Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
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 | charis | 69411 | ||
Dear Joe! (twice! ;-)) Greetings in the name of Jesus! As you probably already know, I do not have much need for the modern 'capital-A, self-proclaimed, super-Apostle.' Indeed, the Apostles to the Lamb were twelve in number, witnesses and disciples of Christ, and Matthias was chosen to replace Judas Iscariot in Acts 1. Using this reference to set the requirements for all apostles is a bit thin, and there is little evidence that Paul was chosen to replace one of the Twelve. Barnabas, Andronicus, Junias, and James, the Lord's brother are named as apostles. While James may fit your requirements, proving the qualifications of the others is quite difficult. Ephesians 4:11-13 is (at least to me) speaking as if these ministies will continue to the purpose of 'building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith,' which I have yet to see. According to Ephesians, an apostle is a minister to the church, and looking to the clear examples of the Twelve, and the other named apostles, this ministry could very possibly be a present-day ministry. I propose that an apostle is a 'shepherd of shepherds,' an encourager of other ministers. I do not see this as a 'superior' ministry, or one to be flaunted and crowed about. In fact, from the Lord's exhortation (the last shall be first!) and Paul's example, an apostle should be the most humble and least exalted. I have met men that fit this description without the titles or trumpets. Whether they are called apostle or not, they are fulfilling the role portrayed in Scripture. Indeed, I am certain that apostolic ministry has always been in effect, and will be until the return of the Lord. But the true bearers of apostolic mantle will have no need to advertise it, or brandish it like a banner of greatness. Blessings to you, my brother, and 'Kirisuto ga umareta!' (Christ is born!) In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
3 | The foundation of the church | Eph 2:20 | Reformer Joe | 69417 | ||
The only shortcomings I see with your definition of an apostle (a 'shepherd of shepherds,' an encourager of other ministers) is that the mantle of apostle is appealed to as a source of final authority in Scripture: "through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake" --Romans 1:5 "If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord." --1 Corinthians 9:2 "nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority" --1 Thessalonians 2:6 The apostle also seems to have a revelatory role in the early church, and I would not see present-day ministers in any capacity having a revelatory capacity (but rather an "illuminating" one with reference to God's completed revelation). Now that the Scripture is complete, I hold (as the early church did) that ministers do not produce new teaching/doctrine, but rather authoritatively interpret what is already there. --Joe! |
||||||
4 | The foundation of the church | Eph 2:20 | charis | 69493 | ||
Dear Joe! Greetings in the name of Jesus! You wrote: "The only shortcomings I see with your definition of an apostle (a 'shepherd of shepherds,' an encourager of other ministers) is that the mantle of apostle is appealed to as a source of final authority in Scripture:" Brother, if the only shortcomings you see in my definition of present-day apostles are the 'final authority' argument and attaching a revelatory role to the requirement, we have a discussion! ;-) Since there are no clear ministerial 'job descriptions' set forth in the Bible, there is a certain amount of leeway available here. I do not find a clearly Scriptural mandate for some ministries to 'cease' while others continue. Apparently, the most common argument is that the ministry of apostle and prophet are no longer necessary, while evangelists, pastors and teachers (as well as elders and-or deacons, board members, and in some circles youth pastors, music ministers, worship leaders, bishops, and a variety of specialized non-Biblical ministries) remain valid ministries. It seems that this argument 'rests its case' mostly on the veneration of these two exalted ministries. I, too, am in awe of the Biblical apostles and prophets, but not to the point of denying further need for their present-day ministry to the church. My proposal is based on the work of the apostle and prophet, i.e. continuing to do what they did. This would necessitate a definition of 'apostling' and 'prophesying.' There is little proof that every apostle in the Bible was 'with' the Lord, and even Paul considered himself 'born out of time.' Placing some of the other named apostles 'with' Jesus is difficult. The 'authority' argument begins to thin if we accept these other named apostles as bona fide. Not all wrote Scripture, and not all Bible authors are named as apostles. The revelatory role ties in closely with the ministry of prophet. There is no Biblical mandate requiring prophets to write Scripture or bring forth new revelation. A New Testament prophet may simply be fulfilling the words Paul wrote to the church at Corinth: "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation." 1 Corinthians 14:3 NASB. My point is the same as many Bible commentators; There is little Scriptural evidence to deny the present-day ministry of apostles and prophets, but to assign a comparitively 'minor' status to them. By 'minor,' we do not detract from their validity or purpose, but only clarify their position in comparison to the ministers described in the Bible. One disclaimer: My proposal in no way condones the abuse we see in this day. I abhor the recent rash (pun intended!) of 'apostles' prostituting themselves on the TV and 'Special Guest Circuit' these days. They mock God and the church with deception and sorcery. These are NOT present-day apostles and prophets. In fact, I believe they show why the history of the church doesn't flaunt these two ministries. If they are of God, there is no need to advertise, they will merely fulfil the Biblical description without fanfare. My friend, I very much agree with you about the role of 'illumination.' This ties in well with the above reference, and is coincides well with my proposal. Indeed, we "authoritatively interpret what is already there." Maybe not 'final authority,' but authority from God nonetheless. Blessings and joy to you and yours! In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||