Spiritual Freedom, Part V

I am not saying the idea of freedom is wrong. Please do not misunderstand. What I am saying is the freedom is only right when there is a knowable absolute truth. That is when we can have true freedom. 

And God is a God of clarity and freedom, not of chaos and confusion. 

So, where do we go from here? I tell you my idea of absolute truth and you tell me yours. I say that you misinterpret scripture and you rejoin with "the scripture doesn't need interpretation, it is simple and obvious to those with the Holy Spirit." And then you walk away believing I am deceived for clearly Calvin or Luther or Joseph Smith or Ellen White or you alone were given the infallible understanding of scripture and I walk away thinking you are deceived. 

This is the perpetual ending to these discussions.  

And yet, stirring in all of us who call ourselves Christian, we hear a distant calling to our souls. We hear the heavenly song of unity and truth and beauty somewhere, we just can't precisely place it, somewhere out there soft and full of hope. Its song competes with the blaring sirens and commercials and carnival barkers until it is almost completely obliterated.

For a moment think about this, suspend all defensive responses for a moment and let this glorious thought cascade over you like rainfall to a parched desert. 

What if God gave us a route to knowing absolute truth, but it wasn't through a direct line of the Bible, the Holy Spirit and me. (Which has made a true mess of Truth.) What if He gave us a Church that has survived the centuries of personal interpretation and human corruption. 

What if the Truth was entrusted to a tattered and torn, battle weary Body encrusted with grime from two thousand years of spiritual war with the Devil? What if there is absolute truth, a knowable absolute truth given not to a woman of polished steel with arm held high upholding a flame of liberty, but an old woman whom the Devil has so caked in blood and sweat and mud that this truth looks more like a woman in labor or a kingdom of wheats and tares, like a field hiding a pearl of great price or a mustard seed that grew into the biggest tree or a dragnet full of edible and inedible fish? 

What if infallible truth has been entrusted by God to a Body of fallible men? What if God sent the Holy Spirit to guide a church into all truth rather than separate individuals? What if God gave truth to one strong rock rather than billions of little grains of shifting sand? 

Most Americans don't like that idea. We prefer a personal error to a corporate truth--or at least the right to a personal error rather than a right to an absolute truth. For the right to freedom cannot give both to us. Either we have a right to freedom based on absolute truth or we have a right to believe what we want to believe based on the freedom of lies. What we cannot have is both no matter how much we demand it and how much we think it is unfair and unjust for God not to give us both our personal truth and personal freedom. 

And there in lies the dilemma of Truth and the dilemma of Freedom and the dilemma of America. 

Spiritual Freedom, Part IV

America claims in its Constitution that God gives us certain inalienable rights, that among them is liberty of religion. We have cast God as the Great Capitalist in the sky looking down with approval that His eternal truth is just one in a cafeteria line of things claiming to be truth and that somehow His Truths will eventually work their way out in the marketplace of ideas. 

This Free Market god is proud when we become rich suing a soup company that mislabels its food products but he is even prouder when we fight to the death to protect a crazed prophet whose visions tell us that God wants us to paint ourselves purple, eat only raw radishes and marry our first cousin.

Maybe that's America's Enlightenment god, but it doesn't seem to be the God who tells us that the truth will make us free. Seems we have it turned around to say that freedom will make truth. 

Whatever the good intensions of America's Founding Fathers, what we have today is a miserable chaos of religious equality where sheep pretend they're shepherds, black pretends it is grey, grape juice pretends it's wine and a soft drink pretends that it brings happiness.

All that claims to be true is not. And humans were never supposed to try on each lie to see if it fits. 

Only when there is a clear Truth can we be free to choose or reject truth. And that was God's plan. The Devil salivates when he sees truth blurred and watered down. Mormons are tasty. (Not to say Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck are going to hell, but that if they do, they'd taste a lot better to the Devil than a John Boehner or Harry Reid type.)

The Devil has so stirred the pot of truth and lies that America is unable to even admit there is an Absolute Truth and that we can know it. I hear those who are paying attention wistfully hope that "one day, in heaven, we will know truth" and those who aren't paying attention say that Christians actually agree on essential Bible truths.

In America, we have the right to disagree, indeed it is a noble thing, as if the disagreement about truth is more noble than the truth itself. So we all go around assuming we have freedom and we don't for the Devil has made a garbage dump of lies appear glorious. 

And all the time, sitting among the rubbish of lies is a truth sparkling. The diamond is almost unseen among all the shards of glinting glass because everyone is heroically dying for the glass to claim it is diamonds. And people are spending their lives and their fortunes maniacally clinging to their "precious" glass shard thinking it is the pearl of great price.

Is that why Christ died? 

Absolute Freedom, Part III

So here's what we know from parts one and two: 

Part One: Freedom must be based on absolute truth. (Choosing from unlabeled or mislabeled choices is not true freedom.)

Part Two: If freedom is a God-given right, we must have a God-given Absolute Truth. 

Up to this point we have been talking about basic everyday material freedom--such as the freedom to buy a can of corn and not open it up to find a can of beans or an ability to get on a cruise to Rome and not end up in the Bahamas--our everyday right to choose to purchase or do something. 

Assuming that I have made a convincing argument up to now, I will expand the argument from material freedom to freedom of ideas. Not any ideas, but specifically religious ideas.

Our country promises us that God's self-evident right of liberty is fundamental to humans.  U.S. law protects both our freedom of religion and speech. Therein lies the problem.

We can speak error and it is given the same legal dignity and honor and protection as the truth. Often people grasp their chest, looking upward and hearing the "His Truth is Marching On" sung by a choir in the background proclaim, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Okay, that means that person will defend to the death another's right to say things that are not true (with the caveat that they are being sincere and what the person says does not put anyone in immanent danger.) People can sincerely say stupid, dangerous things and people will believe them. 

And ideas are more potent than swords, so what may seem like a asinine idea today, may be trending on twitter tomorrow and taught to our kids in school in a generation.

We think it a great and noble idea to legally defend ignorant and false ideas.  


However, protecting the freedom to speak lies also implodes the right of freedom of religion. America is fundamentally enslaved when we protect error on the same level as truth. 


Can religion survive a free-market system? 

Think of a carnival, where spiritual barkers are out there with  all religious opinions hawking their denomination--all claiming their truth is the right one. This is basically what we have in America today. And they all can't be right. One says God wants babies to be baptized and another says God doesn't. One says baptism is a necessity for salvation, another says not. One says you must believe in sola fide or you are not a Christian, others say you don't.  Some say you must believe in the Trinity, some say you don't. 

If all of these claims are true then none of them are true. You can't be pregnant and not pregnant at the same time. It is the law of non-contradiction. There is absolute truth about God, then there is an exact answer about whether He made certain things a sin and certain things not sins. He is Truth and He is not a lie. 

America has enshrined in her Constitution the Providential right for all religious lies to have the same protection as truth and then in the same document enshrining the right to liberty. Those two ideas are in a direct collision course with each other. 

The assumption is that we are all intelligent enough to be able to discern spiritual lies from spiritual truths as if spiritual truths were as trivial and obvious as the silliness of Diet Coke's recent slogans, "open happiness" or "life begins here." 

We can assume as Bible-believing Christians that:
1. Spirituality matters.
2. There is something called truth.
3. There is something called deception.

And if these things be true, then we can also assume that truth may not be simple and obvious to everyone reading the Bible. That is self-evident. 

And if God meant there to be no way to definitely understand truth, it is the exact same thing as telling us we have the freedom of choice and then place before us (like in the game show example in part one) blank doors to choose from without knowing what is behind them. 

God does not give us blank doors to choose truth. He gives us a real choice, a real freedom to choose between good and evil, between the Devil and Himself. The choice isn't a trick, it isn't vague, it isn't confusing. Confusion is the mark of Babylon, not the mark of Christianity. Truth was meant to be clear so that our freedom may be a real freedom.  

When someone is sincerely looking for truth, he is met with hundreds of books labelled "Bible" with translations that all teach different nuances of truth, if not within the wording itself, at the very least within the notes. And he is met with church after church, often on the same block, with the same crosses and the same claim that they use the Bible as their authority.  

Without an absolute Truth given by God, one is left with the most personal of biblical interpretive guesses, an ever-shifting understanding based on age, gender, education, spiritual maturity and culture. This is not freedom of religion, but thinly disguised shell game of the Devil.

America's freedom that everyone has the right to spiritually lie basically takes away our freedom to spiritually choose.

Absolute Freedom, Part II

"You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free! He who the Son sets free is free indeed!"

I can still hear the Oral Robert's singers on Sunday morning TV bursting through all my childhood ruckus with those words. 

But what exactly does this mean: The Truth shall make you free? 

Civic Freedom:
Yes, the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights state that freedom is a self-evident gift of Providence. It even states that freedom is a right. The U. S. government law enforcement officers are supposed to step in and by law enforce my right to freedom--the freedom they declare is from God.

But the Constitution says nothing about truth? If the truth is what makes us free, then there is something missing in the Constitution. 

Someone might say, "Well, come on. The Constitution is a secular document."

I reply, "Except that, it goes to God for the sacred right of freedom. Why not also make a sacred right of truth since that same God told us that we cannot get to freedom except by truth. I mean, if we are going to bring God into it, then why not use God's method of getting to freedom."

Someone might then say, "Too much God. Freedom is enough. Don't bring truth into it."

But as a nation based on the Judeo/Christian idea of sacred liberty, who openly declares God gives us freedom, not the government, then why not openly declare that God gives us truth too. If freedom, by God's own definition, requires truth as a prerequisite, then better make truth a right so that afterwards freedom can be a right, right?

Let me start over: 

In part one of this post, I went through the process of showing that without truth, freedom implodes on itself. You can't freely choose something if you are not given information about the choice or limited information or outright fallacious information. You weren't really free to choose a fat-free yogurts from regular yogurt if they are mislabeled and those that claim to be fat-free are not truly fat-free. Your choice is being wrongly manipulated by lies. 

So before I can access my right to freedom, I must have the absolute truth. Right? Because giving me the right to freedom without giving me the right to truth first.... is like giving Americans the right to free healthcare when there are no doctors or nurses or medical facilities. (Or when people are free to call themselves doctors or nurses without when they have had no schooling.) No true healthcare workers, no healthcare.

And you can't get to freedom under the circumstances of anything false can call itself true! 

Some of you are seeing the very scary place I am going with this.

We must have absolute truth. Freedom cannot survive with half-truths, sorta truths, and lies that call themselves truth.

If freedom is dependent upon truth, then what do we do with a nation that puts all error upon the same level as truth? We give error the right to call itself truth? 

Think of stupid little things: A soft drink claiming that "Coke adds Life" or a news station claiming "Truth Lives Here" or a coffee shop with the advertising on the door that reads, "The World's Best Coffee." All of these claims are most likely untrue. Does drinking a Coke really add life? Really? Maybe at best it adds a little stimulate to your body and momentary enjoyment to your tastebuds, but does it truly add life? Naw. It's a advertising gimmick and with advertising nothing has to be really, truly true. 

Advertising is in general a con-game we all accept in a capitalistic system. We all assume the advertising propaganda (lies) don't affect our freedom of choice. It's all a part of the western culture free-market game and is harmless. If the lies become too blatant or dangerous, then "foul" is called and a lawsuit is slapped on the manufacturer. It all works itself out in the free-market system. 

But can we really have a free market system with truth itself? Can freedom survive when truth become capitalistic and all ideas--true and false-- are given equal rights? 

If freedom itself is dependent upon truth, then truth better be plain. Lies should not get the same rights as truth? If it works that way in all other avenues why not also in spiritual truths? 

And that we will get into in part III.

Absolute Freedom Destroys Freedom

Truth and Freedom are inseparable, in fact, absolute truth gives us freedom and freedom demands absolute truth.  Without truth, freedom turns into chaos.

Let’s start with an easy analogy:

What if you were chosen from the audience to be a contestant for a gameshow called, “Freedom to Choose!” and were shown two blank white doors and told you were free to choose one of the doors.

You ask, “What’s behind them?”
The game show hosts replies, “You can’t know, it’s a surprise!”

You ask, “Is this really freedom when I don’t know what’s behind the doors?” So the gameshow hosts then adds three more blank doors. “Now you have REAL freedom! You can choose door number one, door number two or any other of the doors!”

“Well,” you ask, “how is adding more doors giving me more freedom when I don’t know what is behind any of them?”

The gameshow hosts is looking anxious at you and back into the camera. “More choices, more freedom, of course!”

You are not quite sure how that works, but you know something is wrong. Freedom isn’t about choosing from random unknowns. True freedom is choosing from things you do know.

“Well,” the gameshow hosts taps his ear receiver and smiles broadly to the audience, “my producer informs me that we can tell this contestant what is behind two of the doors. Behind door number one is a vacation to Las Vegas and behind door number two is a new washer and drier!”

“Oh! I really, really need a new washer and drier.” You jump for joy, “I choose door number two!”

“Our audience contestant has used her freedom of choice and has chosen door number two!” The gameshow host announces loudly. And the door opens up to find that behind it is a lifetime supply of Little Debbie Oatmeal Cookies. The audience goes wild with clapping and you are expected to be happy with the prize even if it wasn’t what you chose.

Again, something is wrong, but in front of the camera’s and audience you are not sure how to react. The cookies are a nice gift, but that isn’t what you picked out. That isn’t freedom when you don’t know your choices or you the choices have been lied about. The hosts sends you back to your seat with the shout, “Thanks for playing Freedom to Choose!”

So, what is wrong with this picture?

We often don’t stop to analyze what freedom truly is and how it is achieved. We don’t realize that the ability to have freedom is based on the idea that the choices we have been given are knowable and true.

You weren’t really given any freedom when you were given the choice of any of the doors when you didn’t know what was behind them, nor when you were given false information. 

Let’s say the “Freedom to Choose” gameshow has a guest after you that wins a cruise to any destination he wishes. So the person uses his freedom to choose a trip to Rome. When he gets onboard, the cruise to Rome instead ends up in the Bahamas. The ship advertisers and advertisements simply lied. They never were going to Rome, but were always going to the Bahamas. They used their freedom to lie to all the passengers saying that the Bahamas in their personal dictionary is called Rome. They just switched what the word meant and didn’t tell anyone. They all defended their position with the idea of personal freedom. After all, they used their freedom to choose what the word “Rome” meant.

Absolute, unrestricted freedom means that we all have the freedom to harm, do wrong, lie and cheat. But, that type of absolute freedom will eventually implode on itself like a black hole. Absolute freedom--or unrestricted, unconstrained freedom--cannot long exist as it brings anarchy and chaos. 

Imagine absolute freedom where a Campbell’s soup company can label something “Tomato Soup” and instead put in string beans. Or a map company using their freedom to add extra states and mislabel roads. Where words lose all meaning because we each have the freedom to make any definition to any word we please. What if we could make a new name for ourselves each day and sign our name differently on each contract? 

All consumers would lose their freedom to choose if we all had absolute freedom. For we could no longer choose to purchase anything because we couldn’t trust any labels or any person’s word! Their personal truths (and freedom to lie) would severely inhibit our ability to have freedom.

Every time we choose, we are choosing something based upon the idea that we have been given truth. We choose spouses and friends and careers and medical procedures and houses and cars and everything we buy at a store based upon the idea that what it or they say is true. If a pregnancy test doesn’t tell you the truth about whether you are pregnant.... or your boss promises that if you don’t quit he’ll give you a raise in a couple months, or if a politician tells you he won’t raise taxes or even if something is labelled “low fat” and isn’t... you can’t make a free choice. Lies have restricted your freedom to make a choice. 

The nature of true freedom can only be found within the confines of absolute truth. Freedom is lost when choices are not labelled or labelled incorrectly in some or all of its aspects.

Here is the great irony of Freedom. Freedom requires self-limiting of its own freedom to that which is true so that freedom can continue. For freedom will actually cease to exist without being founded upon absolute truth.

Isn’t that weird that absolute truth is the only thing that is absolute about true freedom? And I don’t mean true freedom in a spiritual sense, I mean it as a practical idea of us being able to think about what we want and then have the choice to be able to go out and do or get what we have chosen to do or get. 

Yes, we are all free to do wrong to lie and cheat. But that is a suicidal freedom. That freedom eventually enslaves you and others. Absolute truth is necessary to freedom. 

What Jesus Means to Me

What Jesus Means to Me

When I was a child in bed at night and all was dark and scary. I sang songs to Him and the angel He gave me and soon I was no longer scared. I asked him if I could marry Him. And I wondered when He would come and make all the bad things in life go away. I wanted Him to make mean people good. I wanted all my family to not have pain and go to heaven.

One night when I was in fifth grade my friend got shot in the stomach and he almost died and I determined to stay awake all night praying for him, I fell asleep on my knees and felt so guilty in the morning. But my friend lived and I realized that no matter how hard I tried to keep a promise to Jesus, I was going to fail but that Jesus wouldn’t.

When I was a teenager in the 1970’s my friends scared me. They started taking drugs and trying to be cool and listening to bad, harsh music. I was very lonely and felt so nerdy. I was mocked because I liked musicals and classical music and old movies. I was terrified of smoking and dating and rock stars that painted their faces and stuck out their tongues. I put on that I was better than them, but really I was just scared of things I knew to be sin and stupidity.

I told Jesus that He didn’t have to pay attention much to me. I saw all the problems in the world and knew He was too busy for my silly complaints. He had blessed me so much that I carefully kept from complaining to Him. I wanted to be one of those people that never caused Jesus to cry. And my parents had taught me that when people sin, it makes Jesus cry.

As a teenager I loved reading the Bible and craved to know all about Him. He was so good and so kind. I loved to see pictures of Him carrying a lamb on His shoulders. I loved teaching in Kindergarten Sabbath school and singing in choir. Sabbath for me was a very, very happy day. I loved every Sabbath. I felt close to Jesus on that day like He came and placed a special invisible arm of love around me. It was romantic and fun--a great family day. A day to be intimate with God and your fellow man.

Adventists didn’t talk much about their relationship to Jesus. I had never been around it. So I kept it to myself except at Sabbath School. Then it was usually discussions about theological points instead of a relationship with Jesus. I always thought it was because it was assumed everyone had a relationship with Jesus. We were all past the milk and needing the meat.

Jesus was in each bright, warm sunrise and at each cozy, mysterious bedtime. He was in my heart when I was happy and He was there when I was terrified. My faith was weak... my love was strong, but mostly my faith was weak. Lots of things didn’t make sense, but I knew he was there. He was my knight in shining armor, my invisible friend, my Mr. Rogers in my little Christian neighborhood.

Some years, He was so close I felt Him talking to me all day, smiling at me all day. I felt His close, loving presence.

Some years, He was a distant friend who seemed too busy to write or call, but I tried to understand. And I knew He loved me, even if He was busy.

My life hasn’t been easy, but it has been easier than most. I have experienced happiness that I doubt very many people have gotten to experience. I have seen much. And I have experienced sorrow that almost all of us have had to deal with--life tragedies that almost kill you.

But one thing, I have been blessed because I have been near Him my whole life.
Christians today have all these great stories of conversion... You know them. “I was a terrible sinner and then I got saved.” Well, my story is nothing like that. I wasn’t a terrible sinner and I never have felt overwhelming guilty about much. I guess it is because I have always tried so hard to be obedient to him. I never wanted Jesus to cry over what I had done. I sinned, but before the guilt could get strong I immediately repented. I sinned for sure... but nothing of note--nothing to make a good conversion story out of.

But what Jesus has been to me is a friend for my fears and my pain. I have desperately needed a savior from myself. Not because of my great sins, but because of my great terrors of life and death. My fear when I watched my sister getting into the car that she would be in a wreck and I would never see her again. Fear that someone I loved would not be saved. Fear that my mother would come down with cancer or my father would die in a plane crash or drowning. Fear that my wonderful blessed life would disappear with a poof.

I needed Christ to survive my life. He taught me that I would survive my fears and suffering even when He didn’t magically make them go away. He taught me to be brave during those times and that He would be with me.

One of the greatest things that has ever happened to me spiritually is the crucifix. When I have been my lowest, cowering alone with excruciating pain and agony, unable to swallow, vomiting with the trauma of life’s tragedies, I have been able to grab a crucifix and look at what Christ has gone through and know that He knows. He knows and He knows and He knows. That has given me strength to survive the pain.

I have spent much of my life feeling very isolated, misunderstood, dismissed. What made it all well is that moment I imagined seeing my Jesus face to face. That is all I needed of heaven and I all expect of heaven, that for one moment I may look into His eyes and our eyes will lock and I will see in His eyes that He knew how MUCH I tried not to make those eyes cry. And His eyes will say to me, “You never made me cry with pain.” And then I will cry with joy.

Jesus I love you.

The Catholicism in II Chronicles 18

Background: The Davidic Kingdom has divided...

There is a King in Judah (from the lineage of David) named Jehoshaphat--a good guy and a King of Israel, Ahab--not such a good guy. At the moment they are allies because of marriage.

Ahab (king of northern Israel) asks the Jehoshaphat (king of Judah) to campaign with him against Ramoth-gilead and Jehoshaphat goes up and meets with Israel's King but first wants to make sure it's God's will.

"Please inquire first for the word of the LORD." 5 Then the king of Israel assembled the prophets, four hundred men, and said to them, "Shall we go against Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall I refrain ?" And they said, "Go up, for God will give it into the hand of the king." 6 But Jehoshaphat said, "Is there not yet aprophet of the LORD here that we may inquire of him?" 7 The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the LORD, but I hate him, for he neverprophesies good concerning me but always evil. He is Micaiah, son of Imla." 

Here's some more interesting background: Jeroboam, the original leader that split the kingdom after Solomon died. (Rehoboam, son of Solomon taking the territories of Judah and Benjamin--including Jerusalem and the temple.) Jeroboam, King of Israel (the Samaritan territory) threw out ALL the Levities and priests and set up his own temple and sacrifices and priesthood. So the northern Kingdom didn't have any of the authentic priests, holy fire, sacrifices, the temple, etc. They were worshipping falsely even if they were claiming to worship God!

So, now note what was going on in the text above. The king of Judah, with the legitimate priesthood and sacrifices and prophets, wanted to know if the northern Kingdom had ANY legitimate prophets of Yahweh left as he recognized the four hundred prophets were bogus. However, note the response of the King of Israel. He actually says "There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the Lord." Hummm... is he coming right out and admitting there is only one true prophet or is the "yet" significant. Does the King mean to imply that ALL of the prophets are claiming to speak for Yahweh but one extra--one additional can be heard but always gives bad prophecies?

Well, if we read on we will find out that these northern prophets are using the name of Yahweh. 

"...all the prophets were prophesying before them. 10 Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made horns of iron for himself and said, "Thus says the LORD, 'With these you shall gore the Arameans until they are consumed.' " 11 All the prophets were prophesying thus, saying, "Go up to Ramoth-gilead and succeed, for the LORD will give it into the hand of the king."

Please note that these are illegitimate prophets (not ones appointed by God who have gone wrong) but actually self-appointed or appointed by an unauthorized leader who are claiming to be prophets of Yahweh. Not only are the prophesies going to be false, but they came out of false shepherds who were never a part of those appointed by God.

God's chosen prophet, Micaiah, is dragged before the two Kings and asked about the battle. And after cajoling the prophets says this:

"I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, Like sheep which have no shepherd; And the LORD said, 'These have no master. Let each of them return to his house in peace.' " 

Now it's really going to get interesting... and so Catholic: 

Micaiah said, "Therefore, hear the word of the LORD. I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing on His right and on His left. 19 "The LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab king of Israel to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead ?' And one said this while another said that. 20 "Then a spirit came forward andstood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.' And the LORD said to him, 'How?' 21 "He said, 'I will go and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You are to entice him and prevail also. Go and do so.' 22 "Now therefore, behold, the LORD has put adeceiving spirit in the mouth of these your prophets, for the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you." 

What's so Catholic about that? 

God sent someone else to do His bidding. He asked for volunteers... and then let them decide how to do it. 

Catholics believe that angels and saints in heaven are called upon to do the will of God. God also gives them the opportunity, with His permission, to be creative in how they do it. When Catholics ask the saints in heaven to help them, they are doing nothing more than we see here in scripture. They are performing the works of God at His request.

As prophesied, King Ahab of Israel died in battle. 

So, here--in the whole context of this story--not just what we posted here (you'll have to read all of it to get this --as well as it's counterpart in I Kings 22) we find several things. 

There are God-appointed priests and prophets. Any self-appointed or appointed by any other group or leader are not genuinely of God and cannot speak for Him.

There are New Testament prophets. How do we know they are of God? There are two clues given here. One, they are not appointed by the true church/people of God. Two, they give false prophecies. Not all who give true prophecies are necessarily from God. Some false prophets have given true prophecies. You have to have both things--be appointed by God's people and prophesy 100% correctly.

Just the fact that these prophets claimed to be speaking for Yahweh doesn't mean they were. There was a complete false system of worship set up in the Northern Kingdom that mimicked the true worship of God's people in Jerusalem. 

They may have been truly sincere. They may have been really nice people. But their worship was false. 

Now I am sounding like a Seventh-day Adventist. Which makes the irony of this quite funny! 

I'm not saying these people are not in heaven. I am just simply pointing out a very interesting and very Catholic story in the Old Testament.

Termites