Results 481 - 500 of 729
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: charis Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
481 | Prerequisite-infallibility? | 1 Cor 12:27 | charis | 12682 | ||
Dear Nolan, I appreciate your additional 'points of view!' :-) It seems that there is agreement that there are specific 'Apostles,' i.e. the Twelve (Matthias as the only replacement), and the 'general meaning' apostles, a.k.a. 'broader' sense, a.k.a. 'lesser' sense apostles. Are these not bona fide, Biblical, apostles? (albeit not the Twelve, and without the capital 'A') Is this not the gift-ministry spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4? Oops, time to go! Blessings, brother! In Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
482 | Prerequisite-infallibility? | 1 Cor 12:27 | charis | 12674 | ||
Dear Joe! I know that you don't like the word 'restore' because a lot of idiots are using it to declare their agenda. But is not 'to bring back to it's original state' what Martin Luther (through the holy Spirit) helped to bring about? Other words bandied about are 'revival' and 'renewal.' The words themselves are Biblical, but the negative connotation seems to get you boiling :-) Of course Martin Luther did not 're-create' it with something *new.* But he did bring a 'message' from God to a church that had forgotten the message of the Gospel. By the way, are you saying that the 'reformed' church is different (better) from what God originally planned in the early church? As in a New, New Testament Church? Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
483 | Prerequisite-infallibility? | 1 Cor 12:27 | charis | 12670 | ||
Dear Joe! Yes, it seems almost like Martin Luther was human, huh? (as I recall, the 12 were pretty human, too :-) 'Non-denominational denomination!' I like that! :-) I can't speak for anybody else, so I don't know about 'anti-denominational bias that leads to rejection of cooperative efforts with denominational churches,' but I have first-hand experience with the other way round. Many denominations are not very cooperative with 'non-aligned' ministries, too, my friend. I see a distinct polarization in this issue. Either a total rejection of two key ministerial gifts of the Holy Spirit (often accompanied by a rejection of certain manifestational gifts), or a irresponsible, abusive perversion of these gifts. I, myself, prefer a place near Jesus, embracing all of the gifts He has made available, without embellishment or human 'modernization.' Blessings and peace, Joe! In Jesus, charis |
||||||
484 | Prerequisite-infallibility? | 1 Cor 12:27 | charis | 12668 | ||
Dear Joe! Sorry, my friend, but this sounds just like more of the same. The presence of abusers and pretenders does not negate the presence of of God's true servants. Please read "The New Foxe's Book of Martyrs" and tell me that no one has shown forth the same anointing as the early saints. Though we may not be able to claim the same 'amount,' the service to God remains the same. Finally, I do not know what the false apostles are saying, but I, for one, believe that we have had all of God's ministries working in the church since it's creation by the Holy Spirit. That Martin Luther did not consider himself an apostle with a capital 'A' is a point in his favor. That he did indeed have a 'message' that was lost, and boldly proclaimed a Christ that was missing from the 'Christian' church of his age speaks of apostolic ministry. (not 'office') By the way, Joe, I agree with you about the modern 'show-apostles' and the false revival, complete with smoke and mirrors. :-) Indeed, the Holy Spirit is alive and working in His church in every gift and ministry! But the true apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (and other ministries) have no need of an 'office,' a 'calling card,' or a prime-time slot on 'Christian' TV. Peace unto you, in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
485 | Prerequisite-infallibility? | 1 Cor 12:27 | charis | 12656 | ||
Dear Ed, Exactly my point! :-) (a bit of irony, my friend) The fact that this minister had a *revelation* had nothing to do with his sin! By the way, please DO butt in any time! In Jesus, charis |
||||||
486 | Prerequisite-infallibility? | 1 Cor 12:27 | charis | 12654 | ||
Dear Tim, I have already written a lot on this subject (maybe too much?), so I will try not to duplicate. I am not with 'those who are promoting the "five-fold ministry."' (in fact, I am very much against these abusers and pretenders) I am only asking that the Holy Spirit give us the benefit of every gift and ministry that He has so graciously provided. I cannot specifically deny any of these gifts, nor can I 'promote' God's servants to 'special' status. Certain of Paul's (and Peter's, and John's, etc.) writings were chosen by God to be our Bible. I would find it hard to believe they wrote nothing else, or that every word they wrote was the Word, which would imply that God lost them. I still cannot figure out the 'office' and 'function' difference. Are not these but service to God? Actually, I would say that there are more than five ministries unto our Lord and His saints. Blessings, my friend, in Jesus' name! charis |
||||||
487 | Prerequisite-infallibility? | 1 Cor 12:27 | charis | 12650 | ||
Dear Tim, and Prayon, Excuse me for butting in... As I understand it, you interpret the word 'messenger' as 'revealer,' and that the revelation must be on par with God's Word, so therefore there are no more apostles or prophets, because the canon is finished. Is that fair? But why must every message be revelatory? When you preach a sermon, do you not use modern illustration and anecdote to portray the Gospel? Strictly speaking, you are 'adding' what the Holy Spirit led you to add. Are you then blaspheming? I don't think so. I think that the church has artificially elevated the ministry of apostle and prophet to an 'office,' and that we come close to worshipping these simple, humble men of God. ( Paul put away his 'office' when he renounced his Pharisee background ) They were ministers and servants used by God. They performed His work. God continues to call His servants to do the same thing, minus the writing of the Bible. (where does it say that apostles and prophets have to write books of the Bible?) Indeed, my fellow servant, anyone who claims to have *new revelation* is false. But you won't hear much about the true apostles and prophets, because they are just serving their God in the calling He chose. God wrote the Bible, not apostles and prophets. God continues to use His anointed ministers. My friend, though there are many abusers of this title, there are even more faithful to His calling. Please do not use the example of the abusers to deny the church of His chosen ministers. This would lead us to say that false pastors (wolves) negates true pastors. Frankly, your last paragraph was sensationalism at best, and fallacious logic at worst :-) What a generalization! Pastors asking for new cars (in the Holy Spirit) will impregnate our children! My question must be, "Was he independent or part of a denomination?" Tim, this kind of abuse has been with us regardless of *revelation knowlege* or any bias! Exalted 'office-holders' have committed such acts and worse since the beginning. How do we argue with false ministers? We don't. We stay away, and preach the Word. We advise the saints to discern truth as written in the Bible. We encourage one another to search for truth, and ask the Holy Spirit to guide us personally in His Word, and through His chosen messengers. The two will agree. Again, pardon my intrusion. (But this IS a forum :-) In Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
488 | Prerequisite-infallibility? | 1 Cor 12:27 | charis | 12641 | ||
Dear Nolan, and saints of the Forum, No, my friend, I do not consider myself an apostle. It is possible that I may one day serve the Lord as a messenger of His tidings to a larger audience than my local church, which may (or may not) be considered apostolic in His eyes. In any case, I would not print new name cards with 'Apostle Randy' on the front :-) Just the other day, Nolan, you published my definition of apostle on this site. See below: APOSTLE (Gk. (apostolos,) a "delegate"). One sent with a special message or commission. In this sense the word is used in the LXX (1KI 14:6; ISA 18:2), and in the NT: JOH 13:16, "Neither is one (who is sent) [apostle] greater than the one who sent him"; 2CO 8:23; PHI 2:25, where persons sent out by churches on special errands are called their (apostles,) or messengers. In HEB 3:1 Jesus is called "the (Apostle) and High Priest of our confession." (New Ungers Bible Dictionary) The Bible describes 3 'types' of apostles; 1) Jesus. 2) The 'Apostles to the Lamb,' also called the 12. Matthai replaced Judas Iscariot, the only 'replacement' apostle in the Bible. 3)The 'post-ascension apostles.' Paul and Barnabas, among others, continued the ministry of 'special commissions' between churches. Sometimes these are referred to as the 'lower sense' of the apostolic ministry. I believe this continues today, although often misinterpreted and abused. I do not think that the present-day apostle equals the missionary, as I know too many missionaries that do not fit the Bible's description. However, some missionaries may well be working in an apostolic calling. end quote Friend, it is the (organized) church I find laughable. I am sorry you did not catch my irony. The church is far from organized! You may have a high opinion of your local church or denomination, but the world thinks that the church is a joke for their tainted history, disunity, pettiness and even war. It is only by grace that we continue to be used for His glory. Not one person was saved by a denomination or religious institution. Every soul called by Jesus was saved by grace, not 'truth in the church' or scholarly advice. My 'disdain for denominations' only applies when I see the gifts of the Holy Spirit replaced by professionals holding 'office' in the church. By the way, no one, as yet, has answered how we can conveniently dispose of one or two gifts, but retain the others. Blessings to you, my friend. In Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
489 | Prerequisite-infallibility? | 1 Cor 12:27 | charis | 12635 | ||
Dear Nolan, and saints, Peace upon you, my friend. If there is nowhere in the Bible that says "There will be no more apostles after Paul," and the Bible warns in two places to beware of false apostles, this seems to indicate that there are apostles and false apostles. You are starting your argument with the supposition that there is the 'office' of apostle, and the 'mere' gift of apostle (which is so inferior that it doesn't deserve bona fide status). This 'office' of apostle is only for a few 'super-saints,' the requirements of which are not clearly stated in the Bible. I have never read anything in the Word of God which would lead me to believe that any of these men considered themselves to be special, only humble thankgiving for having the opportunity to serve their Lord. John 10:35, Revelation 22:18-19 - As far as I can fathom, these two Scriptures harken back to the 'beware of false apostles-prophets' theme, and are not requirements that every apostle must bring forth *new* revelation. I thank you for your good advice and opinion. Indeed, 'apostolos' means 'messenger' (to the church). Is this where you suppose that it must mean 'messenger of new (never-before-heard) revelation?' Cannot this same word mean 'one who brings the (timely) message from God?' Martin Luther brought forth a message from God that was lost, and his words were considerd new and fresh. We all know that he simply spoke that which was already written in the Bible. This message, you may recall, had a great affect on the church of God. In my humble opinion, Martin Luther was a messenger of Christ, a minister of the Gospel who not only preached to his own congregation, but to other ministers, and even to me, centuries later. I do not bestow any 'office' on this man, but a ministry, a gift from the Lord through the Holy Spirit. Throughout the history of the church there have been myriads of such men, some lauded, some not. Would you prefer we call them bishops, cardinals, popes, founder-of-a-movement, or president-of-an-organized-religious-institution? I have read and re-read your last statement, and think you are saying, "There are some of the opinion that there are no longer any apostles, and some of the opinion that there still are. But all the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still available today" Well, I can't disagree with you there :-) Please note: "Therefore it says, "When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, And He gave gifts to men...And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers," Ephesians 4:8,11 NASB These are gifts, not 'offices.' Those receiving these gifts are servants, not 'supermen.' It is rather obvious that the church is not yet 'done.' So these gifts are still necessary. Insisting that apostles must be some kind of 'super-saint' only strips us of a gift that God gave us. Even if one has an apostolic ministry, I don't think that they should have a name card announcing themselves as 'Apostle So-and-so.' I am certain that the early church apostles would be embarrassed by the beatification and 'office' entrapment, and would deny it. Blessings to you, my friend. In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
490 | Prerequisite-infallibility? | 1 Cor 12:27 | charis | 12576 | ||
Dear RCScroll, and fellow saints, To quote Nute Gunray, "You assume too much." Brother, I hold you in the highest regard. However, the argument against present-day apostolic ministry still seems to be based on a deification or beatification of the 13 (the 12 plus Matthias and Paul, minus Judas Iscariot), and the assumption that the presence of false apostles negates the presence of true apostles. Again (and again) I hear the *new* revelation requirement. Where might I find that in Scripture? In any case, I do not think that a present-day apostle must be the sort of super-person you imply he must be. I don't think that the early church apostles were the super-people some try to make out of them. Honestly, my friend, you yourself seem to claim some authority when you state that your interpretation is the correct and accepted one :-) While it may be true that the 'delivery' of the Gospel to the church is complete, the ministry of the Gospel continues. To try to differentiate between the 'office' and the ministry is just traditionalist gobbledegoop. (with all due respect) By the way, please do not try an equate my belief that of the Mormons. To do so is incendiary, and rabble-rousing, and does not become us. Never have I claimed that present-day apostles have *new* revelation knowledge or super-Biblical abilities. Indeed, the church has all that it needs to attain the unity of the faith, "...that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:17 NASB. Are you saying that we do not need ministers to bring this forth? Tell me, has the church been very successful at attaining unity? Of course, in order to make your theory work, you must assume that Barnabas, Silas, Andronicus, and Junia were present in Jerusalem at Christ's resurrection. This is assuming that there is somewhere in the Bible that requires all apostles to be eyewitnesses. Please, don't do the "We conclude..." bit. It is condescending and arrogant. You conclude, yes? Finally, I ask, are you of the 3-office group, 4-office group, or the no-office group? Personally, I don't place much importance on the 'office' or title. I think that Peter, Paul and the other saints would be appalled at their ministry to Christ and His church being labelled 'office.' Friend, it is indeed a privilege to discuss the Word with you. In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
491 | Prerequisite-infallibility? | 1 Cor 12:27 | charis | 12553 | ||
Dear Nolan, So now we have prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, but no apostles, right? I maintain that by 'beatifying' the apostles to the Lamb (plus Paul), we discredit the faith of ministers for two thousand years, up to the present day. Not once have I said that there is anything *new* (extra-Biblical or super-Biblical)to prophesy or reveal. Also, it is obvious that certain individuals have been given the gift of revealing the (already finished) Bible to 1) all men, 2) the church, and 3) fellow ministers. Please, tell me what the 'Biblical sense' apostle is? Is he perfect, without sin, fault, or trespass? Must he have written a book of the Bible? Must he have uttered a never-before-spoken revelation from God? If these are requirements, then several apostles in the Word are not apostles. I think that I am fighting against the opinion that 'some are false apostles, so there are no longer any apostles.' In my humble opinion, the fact that we are warned about false apostles proves that there are apostles! Finally, as to the 'lower-sense' apostle theory (number three in my April discourse), if there are indeed 'lesser' apostles, Paul and Barnabas would be categorized among them. !I know, I know! "How dare he bring Paul down to human levels!" Sorry, but that is just what I do. I think that Paul would rejoice, too! What Paul wrote was Scripture because God made it so, not because Paul was great. Not every word written by Paul was Bible, and not every action was perfect. God chose exactly what He wanted in His holy Bible, not Paul, or Peter, or any man. I contend that if we let God be true, and all men be liars, we have hope today to know his will, through the Holy Spirit, Who speaks in the Bible, and through His ministers. (and there are more ministries than just the five!) To claim that the (organized) church is now His spokesman is laughable :-) Blessings and peace. In Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
492 | Define Faith. | Heb 11:1 | charis | 12552 | ||
Dear Lionstrong, Frankly, I fail to see the point or significance of differentiating between 'description of the nature of' and 'definition of.' In fact, just saying that faith equals 'to believe' just brings us back to the need for elaboration. Hebrews 11:1 provides that elaboration, using the descriptive words 'assurance' and 'conviction,' and adding the all-important 'things not seen' (or, available to the natural senses). Therefore, I stand upon this Scripture as the means by which God causes us to better understand what faith is. In modern English, 'believe' is often used to merely mean 'think' or 'have an opinion.' This is woefully insufficient. Grace to you. In Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
493 | Jesus tears down the gates of hell? | Eph 4:8 | charis | 12504 | ||
Dear Steve, 2000 years ago, Christ 'led captivity captive,' freeing them from the depths. I am pretty sure this is a different thing from sealing up satan and his minions. I'm zonked! Good night. In Jesus, charis |
||||||
494 | Jesus tears down the gates of hell? | Eph 4:8 | charis | 12484 | ||
Dear Steve, I'm not sure I get your point. Please elaorate. In Jesus, charis |
||||||
495 | Jesus tears down the gates of hell? | Eph 4:8 | charis | 12478 | ||
Dear Steve and Nolan, How about "Be gracious to me, O Lord; Behold my affliction from those who hate me, Thou who dost lift me up from the gates of death;" Psalm 9:13 NASB and perhaps the imagery in "It is I who says of Cyrus, 'He is My shepherd! And he will perform all My desire.' And he declares of Jerusalem, 'She will be built,' And of the temple, 'Your foundation will be laid.' Thus says the Lord to Cyrus His anointed, Whom I have taken by the right hand, To subdue nations before him, And to loose the loins of kings; To open doors before him so that gates will not be shut:" Isaiah 44:28,45:1 NASB? This paraphrase is very common, yet Scripture reference is hard to find, yes? Blessings in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
496 | why order is different in scripture? | 1 Cor 12:27 | charis | 12456 | ||
Dear Nolan, You are right! In no way do I stand in judgment of Mr. Hanegraaff. He is without a doubt a wonderful teacher. He is (also) without a doubt a human being. If he were infallible, we would not need the Holy Spirit at all. There are many good Christian teachers, and it is inevitable that they would disagree on many points. Not one of them has ever even approached infallibility, as this is impossible for man. No matter how many hours of how many days, for however many years a person has studied the Word, limiting God by neutering His gifts to man is unwise. I maintain that all the gifts and ministries of the Holy Spirit are valid and active today, and necessary for our welfare in Christ. I contend that much of the strife and disunity we have today is from both the abuse of these, as well as the neglect of them. While my view of these gifts and ministries is decidedly conservative, to deny them altogether is irreverent. In any case, my friend(s), I harbor no ill feelings toward anyone. This is not the first time you have heard my opinions, nor is it the last! :-) I look forward to hearing your opinions, and pray that I am open to really listen. Blessings to all...in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
497 | why order is different in scripture? | 1 Cor 12:27 | charis | 12433 | ||
Dear Nolan and Forum friends, Let me say first that I am not denouncing Hank Hanegraaff or his ministry. I have great respect for the majority of his opinions. (but they are opinions. Intelligent, and thorough, but his conclusions are nevertheless opinions) I cannot at this time go through every instance of disagreement (much more agreement than disagreement, by the way), but he does seem to put emphasis on a 'finished church' because we have a finished-Bible. While I believe we have a finished-Bible, I cannot see that we have a finished-church. This is why I see a continued need for the gifts of the Holy Spirit, including the ministerial gifts. That these gifts are commonly misused and abused is beside the point. The church is in need of every gift made available by God. Mr Hanegraaff states that present-day apostles and prophets must be of the quality of those in the Bible, and because they are not, they are not true apostles and prophets, therefore, there are no longer any apostles and prophets. Apostles are messengers to the church, not neccesarily bringing *new* revelation, but presenting the timeless Gospel to the church in a way that we can receive it. Indeed, if it is a *different* Gospel, we must beware! The same goes for the present-day prophets. They do not neccesarily need to be proclaiming *addendums* to the Word, and I would be leery if they did claim this ability! However, "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation." 1 Corinthians 14:3 NASB states the work of a bona fide prophet. Mr. Hanegraaff makes present-day apostles and prophets into buffoons, cute and non-Biblical, to be ignored as eccentrics. My point is that if we explain away something written in the Bible, we lose a gift from God. In my opinion, granted not as illustrious as Mr. Hanegraaff, he has denied us present day gifts in his campaign against the abusers of the Word. Grace back to you, Nolan, and all the saints of the Forum. In Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
498 | why order is different in scripture? | 1 Cor 12:27 | charis | 12413 | ||
Dear Nolan, I must heartily disagree with Hank Hanegraaff on this one. (actually, there are a number of areas I do :-) I am of the opinion that the Bible Answer Man is lashing out at the abuses of spiritual Christianity when he denies the present-day manifestation of the Holy Spirit. This is a common mistake in the history of the church. One group makes a bold statement of faith, but, being natural man, stumbles in their walk. Another cites the 'stumble' as proof that the statement of faith is wrong, and comes up with several pertinent Scriptures to back up their claim of superior understanding of God. The first group then retaliates, desperately searching the Word to show they were right, consequently 'returning evil for evil.' (thereby moving away from Jesus!) Group 2 then goes on the offensive, stating that not only is Group 1 wrong, but heretical, citing the 'defense' made with emotions involved. (this is also not pleasing to Jesus!) Eventually we find both camps away from the Lord, Who has not moved one millimeter! Jesus is the same, yesterday, today, and forever more. Man and his 'camps' are always shifting, always selfish. The Calvinism-Arminist debate on this forum is a case-in-point! Another is the Traditionalists-Charismatics polarism. The history of the church is full of these kind of things. Shame on us! Ephesians 4:11 is clear. Don't read into it what is not there, and don't explain away the wonderful gifts that God has given us. Duh! In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
499 | Does Jesus' name satisfy Matt 28:19? | Acts 2:38 | charis | 12285 | ||
Dear tmwrlw, I beg to disagree that we are saved through baptism in any name. Salvation from hell is a merciful gift from God, apart from any action we take. "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;" Ephesians 2:8 NASB. I do believe that water baptism in the name of Jesus is God's will and desire for us, and that it is a powerful act of faith that gives us the ability to manifest our salvation in our lives on earth. I also believe that every Christian should desire to be filled with the Holy Spirit. I do not think this is 'automatic' at the point of profession of faith or upon water baptism, but a relationship that is to be sought after, and God is faithful to pour Himself into us. However, I do not think that the showy 'manifestations, incantations or emotional outbursts' are proof of this holy relationship either. Because some churches require speaking in tongues for church membership and-or salvation, there is great pressure to conform, even if it is false. Sadly, I see much of the 'spiritual' activity these days is man-made, therefore false. This does not edify the church, and thereby does God a great disservice, and only takes away from our walk in Christ. I speak in tongues, but do not flaunt it. Most of my fellow church members also speak in tongues, and I encourage all to desire this gift, but I do not 'blackmail' them by denying salvation to those who have not yet tasted of this gift. If God is true (and he certainly is!), then the promise of Acts 2:38 and 39 will come to pass without my legalistic intervention. I am at peace, and God reigns supreme! Finally, though I do not claim to be a 'Trinitarian,' I absolutely believe in the tri-une nature of God. I do not agree with the 'Jesus-Only' or 'Oneness' ideology. I baptize in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sin and the circumcision of heart, relying on the clear patterns laid forth in the Word of God. In Jesus' name, charis |
||||||
500 | Is prophecy dead? | Matt 11:13 | charis | 12272 | ||
Dear Miguel, Amen! Some say that we have the (onganized) church now, so there is no longer any need of the apostolic or prophetic ministries. One look at the splintered church would testify that we need Biblical messengers and encouragers more than ever! Everyone is always trying to say that apostles must be 'Pauls' and prophets must be 'Isaiahs,' and if they are not, they are not ministers of the Gospel. I daresay that there are a lot more apostles and prophets than those recorded in the Scriptures, and that these chosen servants are still among us. If anything, we need them now, desperately! In Christ, charis |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ] Next > Last [37] >> |