Here's a link to a mainstream article that is actually correct, and points to one of the reasons that we in the church must start denouncing heresy and false prophets (profits). The world desperately needs Jesus but can't see Him because we allow this crap. https://currently.att.yahoo.com/news/preachers-god-promised-2nd-trump-120525665.html
There does seem to be little accountability for our words anymore. How many of these so-called prophets are under some church authority?
I mean...tons of pundits on the right promised us a Trump win. There were some who held onto this position and the delusion that Biden wouldn't be inaugurated up until Biden was actually sworn in as president. I don't think that these preachers were uniquely wrong, they simply bought into the same hype as so many others on the right. Of course it's your religion and if you feel the need to be critical, criticize away.
The problem, as cited, is the claim that God specifically told individuals what would happen. The damage is exacerbated when these individuals are church leaders, who lay claim to prophecies and even to lead political movements based on those claims. Not only bogus but problematic and dangerous on so many levels. The professing church is obviously in trouble given the plurality of these recent trends, and, as the OP states, these things need to be actively addressed.
I believe in modern prophecy although not in the same context as in the OT. I don't have a problem with the concept of God speaking to us, maybe through others. I have no problem at all if someone indicates that they think God is saying something, but I'd expect it to be presented as more of an opinion than a definitive "thus saith the Lord" declaration. A large problem these days is that people want the mantle of "prophet" because of the authority it brings, but they don't want the responsibility. You know, the whole being executed if you get it wrong is a bit of a downer if it transpires that dream you had was just because you ate too much cheese before bed.
I don't hold to revelatory prophecy as in the OT and don't hold to the NT as an age of prophets. I do believe God communicates with believers and church bodies, however. I seriously doubt that God would reveal info on future political developments. I don't even believe He is involved in the partisan process at all. He is involved in what believers do and say. And, contrary to popular trends, I do not believe that God is in this business of choosing sides in partisan, democratic contests and does not choose and send political leaders over and above the will of a democratic people.
I have a similar view to modern prochecy as stated above. The issue is not so much what we personally believe, the evidence out there indicates there are many Christians that do hold to prophecy. Prophecy certainly existed within the early NT church (i.e. Agabus). As also pointed out, the lack of accountability to our modern prophets is the bigger issue.
An aside: Once believers, through careful, contextual understanding, learn to be aware of political pressure and the dangers of being drawn into subservience to largely secular partisan movements, there will be less spiritualization of party allegiance, once a believer simply votes his/her conscience. What the Bible clearly shows us concerning discernment and warning about these powerful, delusive forces in history, and false prophecy/teachings, should be more than sufficient to keep the testimony of the churches intact. But today's lack of clear, exhaustive Bible-centered teaching is currently beyond appalling, particularly since the age of televangelism and the advent of hyper-faith and increasing politicizing of the faith.
Accountability is a key thing here, although if a "word from God" is presented in humility it's less of an issue. If someone comes to me and says something along the lines of "I think God might be calling you to...." and encourages me to prayerfully consider their words, ultimately the decision is mine and I own it as well as the consequences of it. If someone did come to me with such a comment I certainly would consider their words, as long as they weren't the sort of thing that a nanosecond of consideration revealed as contradicting Scripture. The person who expects me to fall into line because they started their speech with "Thus saith the Lord" is probably not going to like the response they get. The trouble is when people are quick to claim the title of prophet, and others are quick to label someone a prophet or accept their self-labelling as a prophet, then people get invested in the words of the prophet, and then when the inevitable happens and it all turns sour nobody wants to take responsibility for it all. You can't have the pomp and the prestige without the responsibility but if you even seek pomp and prestige the chances are you don't want to be a prophet anyway. The point above about faith and politics getting too closely intertwined is also very good. The people who insist you can't be a Christian if you vote for (candidate) really don't help the situation. Unless the candidate is literally Satan the chance are all it means is that the person who votes the other way simply has a different set of priorities.
Yep. though the constitution makes no reference to either left or right, the republic has prospered through the struggles between each ideal, thus avoiding the extremes of either. To do away with or destroy one or the other is to usher in a unitarian politic. Adding authoritative religious or church decrees to the equation overturns the framers' directives and violates the constitution. A touch of (false) prophesy lends to what amounts to a social movement or even a crusade of sorts. It rarely seems accountability even matters lately with the gradual dissolution of biblical guidelines - relativism renders the testimony of the professing church to a ship without a rudder, imo.
Of course He is. He put Cyrus in his mother's womb for the explicit purpose of the re establishment of the state of Judea. 25 centuries later he put Harry Truman in his mother's womb for the same reason.
I don't believe in modern day prophecy, or indeed any prophecy at all after Malachi. Having said that, the whole point of prophecy is to deliver an important message form God (and not merely predict the future). I fail to see how predicting the winner of a presidential election meets that criteria.
Does that mean you believe that God acts in history? That He even cares who is our president? I mean, if FDR was president in 1947, he would have voted against the creation of the state of Israel. These aren't irrelevant things.
We have a democratic system wherein the people choose. I don't believe God abrogates that form of election without doing away with it all together. Truman was duly elected by the American people. Hitler was elected by the Germans. We have been warned, without the need for special intervention or prophecy.
No, but see Proverbs 21:1 "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes.” Truman was only president in 1947 because of the death of FDR, who otherwise would have been president. Warned of what?