Jesus coming to fulfill to prophets simply means that He is the embodiment of what the prophets were pointing to. He fulfills the prophets and the prophecies they uttered. The rest here is a not so clever wordsmithing by Vallotton. Is there a difference between a prophet and the prophecy he speaks? Of course not. What Kris is trying to do is move away from the Old Testament rules regarding how to evaluate prophets. While it is true that stoning to death a false prophet in the Old Testament was judging the prophet, you must realize that it specifically was about the prophecy they spoke. Kris is trying desperately to separate out what was spoken from the man who spoke it and he fails miserably. If you had a friend who always lied to you, would you only judge the lies? At some point wouldn't you judge the friend as at least being untrustworthy? Vallotton's opening gambit here is weak and transparent. The truth is there is no difference between prophets in the Old and New Testaments. Not one verse can be pointed to in order to prove anything has changed and why should it? If you presume to speak on behalf of the creator of the universe you better be right.
"The prophets were proclaimed until John...then the Kingdom was preached. (Luke 16:16). What happens when you move an Old Testament prophet to the New Testament? The result is the prophet moves from judging nations to reconciling families." - Kris Vallotton
Huh? This brief snippet is a common ploy by Vallotton. He starts with something that is correct, albeit completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The coming of Christ did move us from the law and prophets to the Gospel. That is the point of what is said in Luke. He uses the truism to reel you in and have you drop your guard before making a pious sound statement that has no foundation in scripture. The New Testament prophet moves from judging nations to reconciling families? Where on earth do you see that in the bible? Nowhere! Let me make it real simple beloved. A prophet says they have HEARD from God. This is true in the Old and New Testaments. The way we judge them is whether the word they have spoken is true, period. If it is not, we know God does not lie leaving the lying in the mouth of the false prophet. The bible says at that point we mark them as false and avoid them.
"Getting a word wrong does not make you a false prophet. Agabus prophesied that the Jews would bind Paul and hand him over to the Gentiles (Acts 21:10). But what actually happened was that Paul was bound by the Gentiles and handed over to the Jews." - Kris Vallotton
Poor Agabus. The bible clearly declares Agabus to be a prophet so there is no disagreement there. The problem is that all of the false prophets today desperately need Agabus to be found false for his prophecy in Acts 21 because that may imply a different standard for the New Testament prophet; that it is ok for them to be wrong. Let me explain why that is absurd:
1. The bible does not work that way. If God were making a major change in how we were to treat false prophecy He would not leave it for Kris Vallotton to piece together by examining the Agabus scriptures. Not alone anyway. There would be supporting, directive scriptures. God is not the author of confusion.
2. There is no indication from any of the particulars involved that they considered this to be a false prophecy from Agabus. Luke's writing seems clear that this was mentioned specifically because it did come true. Where you might ask?
3. Verse 27, the key verse for today. Only 17 verses after the prophecy do we see it come to fruition. The Jews stirred up the Gentiles but it was the Jews that laid hands on him first. Just because it later states that the Romans bound him in chains that does not mean that he could not have been bound earlier.
4. In Acts 28:16-17 we see Paul admit that he was delivered over to the Romans by the Jews. Moreover, the language Paul uses in 28 mirrors the language Agabus used in 21.