes the Bible. And no vision can correct the Bible.
In conclusion, the polemist’s duty (like all preachers) is to uphold God’s word. It is to say what He has said, to set the record straight from the pages of Scripture. This is the focus s/he maintains (or should maintain). All else is casualty, side effects. They have not come for your Papa’s head. He was in the way of truth.
With love,
PDS.
[PS: For those who are uncomfortable with name-calling or calling this particular name, please endure. The problem goes beyond Suleman. So we may be dropping off his name gradually to address the issues as general problems. But since his meat is on the chopping board, let’s condemn any attack on the Bible, using his words as an example. This is for the advancement of truth.]