Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | The foundation of the church | Eph 2:20 | Reformer Joe | 69387 | ||
You wrote: "The government and rule of the kingdom of God is expressed in the earth through his governmental organizational structure found in the joint operations of the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers." The role of apostles and prophets was a foundational ministry (Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14). There was a standard for holding the office of a prophet as well: "Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us-- beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us--one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." --Acts 1:22-23 An apostle was a witness of the resurrected Christ. Upon the foundation of the OT and NT prophets heralding His coming and the NT apostles heralding His resurrection, the church was founded. Church history supports this biblical teaching as well. None of the disciples of the apostles (the writings of many of whom are extant) nor any of the early Church Fathers ever claimed the office of apostle for himself. In fact, it wasn't until the 20th century that people started getting so brazen as to claim apostleship for themselves. Therefore, this brings me back to one of the most important questions we have to answer in situations like this: If there is NO evidence of apostles throughout church history past the first century, how did the church manage to grow and spread and flourish without them and why didn't God raise them up for the intervening 850 years? Church history really does a lot to dispel things like this. Any defense of modern-day apostleship has to successfully address the above question, as well as address the constant association of apostleship with being an eyewitness of the resurrected Jesus. --Joe! --Joe! |
||||||
2 | The foundation of the church | Eph 2:20 | kaleo | 69423 | ||
The book of Acts is the beginning of the church. As with the parable of the mustard seed that grew into a big tree and flourished the kingdom DOES NOT DIMINISH. Look at the church today, instead of advancing from the book of Acts it has diminished. With all due respect sir/madam the church that I witness today has in no way surpassed Acts (as the seed of the church). We cannot ignore the division within the church nor can we ignore our doctrinal differences which, if it continues will never lead to the unity of the faith. But thank God He will not allow that for His word is true - there will be the unity of the faith. Since the dark ages He began to restore truth to His church beginning in the 1500's with Martin Luther (which I believe operated in an apostolic frequency breaking patterns of erroneos religiosity as did the early apostles in the midst of the Pharisees)proclaiming justification by faith in the midst of opposing doctrine that existed in his time. Similarly God has used other moves such as the Holiness/Evangelical, Pentecostal, Latter Rain, Charismatic moves to restore foundational truths to the church as was present in the book of Acts so that we can grow unto perfection/completion (i.e. without spot or wrinkle). With reference to apostles - the issue is not in the name APOSTLE but in the function of the office. You said "An apostle was a witness of the resurrected Christ". Yet Paul never met Jesus Christ in the physical sense as did the twelve. Jesus presented Himself to Paul on the Damascus road and spoke to him throughout his ministry truths that were never before revealed. I believe that this is a principle that we as believers must ask the Holy Spirit to reveal to us - the relevance of God choosing someone outside of 'the twelve' to play such a significant role as an apostle to the church. Looking forward to continued conversations and hearing your views on the matter. |
||||||
3 | The foundation of the church | Eph 2:20 | Reformer Joe | 69426 | ||
"Look at the church today, instead of advancing from the book of Acts it has diminished. With all due respect sir/madam the church that I witness today has in no way surpassed Acts (as the seed of the church)." You are kidding, I hope. Do you really think that it has been all downhill since the first century? I recommend a study of church history to show how the church has flourished in the last 2000 years, desite the setbacks that are a result of sinful human beings. And I also recommend a study of the epistles in Scripture to get a background of how much turmoil did exist in the earliest church, even with the apostles around. Judaizers, Gnostics, false apostles, people using the name of Jesus Christ for sex and money...they were all there right under Paul's nose. You wrote: "We cannot ignore the division within the church nor can we ignore our doctrinal differences which, if it continues will never lead to the unity of the faith." And, of course, your solution to this problem is for ME to abandon the doctrinal differences I have with you, rather than the other way around. :) "Since the dark ages He began to restore truth to His church beginning in the 1500's with Martin Luther (which I believe operated in an apostolic frequency breaking patterns of erroneos religiosity as did the early apostles in the midst of the Pharisees)proclaiming justification by faith in the midst of opposing doctrine that existed in his time." But Luther did not claim any special revelation from God apart from Scripture. He even claimed that Scripture must be the final authority for him and the only source of revelation. He also made no claims of apostleship. "Similarly God has used other moves such as the Holiness/Evangelical, Pentecostal, Latter Rain, Charismatic moves to restore foundational truths to the church as was present in the book of Acts so that we can grow unto perfection/completion (i.e. without spot or wrinkle)." And Luther opposed similar moves in the 16th century. They were called "enthusiasts" back then. What I have personally seen from a lot of movements you have mentioned (and my wife, as a former member of one of these movements, will attest) is an erosion of doctrine, not a unity of doctrine. These movements are historical novelties, and not present in the church until 1905 or so. "Yet Paul never met Jesus Christ in the physical sense as did the twelve. Jesus presented Himself to Paul on the Damascus road and spoke to him throughout his ministry truths that were never before revealed." So in Acts 9, Jesus did indeed appear to Paul, and gave him the role of apostle. That is exactly my point. Paul was a witness of the resurrected Christ: "After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also." --1 Corinthians 15:6-8 "I believe that this is a principle that we as believers must ask the Holy Spirit to reveal to us - the relevance of God choosing someone outside of 'the twelve' to play such a significant role as an apostle to the church." I hope you don't think that I hold that God limited himself to the Twelve for the ministry of apostle. All I am saying is that the revelatory and foundation-laying work of the apostles is done. --Joe! |
||||||