Nailed it.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
"Offices" of the Church
- Thread starter Jim an Apostle
- Start date
I'm not going to give the chapter and verse because this was a long time ago for me and anyone truly interested can figure it out on their own (and I think I got it from Watchman Nee, anyway...) but if you sort through the letters and watch Paul's references and use of plural pronouns, it seems pretty obvious that "we" and "us" also has to include at least Timothy and Silvanus as true NT apostles.
I don't think I've considered it before (don't remember doing so, at least), but it makes a certain amount of logical sense to see Matthias as the legit Judas-replacement that fulfills the references to the there-can-be-only-12 apostles as being apostles to the Jews, and then Paul is the first of many "apostles to the Gentiles". Just speculation on my part, but it rationalizes the different references.
Will that the defense work for the Jewish leaders and their treatment of Jesus?
The charge is that it does not matter how we treat someone if we are ignorant of who they are. is that true? I think not. We are to find out who they are so we can treat them accordingly. Is ignorance an excuse? The Law says, no!
Acts 23:3-5
Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? [4] And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? [5] Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.
Paul was admitting that his ignorance was no excuse.
Acts 3:14-19
But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; [15] And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. [16] And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all. [17] And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. [18] But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
[19] Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Paul was telling them that in spite of there ignorance, repentance was needed.
It is questioned that if you do not recognize an Apostle (or any of the callings and gifts from God) that it no longer matters how you respond to them. The Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. It mattered. And it matters that we allow the Holy Spirit to bear witness to help us receive God's gifts to us.
Luke 10:16
He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
The Jewish leaders bear guilt for their treatment of their King and are rightfully criticized, and were rightfully punished... even the whole nation. Most of the leaders and the learned among them rejected the message of the Prophets (including John the Baptist); they rejected the visible Christ, they rejected the voice from heaven at His baptism, they rejected the testimony of the Apostles. It mattered.
Acts 23:3-5
Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? [4] And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? [5] Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.
Paul was admitting that his ignorance was no excuse.
Acts 3:14-19
But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; [15] And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. [16] And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all. [17] And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. [18] But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
[19] Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Paul was telling them that in spite of there ignorance, repentance was needed.
It is questioned that if you do not recognize an Apostle (or any of the callings and gifts from God) that it no longer matters how you respond to them. The Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. It mattered. And it matters that we allow the Holy Spirit to bear witness to help us receive God's gifts to us.
Luke 10:16
He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
The Jewish leaders bear guilt for their treatment of their King and are rightfully criticized, and were rightfully punished... even the whole nation. Most of the leaders and the learned among them rejected the message of the Prophets (including John the Baptist); they rejected the visible Christ, they rejected the voice from heaven at His baptism, they rejected the testimony of the Apostles. It mattered.
I think you missed VV76's point. Paul speaks of "false apostles" and likens them to Satan, and "if I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true" is basic, from Jesus himself. I read VV76's assertion as a prioritization of the issues. Establishing the existence of apostolic authority rightly precedes a determination of appropriate response, at least for people who care about how they spend their time. Or put another way (more like VV76's original), it doesn't matter what we think is an appropriate response to someone claiming to be an apostle until we have determined that there is actually an apostle in the room.
Let's get down to business. You post here as "Jim an Apostle". By what right do you claim that title? Keep in mind that if we reject your claim, you'll probably get yourself banned....
Let's get down to business. You post here as "Jim an Apostle". By what right do you claim that title? Keep in mind that if we reject your claim, you'll probably get yourself banned....
Paul an Apostle said:
Yep. Establish bonafides, then try the spirits, exercise discernment, check the scriptures, double check the scriptures, triple check the scriptures, etc.
One further question: How do you wish to function as an apostle in the context of this ministry? In other words, why do you want us to recognise you as an apostle, and what would you do then?
In my simple understanding, an apostle is one sent forth. The apostolic ministry is to be sent forth by one assembly, and plant a new assembly somewhere else, appoint an initial set of elders to run the assembly, then move on to plant a new one. That's what Paul and Barnabas did as apostles, and there are many men still working in this calling today. They are essential to the church. We tend to call that person a "missionary" today, but in my understanding planting churches is an apostolic ministry. And in my experience of people functioning in this ministry, they don't waste time trying to get recognised by others as being apostles. Many may never even realise the word applies to them. They're busy working humbly behind the scenes on the work God has given them, not seeking the recognition of men. You know them by their fruits, whether or not they recognise it themselves. I can't really see how this conversation is profitable, because if you are an apostle I fear we are simply distracting you from your important work, so I will stop talking now.
In my simple understanding, an apostle is one sent forth. The apostolic ministry is to be sent forth by one assembly, and plant a new assembly somewhere else, appoint an initial set of elders to run the assembly, then move on to plant a new one. That's what Paul and Barnabas did as apostles, and there are many men still working in this calling today. They are essential to the church. We tend to call that person a "missionary" today, but in my understanding planting churches is an apostolic ministry. And in my experience of people functioning in this ministry, they don't waste time trying to get recognised by others as being apostles. Many may never even realise the word applies to them. They're busy working humbly behind the scenes on the work God has given them, not seeking the recognition of men. You know them by their fruits, whether or not they recognise it themselves. I can't really see how this conversation is profitable, because if you are an apostle I fear we are simply distracting you from your important work, so I will stop talking now.
Sorry for the length of time to reply. Went out of town and as you know having more than one wife is time consuming, Since this may be my last post I shall try to be careful and humble in my response.
I am sorry if I have brought offense. I have not made one claim about being an Apostle other than my screen name. I understand there is no point in discussing that idea until there is some agreement on the concept that Apostles could and do still even exist; and some idea of what they do, and even how to recognize them.
The ministry position of an Apostle was established by Jesus; and the exercise and understanding of it, has basically been lost to the church since the death of John. How would the ‘office’ of an Apostle be re-established in the body, if the revelation of their function has basically become a lost art? Do you think that knowledge and understanding would suddenly come to Pastors? First of all, they have little incentive to explore an idea that would supersede their perceived authority. Would deacons and elders pursue the understanding? They would feel the same threat.
Why were the first Apostles rejected in spite of signs and wonders?
John 11:48
If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
People tend to fear what they do not understand. They also fear anything they perceive will undermine their position or authority. The whole concept of the Kingdom of God in practicality (with names and faces) is resisted by most. People want their deacon boards or body of elders to operate by democratic ideals rather than to submit to the Kingdom. They don’t know the difference between a King and a Dictator. They fear both. A Kingdom is the only form of government God uses and endorses. It is “at hand.” Our lack of understanding prevents us from having the faith to walk (at least among ourselves in the church) in a true Kingdom.
The purpose of my discussion here was a take off of your discussion on ‘authority, submission, and chain of command.’ As I watched that thread, I noticed the only “chain of command’ seemed to be that of husbands and elders... maybe pastors, in a limited way. I was merely trying to show a scriptural existence for many more offices and show the chain of command. We could have discussed the role each one is to play. The chain is not complete without Apostles and since that is the most controversial, least understood, and least accepted office I guess it was natural to center the discussion there, for if that could be shot down, then the whole idea would be discredited.
I admire the desire to protect the flock from a false Apostle. Just remember, one is just as guilty if they “protect” them from a true one. You are the one who has made this conversation personal about me, not me. If I were a wolf in sheep’s clothing, I would not use such a direct approach in selling this idea. I got the pattern from Paul and Peter who did not end their letters with their office, but rather began them with the announcement up front. Why do we believe what Paul said? We cannot ‘prove’ he is right. We believe his Apostolic office. If you do not accept that up front, reading the rest of his book will probably not matter much to most. I realize announcing my gift and calling to those who are not persuaded the office even exists today is almost pointless. That’s why this thread was about the concepts and not about me. I should like to continue the discussion about the concepts.
As for me, if you had NO concept of Apostleship and you just read Paul’s letters, they probably would not convince you. You have the luxury of a culture and a church that has accepted that idea for almost 2000 years of history. Me, on the other hand, I realize that just by talking on a computer screen, it would be almost impossible to convince anyone; but especially someone predisposed to reject the whole notion in order to err on the side of caution (good intention and pure motive not in question). You asked me what “right” do I have to claim to be an Apostle. Answer... NONE!! Paul, Peter, nor any of the rest had a right to the office, either. There is not a Pastor, or Elder, or Deacon who has a RIGHT to any ministry in the Kingdom of God. All have sinned and come short of the Glory! We do not have a right to Salvation; but like all things given to sinful men, it is by Grace. So why would I have the faith to claim such an office. Have I had any “signs,” yes! But are they proof? No. Pharaoh’s magicians had actual miracles, not sleight of hand tricks. Did that ‘prove’ anything? NO! When Jesus was asked for a sign, He did not give one. Signs are not proof; they are evidence. But as for signs, let’s see: dead raised, various healings... I believe God once multiplied the gas in a school bus I was driving... way past empty, due to prayer. There have been many, many deliverances from evil spirits, even encounters on at least three occasions with fallen angels. I have fought my “thorn in the flesh” many times. I am currently building a church congregation from scratch (not building on another man’s foundation). I have those in my ministry who have followed me for over 20 years. I have those who it took almost 40 years to convince of the truth of my message. I have had confirmation of Prophets who did not know me. I have had (like Jesus) confirmation from demons. I am well aware of, and have lived the Scripture:
1 Cor. 4:9
For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.
I have found no earthly reason to pursue or glory in this calling. I am not in it for the money. I have no money. I am not in it for prestige. Rejection is the norm. I am not in it for power. My congregation, though faithful, is small. Speaking of signs. Are you a Christian? Do you speak with tongues? Do you cast out devils? Heal the sick? Can you prove it to me? How often must a sign be present to confirm faith? How many would it take?
The bottom line though is faith and my own inward witness! You may reject me, and not give me any more time; but you can’t take my persuasion of faith that I have lived for over 40 years away from me. I started my ministry with the understanding that I was called to be an Apostle. I did not start as an Evangelist, or a Pastor, and promote myself to this position as so many others have attempted. If it is hard to grasp my calling now that I have gray hair, you should have met me when I was 20. If God has called you in a specific calling with the enabling ministry gifting to perform the job, to deny it or claim a lesser call, is not humility. It is simply a lie. For example: Andrew, you play the drums... and you play them quite well. If someone asked you if you were a drummer and you denied it... it would not be humility... it would be a lie.
How do you know Paul was “knocked off the horse?” You only have Paul’s word for it. He was the only one there who heard the voice. You may, and should, try my spirit. Andrew, I wish we could have talked during the Tennessee retreat.
I realize I cannot convince anyone of my calling, only the Holy Spirit can confirm that to anyone. Even Jesus could not convince His own disciples that He was the Son of God without the Holy Spirit making the revelation real to them. I would hope prayer would be part of this process, and not just debate. I recognize that if I am not an Apostle, my mouth should be stopped... and quickly; but if I am... my message might be important. My greatest sign is the first one, patience. Ask anyone who knows me. What is the work of an Apostle? The gift of revelation! How did I come to accept PM? I had to search it for myself. And without any outside support I found the truth. I was so happy to find others who had done the same. I was thrilled to read ‘followinghim’ when he posted a hope that other subjects could be discussed here besides just PM.
The primary purpose of an Apostle is to establish and maintain correct doctrine. You may think the Holy Spirit will do that, but it is not His (its) job (except through the Apostles)! If it is the Holy Spirit’s job, it has not been accomplished, yet. Every generation needs those who re-prove the doctrine for themselves, and re-check for errors made by those who have gone before them. We expect it in science... but somehow assume that gradual shifts in doctrine that occur over time are always correct. Yet, we found it wasn’t so with PM. The problem seems to be getting worse. Wouldn’t you agree?
God has promised a special revelation to Prophets as well.
Amos 3:7
Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
That was in the Old Testament. The New says:
2 Peter 1:19
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
I believe the “we” that Peter here is specifically referring to is Apostles.
As to my gift of revelation... Want to know about the world before Adam? Lucifer’s fall? God’s overall plan? The Kingdom? Body, soul, and spirit? Are tongues for today? Is the Law still in force? Rapture ... pre, mid, or post? Eternal future. Is being in Heaven just sitting of a cloud and playing a harp? How about the rank and order of Satan’s kingdom? Can a Christian have a demon? What / who were the Giants in Gen. chapter 6. Is the “Trinity...” fact... or fiction? Who is Jesus, and what is the truth of his Sonship? What is the truth of pre-destination? I am not a ‘one pet doctrine man,’ or a ‘one revelation man.’ God improves and enlarges my understanding quite often.
You cannot establish truth until you first eliminate error! Early in my quest for understanding, a ‘new’ revelation would cause me to have to tear up everything I ever believed and start over to build back my faith. The process was horrifying! I am happy to report that for many years now ‘new revelation’ and understanding has not caused me to have to do that. There is usually just a hole that gets filled, or the change is minor. Don’t forget Paul was not perfect, either. My doctrine is not contradictory to a proper understanding of Scripture. Re-read my posts I heavily quote Scripture. Others who have refuted me have offered counter Scripture, but they have not addressed the presentation of the Scriptures I presented. They have largely ignored them. I study the Scripture. I love the Scripture! But remember, the Scripture was not written until men wrote it. If you could choose, would you rather have Paul’s book that you could read anytime, or Paul... to who you could talk, anytime? I love this discussion format that you have provided; I love the search for truth; but, we must not just become a debating society.
2 Tim. 3:7
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Hosea 4:6
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
Luke 11:49
Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
Your humble servant, in His service,
jim
I am sorry if I have brought offense. I have not made one claim about being an Apostle other than my screen name. I understand there is no point in discussing that idea until there is some agreement on the concept that Apostles could and do still even exist; and some idea of what they do, and even how to recognize them.
The ministry position of an Apostle was established by Jesus; and the exercise and understanding of it, has basically been lost to the church since the death of John. How would the ‘office’ of an Apostle be re-established in the body, if the revelation of their function has basically become a lost art? Do you think that knowledge and understanding would suddenly come to Pastors? First of all, they have little incentive to explore an idea that would supersede their perceived authority. Would deacons and elders pursue the understanding? They would feel the same threat.
Why were the first Apostles rejected in spite of signs and wonders?
John 11:48
If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
People tend to fear what they do not understand. They also fear anything they perceive will undermine their position or authority. The whole concept of the Kingdom of God in practicality (with names and faces) is resisted by most. People want their deacon boards or body of elders to operate by democratic ideals rather than to submit to the Kingdom. They don’t know the difference between a King and a Dictator. They fear both. A Kingdom is the only form of government God uses and endorses. It is “at hand.” Our lack of understanding prevents us from having the faith to walk (at least among ourselves in the church) in a true Kingdom.
The purpose of my discussion here was a take off of your discussion on ‘authority, submission, and chain of command.’ As I watched that thread, I noticed the only “chain of command’ seemed to be that of husbands and elders... maybe pastors, in a limited way. I was merely trying to show a scriptural existence for many more offices and show the chain of command. We could have discussed the role each one is to play. The chain is not complete without Apostles and since that is the most controversial, least understood, and least accepted office I guess it was natural to center the discussion there, for if that could be shot down, then the whole idea would be discredited.
I admire the desire to protect the flock from a false Apostle. Just remember, one is just as guilty if they “protect” them from a true one. You are the one who has made this conversation personal about me, not me. If I were a wolf in sheep’s clothing, I would not use such a direct approach in selling this idea. I got the pattern from Paul and Peter who did not end their letters with their office, but rather began them with the announcement up front. Why do we believe what Paul said? We cannot ‘prove’ he is right. We believe his Apostolic office. If you do not accept that up front, reading the rest of his book will probably not matter much to most. I realize announcing my gift and calling to those who are not persuaded the office even exists today is almost pointless. That’s why this thread was about the concepts and not about me. I should like to continue the discussion about the concepts.
As for me, if you had NO concept of Apostleship and you just read Paul’s letters, they probably would not convince you. You have the luxury of a culture and a church that has accepted that idea for almost 2000 years of history. Me, on the other hand, I realize that just by talking on a computer screen, it would be almost impossible to convince anyone; but especially someone predisposed to reject the whole notion in order to err on the side of caution (good intention and pure motive not in question). You asked me what “right” do I have to claim to be an Apostle. Answer... NONE!! Paul, Peter, nor any of the rest had a right to the office, either. There is not a Pastor, or Elder, or Deacon who has a RIGHT to any ministry in the Kingdom of God. All have sinned and come short of the Glory! We do not have a right to Salvation; but like all things given to sinful men, it is by Grace. So why would I have the faith to claim such an office. Have I had any “signs,” yes! But are they proof? No. Pharaoh’s magicians had actual miracles, not sleight of hand tricks. Did that ‘prove’ anything? NO! When Jesus was asked for a sign, He did not give one. Signs are not proof; they are evidence. But as for signs, let’s see: dead raised, various healings... I believe God once multiplied the gas in a school bus I was driving... way past empty, due to prayer. There have been many, many deliverances from evil spirits, even encounters on at least three occasions with fallen angels. I have fought my “thorn in the flesh” many times. I am currently building a church congregation from scratch (not building on another man’s foundation). I have those in my ministry who have followed me for over 20 years. I have those who it took almost 40 years to convince of the truth of my message. I have had confirmation of Prophets who did not know me. I have had (like Jesus) confirmation from demons. I am well aware of, and have lived the Scripture:
1 Cor. 4:9
For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.
I have found no earthly reason to pursue or glory in this calling. I am not in it for the money. I have no money. I am not in it for prestige. Rejection is the norm. I am not in it for power. My congregation, though faithful, is small. Speaking of signs. Are you a Christian? Do you speak with tongues? Do you cast out devils? Heal the sick? Can you prove it to me? How often must a sign be present to confirm faith? How many would it take?
The bottom line though is faith and my own inward witness! You may reject me, and not give me any more time; but you can’t take my persuasion of faith that I have lived for over 40 years away from me. I started my ministry with the understanding that I was called to be an Apostle. I did not start as an Evangelist, or a Pastor, and promote myself to this position as so many others have attempted. If it is hard to grasp my calling now that I have gray hair, you should have met me when I was 20. If God has called you in a specific calling with the enabling ministry gifting to perform the job, to deny it or claim a lesser call, is not humility. It is simply a lie. For example: Andrew, you play the drums... and you play them quite well. If someone asked you if you were a drummer and you denied it... it would not be humility... it would be a lie.
How do you know Paul was “knocked off the horse?” You only have Paul’s word for it. He was the only one there who heard the voice. You may, and should, try my spirit. Andrew, I wish we could have talked during the Tennessee retreat.
I realize I cannot convince anyone of my calling, only the Holy Spirit can confirm that to anyone. Even Jesus could not convince His own disciples that He was the Son of God without the Holy Spirit making the revelation real to them. I would hope prayer would be part of this process, and not just debate. I recognize that if I am not an Apostle, my mouth should be stopped... and quickly; but if I am... my message might be important. My greatest sign is the first one, patience. Ask anyone who knows me. What is the work of an Apostle? The gift of revelation! How did I come to accept PM? I had to search it for myself. And without any outside support I found the truth. I was so happy to find others who had done the same. I was thrilled to read ‘followinghim’ when he posted a hope that other subjects could be discussed here besides just PM.
The primary purpose of an Apostle is to establish and maintain correct doctrine. You may think the Holy Spirit will do that, but it is not His (its) job (except through the Apostles)! If it is the Holy Spirit’s job, it has not been accomplished, yet. Every generation needs those who re-prove the doctrine for themselves, and re-check for errors made by those who have gone before them. We expect it in science... but somehow assume that gradual shifts in doctrine that occur over time are always correct. Yet, we found it wasn’t so with PM. The problem seems to be getting worse. Wouldn’t you agree?
God has promised a special revelation to Prophets as well.
Amos 3:7
Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
That was in the Old Testament. The New says:
2 Peter 1:19
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
I believe the “we” that Peter here is specifically referring to is Apostles.
As to my gift of revelation... Want to know about the world before Adam? Lucifer’s fall? God’s overall plan? The Kingdom? Body, soul, and spirit? Are tongues for today? Is the Law still in force? Rapture ... pre, mid, or post? Eternal future. Is being in Heaven just sitting of a cloud and playing a harp? How about the rank and order of Satan’s kingdom? Can a Christian have a demon? What / who were the Giants in Gen. chapter 6. Is the “Trinity...” fact... or fiction? Who is Jesus, and what is the truth of his Sonship? What is the truth of pre-destination? I am not a ‘one pet doctrine man,’ or a ‘one revelation man.’ God improves and enlarges my understanding quite often.
You cannot establish truth until you first eliminate error! Early in my quest for understanding, a ‘new’ revelation would cause me to have to tear up everything I ever believed and start over to build back my faith. The process was horrifying! I am happy to report that for many years now ‘new revelation’ and understanding has not caused me to have to do that. There is usually just a hole that gets filled, or the change is minor. Don’t forget Paul was not perfect, either. My doctrine is not contradictory to a proper understanding of Scripture. Re-read my posts I heavily quote Scripture. Others who have refuted me have offered counter Scripture, but they have not addressed the presentation of the Scriptures I presented. They have largely ignored them. I study the Scripture. I love the Scripture! But remember, the Scripture was not written until men wrote it. If you could choose, would you rather have Paul’s book that you could read anytime, or Paul... to who you could talk, anytime? I love this discussion format that you have provided; I love the search for truth; but, we must not just become a debating society.
2 Tim. 3:7
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Hosea 4:6
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
Luke 11:49
Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
Your humble servant, in His service,
jim
To net that all out, it looks like the answer to my question is found here:
What is your answer to Samuel's question?
What is your answer to Samuel's question?
I am not sold on the idea that apostles still exist but I'm not convinced they don't either. It does seem like Jim is taking some more pointed heat then his posts justify.
I didn't see where he claimed to be an apostle here or tried to exercise any authority. I'm not saying he should be immune from a good old fashioned BF theological hazing but there are some sharp elbows getting thrown here.
I didn't see where he claimed to be an apostle here or tried to exercise any authority. I'm not saying he should be immune from a good old fashioned BF theological hazing but there are some sharp elbows getting thrown here.
C'mon, Zec. I passed over that duplicity in Jim's post, but you?
How is "JIM AN APOSTLE" not a claim to be an apostle?
To tell you the truth, it wasn't as big a deal to me, and I could ignore the time that's being spent here, until I looked at that passage in Corinthians. Claiming to be an apostle is serious business, and needs to be treated as such.
So nobody's throwing elbows here, we're just getting down to business. Let's get on with it. I want to hear Jim's answer to Samuel's question. What difference does this all make here?
How is "JIM AN APOSTLE" not a claim to be an apostle?
To tell you the truth, it wasn't as big a deal to me, and I could ignore the time that's being spent here, until I looked at that passage in Corinthians. Claiming to be an apostle is serious business, and needs to be treated as such.
So nobody's throwing elbows here, we're just getting down to business. Let's get on with it. I want to hear Jim's answer to Samuel's question. What difference does this all make here?
And to be clear about my accusation, when I say "duplicitous", I do not mean that Jim is actually lying. However, it is duplicitous (that is, "double speak") to say something that equates to "I have not made one claim other than the one claim I made".
That's fair Andrew, Jim did describe himself as an apostle at the retreat and we have been having a discussion about authority in the ecclesia. I'm not disputing the questions are valid. They are and they need to be addressed.
Jim hasn't started issuing orders or asking for financial support though so he may claim for himself the title of apostle, and I agree that claim should be backed up (Paul backed up his claim) he hasn't tried to assume the role here though yet.
I would be interested in where this conversation goes but suddenly he was talking about not posting anymore. Jim is still a relative newbie here. Let's give him some room to unpack his ideas. Or rather respond.
Jim hasn't started issuing orders or asking for financial support though so he may claim for himself the title of apostle, and I agree that claim should be backed up (Paul backed up his claim) he hasn't tried to assume the role here though yet.
I would be interested in where this conversation goes but suddenly he was talking about not posting anymore. Jim is still a relative newbie here. Let's give him some room to unpack his ideas. Or rather respond.
Thank you for an opportunity to respond.
To answer Samuel, I had not read his post and questions until after I had posted my reply to you, Andrew. Taking the last idea first, although Apostles may do "missionary work" if you read the story of Philip the Deacon, who proved to be an Evangelist, the primary work of an Evangelist is to spread the Word and to make converts. Philip had many converts:
Acts 8:4-14
Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word. [5] Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. [6] And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. [7] For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. [8] And there was great joy in that city. [9] But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: [10] To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. [11] And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. [12] But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. [13] Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. [14] Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Philip made the converts, but Apostles came to establish and oversee the Church.
Acts 21:8
And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.
Although, Philip had signs and miracles, he was initially chosen to be a Deacon; but 13 chapters later, he was recognized as called to be an Evangelist. So, we do have examples of Apostles coming to existing converts to enlarge their understanding and walk with the Lord. How About:
Acts 19:1-6
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, [2] He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. [3] And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. [4] Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. [5] When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [6] And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Here, Paul finds existing disciples, and again enlarges their understanding. The idea that existing disciples have no need of Apostolic ministry is patently false. In the above cases, these were not the converts of the Apostles who came to them.
Romans 1:13
Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
Apparently, Paul had not been to Rome yet, but he still wrote them instruction in doctrine.
Ephes. 4:11-15
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; [12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: [13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: [14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; [15] But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
All of these ministries are for the perfecting of the Saints! Even though an Evangelist is called to reach out to the lost, (we all are) they (Evangelists) can also help instruct, organize, and guide the church in the work of Evangelism.
The rest of Paul's letters, except for Romans and the general writing of Hebrews (maybe), was to those to whom he had already ministered. He had established the church and had appointed elders; yet, he still maintained an oversight and authority in those congregations; he did not establish a church, and then abandon it.
Acts 18:21
But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.
Acts 15:36
And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do.
In the United States there seems to me to be many 'empty churches'; and therefore, a greater need for correct doctrine and guidance in the ones we have... before we just establish more and more empty churches. Yes, I did start a church from scratch, still oversee it, and pastor it for now; but in a small town that already has about 20 churches, and many empty seats in them, in many ways it did seem silly in the grand scheme of things.
When I started to speak in this forum, I did not think it was a job interview. I was merely expressing my understandings along with everyone else. Yes, the underlying claim of being an Apostle was in my screen name. I was not trying to hide who I was. Neither was I trying to impose my doctrine upon anyone. I was trying to give more perspective to the discussion of Submission, Chain of Command, and Authority in the church. It seemed germane to the discussion that a chain of command needed to recognize those who would be in the chain, and what that would look like.
As to my function here, my initial goal was... and still is... to enjoy the fellowship and discussion. Sure I enjoy getting my understandings out there for your consideration, but I recognize that unless through time, experience, and probably some 'face to face' fellowship that acceptance of my calling would be nearly impossible.
I will be thrilled to just be allowed to express my insights under the banner of "Jim , that guy who thinks he is an Apostle, said ..." If actually recognized in this ministry as an Apostle, nothing would really change. I would continue as I always do, endeavoring to bring unity among the brethren.
Thank you for your time and allowing me to participate.
To answer Samuel, I had not read his post and questions until after I had posted my reply to you, Andrew. Taking the last idea first, although Apostles may do "missionary work" if you read the story of Philip the Deacon, who proved to be an Evangelist, the primary work of an Evangelist is to spread the Word and to make converts. Philip had many converts:
Acts 8:4-14
Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word. [5] Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. [6] And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. [7] For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. [8] And there was great joy in that city. [9] But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: [10] To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. [11] And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. [12] But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. [13] Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. [14] Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Philip made the converts, but Apostles came to establish and oversee the Church.
Acts 21:8
And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.
Although, Philip had signs and miracles, he was initially chosen to be a Deacon; but 13 chapters later, he was recognized as called to be an Evangelist. So, we do have examples of Apostles coming to existing converts to enlarge their understanding and walk with the Lord. How About:
Acts 19:1-6
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, [2] He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. [3] And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. [4] Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. [5] When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [6] And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Here, Paul finds existing disciples, and again enlarges their understanding. The idea that existing disciples have no need of Apostolic ministry is patently false. In the above cases, these were not the converts of the Apostles who came to them.
Romans 1:13
Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
Apparently, Paul had not been to Rome yet, but he still wrote them instruction in doctrine.
Ephes. 4:11-15
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; [12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: [13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: [14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; [15] But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
All of these ministries are for the perfecting of the Saints! Even though an Evangelist is called to reach out to the lost, (we all are) they (Evangelists) can also help instruct, organize, and guide the church in the work of Evangelism.
The rest of Paul's letters, except for Romans and the general writing of Hebrews (maybe), was to those to whom he had already ministered. He had established the church and had appointed elders; yet, he still maintained an oversight and authority in those congregations; he did not establish a church, and then abandon it.
Acts 18:21
But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.
Acts 15:36
And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do.
In the United States there seems to me to be many 'empty churches'; and therefore, a greater need for correct doctrine and guidance in the ones we have... before we just establish more and more empty churches. Yes, I did start a church from scratch, still oversee it, and pastor it for now; but in a small town that already has about 20 churches, and many empty seats in them, in many ways it did seem silly in the grand scheme of things.
When I started to speak in this forum, I did not think it was a job interview. I was merely expressing my understandings along with everyone else. Yes, the underlying claim of being an Apostle was in my screen name. I was not trying to hide who I was. Neither was I trying to impose my doctrine upon anyone. I was trying to give more perspective to the discussion of Submission, Chain of Command, and Authority in the church. It seemed germane to the discussion that a chain of command needed to recognize those who would be in the chain, and what that would look like.
As to my function here, my initial goal was... and still is... to enjoy the fellowship and discussion. Sure I enjoy getting my understandings out there for your consideration, but I recognize that unless through time, experience, and probably some 'face to face' fellowship that acceptance of my calling would be nearly impossible.
I will be thrilled to just be allowed to express my insights under the banner of "Jim , that guy who thinks he is an Apostle, said ..." If actually recognized in this ministry as an Apostle, nothing would really change. I would continue as I always do, endeavoring to bring unity among the brethren.
Thank you for your time and allowing me to participate.
Dare I propose a , wait for it, no one get giddy, wait for it. Breathe man you'll pass out! Word study!
Yes, I said it. You can all thank me or hate me as you see fit. I'll look it up and get back to you.
Yes, I said it. You can all thank me or hate me as you see fit. I'll look it up and get back to you.
What if your assumption is wrong?
What if the whole focus on Offices is wrong?
What if Offices separate and divide the body?
What if YHWH's intention was gifts were to be operated organically by people allowing all of the gifts to flow through each of them?
What if YHWH wants us all to grow up and manifest all of the gifts?
What if the enemy's plan is to sequester Officeholders in separate Gift Profit Centers and have them spend most of their time working out the hierarchical responsibilities.
And what if I am merely a distraction?
That's the sound of you coming up to speed on where we are, brother.
I think we're all interested in where the conversation goes, and Jim's comment about maybe posting his last post was, I think, an acknowledgment of my caution that we all tread carefully here, especially him. I don't think he was saying he's about to tuck tail and run as much as he was trying to stress that his intention was to state his position carefully, realizing that he might be prevented from posting here further if things went sideways. (Jim, correct me if I'm wrong.)And we're already giving him room to state his case, and that's why I was interested to see what he had to say in response to Samuel. There are lots of issues swirling around here, but the most practical one is "what has that got to do with us?". And apparently the answer is, "nothing".
The one quibble I have here is with this:
Yeah, but that's not how you're posting, and I think the Corinthians passage pretty much rules out the possibility that we're going to just humor you. Like the thing they used to say (was it from C.S. Lewis?) that based on Jesus's claims, he has to be either Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. You're either claiming to be an apostle of Christ or you're not, and if you are and you're not who you claim to be, that's a bit of a problem. According to Paul. An undisputed apostle.
More to say here, but I'm out of time. Should be back later tonight.
steve, bless you brother, I couldn't agree more with everything you said.
I've got a really good deal on this certain bridge......
Yes! I do make that claim. However, because I also recognize that all of the offices work by submission, such a claim only creates a relationship with those who will receive it. You may claim to be the husband of your wife, but it is only a working relationship as long as you both accept the roles, and live accordingly. My claims here are not able to be enforced by me or anyone else. Even God will let the path of freewill decide who will accept even His own Son, let alone me. I have no power or intention to usurp any authority here.
If my trust is not earned over time, my ideas will prove to be invalid and dismissed accordingly. I thank everyone for their prayerful consideration of these things. Andrew is right, this is serious business. We neither one can afford to be wrong on this. This is not an idea I have adopted as of late. The recognition of my own call to ministry was around 10 years of age or so. By the time my initial ordination at 19 or 20, I had began to understand my Apostolic call. No one I knew was really teaching it. The idea was barely thought of, even in my circles, as being valid for today. Yet, as stated earlier, this calling on my life has been confirmed by the Holy Spirit through others. As I set my heart to study, I have received a comprehensive understanding of the ministry offices of the church. I was taught it from the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. I appreciate your understanding of the situation, and you are right. I have said to many people, "either I am, or I am not." I am well aware of the folly of claiming this gift, if it were not so. My heart is right before God. You state that "if I am not, that's a bit of a problem." Are you prepared to add that if I am who I claim to be... that rejection of that is also serious business?