Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | 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 |
||||||
2 | Prerequisite-infallibility? | 1 Cor 12:27 | Makarios | 12590 | ||
Dear charis, You have stated, "So now we have prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, but no apostles, right?" Just how do you define the word "apostle"? The NIV Study Bible defines it in this way (1 Cor. 12:28 commentary): "apostles. Those chosen by Christ during his earthly ministry to be with him and to go out and preach (Mark 3:14). They were also to be witnesses of the resurrection (Acts 1:21-22). The term may occasionally have been used in a broader sense (Romans 16:7; Galatians 1:19)." So dear brother charis, we cannot begin to use this word and assign it as the particular "task" of an individual unless you properly define it and what you mean by it.. Are you an "apostle", charis? You have also stated, "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." Never did I say that an apostle was infallible or somehow devoid of their sinful nature. To make such an assumption, one would be reasoning contrary to Romans 3:23 and other passages, since there is only one who was 'without blemish' (2 Cor. 5:21). Charis, you have also stated, "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!" The only places in Scripture where it even mentions "false apostles" is 2 Cor. 11:13 and Rev. 2:2. In my opinion, neither verse should be interpreted to suggest that there are true, genuine apostles today because of the fact that they mention 'false apostles'. This is given to us as a warning, not a presentation of an 'office'. You have also stated, "To claim that the (organized) church is now His spokesman is laughable :-)" Well, charis, that is all that we have in this world that represents Christ (the organized church), and I would not find that 'laughable'. We are His representatives here on this earth, and that is something that should not be 'laughed' at, regardless of your disdain of denominations. --Nolan |
||||||
3 | 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 |
||||||
4 | Prerequisite-infallibility? | 1 Cor 12:27 | Makarios | 12680 | ||
Greetings Brother charis, A primary reason that underscores the differences in our conclusions regarding the gift of "apostleship" lie in the very differences in the way that you and I define this gift.. You have defined "Apostle" this way: "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." And I have defined it this way, "apostles. Those chosen by Christ during his earthly ministry to be with him and to go out and preach (Mark 3:14). They were also to be witnesses of the resurrection (Acts 1:21-22). The term may occasionally have been used in a broader sense (Romans 16:7; Galatians 1:19)." According to your definition of 'apostle', you come to the conclusion that there were saints throughout history that had and exercised the gift of apostleship, some of whom are found in "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" and you have even named Martin Luther as a possible 'apostle' in this light.. However, my definition does not allow for anyone to be an apostle (gift or as an office) beyond the first century. I believe that this is where our differences lie, and therefore is the "root" of the difference in how we view the office or gift of apostleship.. I have never stated in my definition or otherwise that an apostle should be a 'superman' or should be someone who has been beautified beyond measure! I am surely not saying that an apostle must give us "new revelation", since I have already stated that the Bible is our ultimate revelation from God and I am confident that you agree with me on that. Since we are working from two completely separate and differing points of reference when regarding apostles, then this is where I could possibly see a beginning point to coming to some 'truth' or some type of an agreement here (understanding each other), and I will study this in depth to see what I can come up with... Your Brother in Christ, Nolan |
||||||