Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Prerequisite-infallibility? | 1 Cor 12:27 | RCSCROLL | 12572 | ||
2nd post CHARIS Why did not the New Testament apostles appoint successors for themselves? And how is it that God's purpose in establishing the church could be so completely frustrated (Matthew 16:18; Jude 3)? (3) The point of Ephesians 4:11-13 is that "the building up of the body of Christ" (vs. 12) will continue "until" the church is matured (vs. 13). The first-century apostles and prophets have fully "equipped" (vs. 12a) the church with the revelations given in the New Testament, combined with the Old Testament, so that all of the information the church needs to do its tasks is contained in Scripture (II Timothy 3:16-17). The Epistle of Jude also bears witness to the first-century Christian conviction that the days of the apostles and of gospel revelations were foundational and not ongoing. Jude speaks of "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). The expression "once for all" clearly indicates that the "delivery" of the faith is complete, so that we should not look for a new revelation. Indeed, the new teachings of certain persons (Jude 4) are condemned for this very reason. The way to avoid the trap of heresy, says Jude, is to "remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 17). When Jude was writing, the apostles were either a phenomenon of the past, or were fast becoming so. The apostle Peter also made it clear that he thought the apostolic period was ending in his day. II Peter appears to have been written by Peter as he awaited martyrdom. In this epistle, he does not urge his readers to look to the next apostle or apostles for leadership, but rather to remember the apostolic message after he is gone (II Peter 1:12-15). Like Jude, Peter warns of false teachers who will take advantage of the lack of apostolic presence, and "secretly introduce destructive heresies" (2:1). The solution, says Peter, is to "remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles" (3:2). They are to seek diligently to follow the teachings of the apostles, particularly Paul, despite the fact that he is often misinterpreted by "the untaught and unstable" (3:14-16). Therefore, Peter did not look for the continuation of apostolic authority, but rather for the church to follow what the departing apostles had taught. Like Jude, he does not say, "Listen to the apostles living today" (as the Mormons and other groups with apostles say), but instead urges us, "Remember what the apostles said." That the apostleship was confined to the first-century church does not necessarily mean that only the Twelve and Paul were apostles. Barnabas (Acts 14:14) was certainly an apostle, as was Silas (I Thessalonians 2:6; cf. 1:1); Andronicus and Junia may also have been apostles (Romans 16:7). That Timothy is not included as an apostle in I Thessalonians 2:6 is implied by 3:1-2, where "we" means Paul and Silas distinct from Timothy. We know that Timothy was not an apostolic eyewitness of the risen Jesus, because he was led to Christ by Paul (I Timothy 1:12; 18; II Timothy 1:2; 2:1-2). There is no reason to doubt that Barnabas, Silas, Andronicus, and Junia may not all have been among the over 500 witnesses to the resurrection of Christ (I Corinthians 15:6), and thus "apostles" in the strict sense. Finally, the word "apostle" appears to be used in the sense of a church's missionary in Philippians 2:25 (of Epaphroditus, whom Paul calls "your apostle") and II Corinthians 8:23 ("apostles of the churches"). If so, these men have neither ecclesiastical authority nor revelational gifts; they are simply missionaries. This is not the sense in which "apostle" is used by those claiming to have restored the apostleship to the church. We conclude, then, that the apostleship ended with the death of the apostles appointed by Christ Himself in the first century. With them died the authority to speak definitively for God. We should therefore reject the claims of any religious organization or teacher who claims that the office of apostle has been restored to the church. Love in CHRIST JESUS your brother RC.Scroll |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | Prerequisite-infallibility? | 1 Cor 12:27 | Makarios | 12592 | ||
Dear charis, I believe that if you can assume that there are apostles today by reading into 2 Cor. 11:13 and Rev. 2:2 to say that there are apostles because they mention "false apostles", then it is you who are 'assuming too much'.. The following is my response to what you have written in your post to 'all the saints' and RCSCROLL.. "Again (and again) I hear the *new* revelation requirement. Where might I find that in Scripture?" John 10:35, Revelation 22:18-19 "Honestly, my friend, you yourself seem to claim some authority when you state that your interpretation is the correct and accepted one :-)" I disagree with this! In no way are we presenting ourselves as an 'authority' over anyone here on the Forum. We are just here to offer some good advice, my friend, and discuss the issues at hand. "To try to differentiate between the 'office' and the ministry is just traditionalist gobbledegoop. (with all due respect)" Ok charis, then just how do you differentiate between an 'apostle' and a 'minister' of the gospel, since the Greek for apostle is 'apostolos' which is translated as "messenger"? "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.'" Dear charis, there is no 'groupage' here except those who believe that there are no apostles today in the Biblical sense of the word and those who do believe that this passage 1 Cor. 12:28 applies also for present day when it mentions 'apostles'. In no way does this mean that the same gifts that were distrubuted to the early church are somehow hindered or not being distributed today. Your Brother in Christ, Nolan |
||||||
4 | 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 |
||||||
5 | Prerequisite-infallibility? | 1 Cor 12:27 | Reformer Joe | 12657 | ||
Charis: Before you start lauding Martin Luther as a type of apostle, perhaps you should read some of his commentaries on the Bible and his views on apostleship and whether it exists today. It wasn't even a debated point in the 16th century that the apostles were a first-century phenomenon. It is not until the 20th century (except in the case of the LDS and other "restorationist" cults of the 19th century) in which we see a sudden frenzy to identify "new apostles." He certainly never placed himself in any apostolic category, while the New testament figures did not hesitate to use the terms for themselves (read almost every salutation of Paul's epistles, for example). It is not a question of humility, because in many ways Luther was not a humble man. Rather, it is a recognition that he was in a completely separate category from those identified in the earlist church as apostles. Incidentally, there is a denomination named after Luther, as he did believe in the organized church as God's primary vehicle for glorifying Himself on earth (as did Calvin and all of the other Reformers, not to mention the apostle Peter in 1 Peter 2:1-10). As someone who attends a non-denominational Bible church myself, I will be the first to attest that while there is no central governing body over all "Bible churches," there certainly does exist a great deal of informal control that transcends particular congregations, almost as if a anti-denominational bias binds such congregations together and leads to rejection of cooperative efforts with denominational churches who are very much Christ-centered (such as the PCA or SBC). Such a mentality limits their mission as well to reach the lost for Christ. Almost seems at times as if there is a separate, "non-denominational denomination." --Joe! |
||||||
6 | Prerequisite-infallibility? | 1 Cor 12:27 | glory777 | 12660 | ||
This is not a note per se on apostleship (I already stated what I believe about it) but to say that I think there is a start of a unifying, to some extent with other denominations. Although I can never see a "oneness" taking place, I have seen the start in my area of different church leaders who worship Jesus praying together. I have prayed with some of my Catholic friends, and I know others in my church have also. We pray for each other. So although the biases still remain on BOTH sides, I think there is a realization forming that if Jesus Christ is our center, we are brothers and sisters in His name. Debbie |
||||||
7 | Prerequisite-infallibility? | 1 Cor 12:27 | Reformer Joe | 12662 | ||
Well, we have to remember that unity must be bsed on truth, and not just for unity's sake. While I agree with Catholics on many theological issues (the Trinitarian nature of God, for example), there is still much in Roman Catholicism itself which keeps its most faithful adherents out of the Kingdom of God. Any individual who is relying on God's grace plus their merit (Romans 3:10-18,23 pretty much rules this out), or faith plus works (Ephesians 2:8,9), or Christ plus Mary and their own works (1 Timothy 2:5), and Scripture's authority riding side-saddle with that of the Roman church (2 Timothy 3:16,17) are not getting the gospel right, and therefore are not our brothers and sisters in Christ. The Bible makes this so abundantly clear. I am not part of a denomination myself, but I am more than happy to fellowship with those in this forum and in my "real life" who adhere to the essentials of the gospel but differ with me on questions of baptism, divine election, church order, etc. However, we are not to extend the hand of Chritian fellowship to those who claim to be followers of Christ but who reject the truths of Scripture on what and how we are saved by Whom. I am all for fellowship and cooperation among different denominations, but not all groups claiming to be Christian congregations are truly part of the visible church. Biblical unity is always based on embracing and living out common TRUTHS. --Joe! |
||||||