The Risk of Tolerating False Prophets in the Church - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------------

Ms. Prata once again engages in sloppy, error-filled Bible exposition. She has a preconception about false prophets and women teachers, and wants to force this template upon her topic. In this case, it's the issue the church in Thyatira had with Jezebel. Ms. Prata's agenda is forced upon the text.  

Let's explain. The seven letters in Revelation were written in very specific contexts using imagery and language that is particular to the church being addressed. Some theologians have theorized that these letters represent seven evolutions of the Church over the course of history, but we don't think so. The details of each letter are very specific and are at odds with such a theory.

For example, the letter to Thyatira is the only letter that calls out a person by name for sin. But Jesus was not judging Jezebel so much as He was correcting the Thyatirian church for tolerating her false teaching and immorality. All that Jesus required was that she repent (2:21), but she didn't. And for those who committed adultery with her (or figuratively, deviated from the faith by following her strange teaching), they also were given a way out by repenting.

Then Jesus addressed those who rejected Jezebel's false teaching (which involved secret meanings and esoteric knowledge [2:24]). They were commanded to persevere, and if they do they will be given authority (2:26) and the morning star (2:28).

So this was not a false church, it was a church that tolerated false teaching. It only needed to repent to be restored to a great promise. Ms. Prata wants it to be about false prophecy and women in leadership, but it's not. She wants it to be about doctrine, but it's not. 

She wants it to be about a church that ends up condemned, so that she can extend it to present day churches she regards as condemned.

Lastly, Ms. Prata manages to quote only a couple of snippets from the subject passage, plus another unrelated verse at the end. 

We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

Here's the passage:

Re. 2:18-29 To the angel of the church in Thyatira write: These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze. 19 I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first.

20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling.

22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. 

24 Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan’s so-called deep secrets (I will not impose any other burden on you): 25 Only hold on to what you have until I come.

26 To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations — 27 `He will rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash them to pieces like pottery’ — [Psalm 2:9] just as I have received authority from my Father. 28 I will also give him the morning star. 29 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

---------------------

1 Timothy: Women Preaching as Pastor or as a Guest Violates Scripture, even with “Permission” - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------------

Ms. Prata, like so many Bible teachers who consider this topic, imposes upon Scripture things that are not there. The Scripture in question is 1 Timothy 2:11-12, which Ms. Prata does actually quote: 

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

Ordinarily those who approach this Scripture do so by forcing it into the context of a church service. They do this by thinking the epistle is "pastoral," that is, instructions on how to pastor a church. This is false, because Timothy wasn't pastor of this church, he was a troubleshooter sent by Paul. Otherwise Paul would not tell him that the elders direct the affairs of the church (1Ti. 5:17). 

Why is this important? Well, if this is not a "pastoral" epistle, then the instructions given by Paul are not telling Timothy how to run the church. But if Ms. Prata can place all of the epistle into the church service, it allows her to assert that Paul was forbidding women to preach in church. 

Because Timothy wasn't a pastor, then Paul was not telling him about how to prevent women from preaching in a church service. In fact, in 1 Timothy chapter 2 there is no hint in this passage that Paul was dealing with church structure at all. He doesn't breach the topic of leadership until the next chapter. It is actually quite clear that Paul was not dealing with a church service, first because he refers to "a woman," and "a man," not "women" and "men;" and second because his justification for this submission is Adam and Eve (vs. 13), which is a marriage relationship, not a church service. 

Because of the mistaken idea that this is about a church service, Ms. Prata extends the error by raising the issue of pastoral authority, i.e. the pastor as the leader cannot give permission to do an unbiblical thing like allowing women to preach. Since we believe that Paul was not talking about women preaching in church, this point of course is moot. 

But arising from the issue of church authority is the false idea that teaching IS exercising authority. Ms. Prata writes:

"[Scripture] denies a woman the ecclesiastical authority to teach men or be an authority in the church. (1 Timothy 2:12.)"

The only way one could arrive at such a conclusion is to inflate the role of pastor to the singular leader of the local church. And because the pastor preaches, this is exercising authority because the pastor is the boss. Thus a woman preaching is exercising authority. Thus women can't preach.

So the error compounds. 

Let's solve the problem. 

• Paul wasn't talking about what happens in a church service, he was telling us about what a woman cannot do to her husband. Thus Adam and Eve. 
• Pastors, biblically speaking, do not lead churches, elders do:

1Pe. 5:1-2 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow-elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers...

• Preaching, therefore, is not an exercise of authority.

The Judgment Seat of Christ: A Life-Altering Allegory - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------------

Ms. Prata assembles a fanciful story about encountering Jesus at the judgment seat. It is in no way biblical. That she would do so is a bit surprising considering how as a cessationist she opposes extra-biblical information.

Further, Ms. Prata sort of quotes Scripture but does not reference it. She appropriates these Scriptures to insert into her story, but the story is false.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

-----------------------

Reader Q&A: Can Wolves in Christianity Truly Be Saved? (Part 2) - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

Ms. Prata asks a question she doesn't actually answer. She also confuses false teachers with generally evil men in the congregation. 

This is a confused, unfocused presentation. Especially since she completely ignores certain relevant verses, like:

He. 6:4-6 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

Lastly, we should note that sometimes the issue is not with false teachers per se, but rather teachers Ms. Prata disagrees with. And when there is a fallen teacher with whom she agrees, like David Platt, she dances around the problem by simply claiming he appeared to teach sound doctrine.

She badly wants the answer to be "no," that false teachers cannot be saved, that they are incapable of repenting, but ultimately she has no verse that tells us this. And that may be the bottom line here. People like Ms. Prata presume that excellent doctrine is the same thing as godliness. So a someone who teaches correct doctrine cannot be a secret sinner and cannot fall.

This is obviously false.

----------------------------

Why ‘God Told Me’ Isn’t Biblical - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------

Over 1200 words, yet Ms. Prata cannot bring herself to explain why (from the Bible) contemporary prophecy is unbiblical. 

So that the reader would understand, Mr. Prata, like a lot of cessationists, falsely believes that everything God says must be included in the Bible. The Bible doesn't tell us this, but that's what she believes. 

Towards the end of her article she writes,

The canon is closed. 

We certainly agree. But what does the closed canon have to do with contemporary prophecy? She continues:

God’s new revelation ended with Revelation 22. 

"New revelation" for her means anything God says after the closed canon, all of which must be put in the Bible. However, there is no biblical standard that requires this. Next:

I’m not saying God CAN’T speak now, of course He can. It’s just that He closed the Bible with a warning not to add to the book nor take away from it. 

Again we find her premise that God speaking is synonymous with adding words to the Bible. And finally:

He said that at the present time, He would not be speaking. 

Thus her unbiblical conclusion based on a false premise. 

The Bible tells us that God is still speaking today: 

He. 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

We have written detailed explanations about contemporary prophecy and the closed canon, here and here.

--------------------

Walsch, Young, and Beth Moore: ungodly channelers producing ungodly books. Part 1- Neale Donald Walsch and his alleged ‘conversations with God’ - By Elizabeth Prata

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.
*******************

We have no intention of defending Mr. Walsch, we are here to examine Ms. Prata's incoherent and largely Scriptureless presentation.

------------------

Is God speaking to you? Part 2 - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------------

Ms. Prata makes another attempt to explain why God doesn't speak to Christians, and it's really just a regurgitation of cessationist talking points, done on a rather superficial level. 

Her chief verse for God's silence is

All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

She makes some other claims as well, which we will examine as they come up.

------------------------

Are there Modern Apostles? - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

We have seen these sorts of claims regarding apostolic qualifications before. We are continually surprised when they resurface, because they are so inadequately documented. Don't people like Ms. Prata read their Bibles? It seems not.

Ms. Prata is telling us about some very specific doctrinal claims. Our reasonable requirement is that the proof texts must specifically document those claims. 

In order to document these claims, the proof texts must

1. Speak to the actual claim (i.e., do the proof texts properly address the subject matter of the claim)

2. Indicate an exclusivity (That is, does the text demonstrate that only the apostles are being discussed)

3. If there are others who qualified under the three criteria, are they also called apostles?

4. Are there others called apostles where these qualifications are not described?

She makes three claims about apostolic qualifications:

1. 1st person eye-witness of Jesus Christ 

2. Directly appointed by Christ

3. Ability to work miracles (signs) of the apostles

Let's see how Ms. Prata deals with our qualifications.

-----------------

The word of God is living - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------

Ms. Prata is operating under a misunderstanding, that the word is the Bible. It isn't. The word is the things God speaks, not what is written down.

"Word" is logos, a word, being the expression of a thought; a saying. 3056 /lógos ("word") is preeminently used of Christ (Jn 1:1), expressing the thoughts of the Father through the Spirit. 

This is certainly not the Bible. The Greek word used to describe the Bible would be graphḗ – properly, writing. 1124 (graphḗ) is used 51 times in the NT – always of holy Scripture, i.e. the inspired, inerrant writings of the Bible (the 66 books of Scripture, 39 in Hebrew, 27 in Greek.

While this may be picking nits, such a misunderstanding can lead to errant doctrines. In Ms. Prata's case this misunderstanding contributes to her false belief that God has ceased speaking to Christians.

Lastly, we note Ms. Prata is willing to quote the subject Scripture, but only one of her several proof Scriptures. We will see why.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

------------------------------

Jesus drank the waters of fury - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------

Ms. Prata is back in our blog, and her teaching is no more auspicious than it has been. She represents herself as a Bible teacher, but somehow does not manage to quote a single Scripture. Thus what she writes is simply undocumented opinion.

Today she tackles the cup metaphorical cup from which Jesus drank. She writes, 

...He drank the waters of God's wrath on the cross, absorbing God's fury fully...

Ms. Prata probably derives her belief based on this unquoted Scripture:

Mt. 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

Let's be direct. Jesus did not drink God's wrath, because the Father did not punish Him. The Bible simply does not tell us what Ms. Prata thinks it does. Check it yourself, dear reader. 

We discuss this false idea that the Father poured out His wrath on Jesus here. 

It is only because of the belief that the Father punished Jesus for our sin that this verse is interpreted to mean that this was the cup of the Father's wrath. But there are several problems with the assertion:

• As mentioned, The Father did not punish Jesus. We discuss this in detail here.

• The verse does not mention wrath, so it is assumed. In fact, there is no verse in the Bible that indicates that the cup Jesus drank from was God's wrath or that He experienced the Father's wrath.

• The testimony of another Scripture about drinking from the cup. Previously in Matthew we read this:

Mt. 20:21-23 “What is it you want?” he asked. She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.” 22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?” “We can,” they answered. 23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”

If the cup Jesus drank from was God's wrath then these two disciples (James and John) also drank from it. This of course is false.

 

The cup from which Jesus drank was the destiny set before Him, a way of pain, persecution, torture, and death, but ultimately resulting in glory. This destiny was indeed shared by James and John, as well as the other apostles and early believers. 

• The cup of God's wrath was always symbolically drank by God's enemies in judgment against them. For example:

Je. 25:15 This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, said to me: “Take from my hand this cup filled with the wine of my wrath and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. 16 When they drink it, they will stagger and go mad because of the sword I will send among them.”

Is. 51:17 Awake, awake! Rise up, O Jerusalem, you who have drunk from the hand of the LORD the cup of his wrath, you who have drained to its dregs the goblet that makes men stagger.

If we adopt a simpler and dare we say more biblical approach a lot of complicated explanations are no longer needed. The Father did not punish Jesus for our sin. He did not need to punish Him because the blood is sufficient to forgave our sin/ The blood was all that was needed. 

If we truly believe the blood was enough we do not need to add to it the punishment of Jesus or the Father's wrath being poured out on Jesus. Neither of these needed or biblical. 

----------------------

Wolf Week # 3: Types of false teachers and their different methods - By Elizabeth Prata

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

Ms. Prata appears in our blog from time to time with her sometimes errant teaching and mistaken beliefs. We have no desire to dishonor her, but she represents herself as a guardian of doctrine and a teacher of Christian women. Her teaching therefore ought to be scrutinized.

A favorite topic of the Doctrinal Police is wolves in the church. She has been writing a series on this topic, but this article contained the below off-topic quote. This sort of thing is exactly why we scrutinize her writing.

-----------------

Teen girl speaking at a conference? - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------------

Ms. Prata has returned to our blog, and provides some more parsing of this verse: 

But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (1 Timothy 2:12).

This is a verse that has been subject to much abuse, and Ms. Prata adds to this. She writes about a teen girl giving a talk in church, adding to the list of sub-doctrines and rules:

Since the prohibition in scripture is against women speaking during church to a congregation (and by extension in parachurch ministries/conferences) teaching men or usurping their authority by exegeting scripture, I think the teen’s talk is fine.

Ms. Prata continues on, offering even more rules:

...it’s fairly clear that sharing thoughts or testimonies to an audience is fine.

A woman sharing knowledge, testimony, or expertise when not under ecclesiastical authority is fine. Or at church but not during the Sunday services, say, during a Saturday conference where the church becomes a venue. 

...A woman or teen standing in the place where scripture is exegeted during church services, even if she’s just giving announcements, is part of that slippery slope. 

Dear reader, take another look at 1 Timothy 2:12. Does the reader see any of these commands, provisos, or prohibitions in this short verse? No? Then how does Ms. Prata arrive at her endless list of rules?

Well, it's convoluted series of assumptions and false premises:

• Paul's letters to Timothy are deemed to be "pastoral." But Timothy wasn't a pastor.

• A "pastoral" letter therefore consists of instruction on how to be a pastor. But actually, this is a personal letter to Timothy containing a variety of advice, instruction, and doctrinal teaching

• Since the letter is presumed to be about how to be a pastor, it is presumed 1 Timothy 2:12 must be about Sunday morning church order. But Paul doesn't talk about church order until chapter 3. Chapter 2 is in fact general instructions about Christian conduct.

• If 1 Timothy 2:12 is about Sunday morning church order, then "woman" and "man" need to be changed to "women" and "men" in order to force 1 Timothy 2:12 into the congregational setting.

• Then, since most contemporary pastors are teachers and pastors are the boss, that makes teaching into an authority role. However, the biblical authority in the local church is not the pastor or teacher, but rather the elders (1 Timothy 5:17, 1 Peter 5:1-2)

Ms. Prata must squeeze 1 Timothy 2:12 through this gauntlet of assumptions in order to derive all these little doctrines and prohibitions.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

--------------------------------------

Sad Pastor vs. Joyful Pastor - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

Ms. Prata quotes a social media post written by discouraged pastor and another pastor's response. She then has some closing remarks. 

But none of what is written below is biblical. This is a textbook example of why pastors fail, stumble, get divorced, have affairs, or just give up. These pastors are doing a laundry list of duties that has nothing to do with being a true pastor.

A biblical pastor has no other duty than to care for the flock. He isn't the singular CEO leader, he isn't the administrator, he not the teacher, he doesn't shovel snow off the sidewalks. 

He cares for the flock.

The Bible teaches that local churches are run by a plurality of elders:

1Pe. 5:1-2 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow-elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers — not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve...

Peter was exhorting this group of elders to be the pastors and overseers. In other words, these elders needed to step up and care for the flock and take care of the business of the church. 

The elders function in these roles. The elders do the pastoring. Pastors do not preside over the elders, the elders pastor.

----------------

They’re not even hiding it anymore: Beth Moore, preaching, and how to get women into the pulpit. Bonus: Moore’s teaching on 1 Tim 2:12 - By Elizabeth Prata

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

Unfortunately, Ms. Prata is back in our pages. Her confidence in her doctrine is matched only by her arrogance towards those who disagree. 

She has withering criticism for those who would question her understanding of the Bible. Mostly, this criticism consists of summary contradiction. This, coupled with a careless reading of her theological enemies' positions, brings us to the unfortunate conclusion that this is Bad Bible Teaching.

This presentation has a confusing format. Oddly, the outline is actually at the end. There are four points in the actual presentation (number 2 is not numbered, and number 5 doesn't seem to be discussed, since it is not identified with a heading). We omitted all of the article that occurs before the actual points.

We should also state for the record that we are no fan of Beth Moore. We are here to examine Ms. Prata's presentation.

------------------------

Is there a scriptural basis for discernment? Part 2 - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

Ms. Prata is back in our pages and is still unable to understand the issues surrounding discernment. Discernment is a spiritual gift, which means the Holy Spirit gives it for a spiritual purpose. She rejects this, substituting refined doctrine and study instead. While having good doctrine and studying Scripture is necessary these are not the spiritual gift of discernment.

The title of Ms. Prata's article tells us she wants to teach us about the Bible, but amazingly, she only manages to quote two Scriptures, neither of which are about discernment.

----------------

Little known bible characters 3 - Trophimus - by Elizabeth Prata

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

We have not had occasion to comment on Ms. Prata for some time, something that gladdens our hearts. This could only mean that she has maintained a degree of sensibility. 

Up until now.

This excerpt is an aside she inserted into her article, unrelated to the topic she was writing about. But because the desire to refute charismatics is always present, she take a tangent to make sure we know she doesn't believe in the gift of healing.

Ms. Prata asks a legitimate question, why Paul didn't heal Trophimus, but she didn't ask it to gain information. Cessationists like Ms. Prata don't like the idea that the Holy Spirit would move supernaturally in our contemporary churches. So they create doctrines out of thin air based on speculation about what the Bible doesn't say.

Women leading the early church? - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

Ms. Prata recycles her belief yet again about women not teaching/leading. However, in this article she is particularly superficial and at times spectacularly wrong. In addition, she barely manages to quote the Bible. How is it possible to be a Bible teacher and hardly quote it?

We certainly have our own opinions about the subject, but our intent is to examine Ms. Prata's presentation and expose its many flaws.

-----------------

Jesus is our Judge - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

There is a prevalent idea, echoed by Ms. Prata, that Jesus engaged in a legal transaction to pay our debt of sin. That is, Jesus' death was offered as the legal remedy for the charges against us as sinners.  There is a presumption which forms the fundamental premise, that Jesus' brought us salvation through a legal transaction. Thus the act of redemption legally makes believers not guilty. But no documentation is ever supplied for this idea, other than presumption. 

So, where in the Bible does it say that legal charges are brought against us as sinners for breaking the law, for which Jesus intervened in an act that allowed the Father to pronounce us "not guilty?" It doesn't. 

This idea of a legal process we think descends from Calvin, who trained to be a lawyer. It did not exist before Calvin. 

"Not guilty" is a legal determination of western law, that not enough evidence has been presented to convict:

...the prosecution has not proved the defendant guilty of crime.

We need to remember that our idea of legal process is not the same as ancient Israel. So it is wrong to impose a western cultural understanding on a uniquely Hebrew concept.

In the Bible, the sinner does not experience a trial, no evidence is presented, and there is no presumption of innocence or right to confront one's accuser. Rather, our prior lost status is described as condemnation:

Ro. 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Jn. 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already...

That condemnation is is not a legal determination, it is a divine declaration. Condemnation is the default state of the unsaved. That's where every human starts. Everyone who has ever lived or is living now on the planet began as condemned. They are condemned already. We discuss this further here. We discuss the idea that Jesus substituted His death for ours here.

This means that rather than "not guilty," when we are saved we are declared to be justified:

Ro. 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ...

"Justified" is

dikaioó, to judge, declare, pronounce, righteous and therefore acceptable...

Thus God pronounces the saved person as righteous. It is a declaration from the mouth of God, not a legal process of considering evidence. It is not a legal process, it is a sacrificial process. We discuss this further here.

We will find that Ms. Prata presumes her premise and from that makes a plethora of errors.

-----------------------

I saw a Cardinal. Did I Just Receive a Sign from God? - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------

Ms. Prata represents herself as a Bible teacher and a guardian of doctrine. She has often appeared in our blog because of her careless and errant Bible exposition. So once again we take note of an incorrect explanation.

Is God giving direct revelation? - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------

Ms. Prata is a familiar character on our blog. She represents herself as a teacher of women and a guardian of correct doctrine. However, too often her presentations are flawed, scriptureless, and superficial. Indeed, today's article contains only a single Bible quote. We are mystified at how these so-called Bible teachers can teach the Bible while barely quoting the Bible.

----------------------

We've seen this John Owen quote several times before, and are amazed that anyone thinks it's clever:

There are no such things as "private revelations." One will not find this concept in the Bible. And it's a false choice, and a choice not found in the Bible. What we're really talking about is prophecy. And prophecy is detailed by Paul in 1Co.14 for all to read. If Paul's instruction regarding prophecy is no longer relevant, Ms. Prata would need to explain why.

She won't do that, unfortunately. 

But more to the point, we are thankful indeed that no prophet who wrote down revelation held himself to the John Owen criteria. Isaiah had the Scriptures, and still wrote his prophecies. Same with Joel and Jeremiah and all the OT prophets. 

And Paul in the NT. He had the Scriptures as well, but still wrote what became a large portion of the NT. And James. John. Peter. They all wrote revelation, despite the fact that they had the Scriptures.

And everything these men wrote agreed with previous revelation. So were these writings needless, or were they false? Ms. Prata will need to tell us.