Our Need to Study and Learn from Others

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Hi DiscussingTheTopic,

I'm not certain that an apostle is what you think it is. Holding up a sign which tells an important moral truth against sin is probably good and useful, but I don't think it is apostolic in nature. It's more evangelical and teaching in nature.

The apostles in Scripture--the Twelve and Paul and the others--kept the Church on the straight and narrow concerning doctrine, and took God's word WITH POWER all over the earth. Their job was to start churches, teach the churches, then keep an eye on the churches concerning doctrine (though the last wasn't the primary job they did).

They weren't simply "messengers" or even simply "delegates". There was a much better word for messenger, and it is used throughout Scripture, "angelos". Apostolos carries a different meaning, stronger in regards to the mission of the apostle. Apostles were more than messengers. They were like ambassadors for the Gospel, speaking in the name of the King Jesus with His words and His authority. A messenger just delivers a message.

We don't want to devalue the meaning of the word "apostolos" as used in the New Testament, or we lose the value of what an apostle was within Christianity.

Not everyone called is an apostle, but some are also prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers. In fact, probably the least common "job" for Christians is that of apostle.


John for Christ

I do not think it is that hard, to say for instance hold a sign with a picture of an aborted baby, with the words "murder is bad." I am sure God is sending out plenty of people to do that, unfortunately a lot of them are saying no to their calling to be "apostles."

No.... I do not think it takes a vast degree of knowledge in this day and age to be an apostle. For one simply knowing that murdering babies is bad, can sometimes be enough to qualify a man to be an apostle if he does not reject the calling of God to be an apostle. That could qualify almost anyone who is not in the dark to be an apostle.

That being said there are some people who think they are sent out to teach things they do not really understand. But as for being sent out to do what is obvious, I certainly am sent out to do that. So I stick by my claim that I am an apostle (at least of the simple things I know,) unless you can show that I am linguistically wrong.

Pure and simply I would have to learn Greek better much much much better to get anywhere near to answering that question.

But I think where the choice between transliteration and translation is used is based on priori assumptions about the definition that obscure the real definition.

For another example

Verily281, verily281, I say3004 unto you5213, The servant1401 is2076 not3756 greater than3187 his846 lord2962; neither3761 he that is sent652 greater than3187 he that sent3992 him846.
John 13:16 KJV

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... G652&t=KJV

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 3992&t=KJV

Two different Greek words are translated to sent. But G652 is not transliterated to "Apostle" here, even though it is normally transliterated to "Apostle"

Why?

In my opinion it is based on a priori assumption of what an apostle actually is. It is not fitting of the modern English word Apostle as it is used in King James time, but it was fitting of a word sounding like Apostle in the time it was written.

I suspect that the meaning of Apostle changed!!!!! And people's priori assumptions cover up the truth.

Yet1161 I supposed2233 it necessary316 to send3992 to4314 you5209 Epaphroditus1891, my3450 brother80, and2532 companion in labour4904, and2532 fellowsoldier4961, but1161 your5216 messenger652, and2532 he that ministered3011 to my3450 wants5532.
Philippians 2:25 King James

Whether1535 [any do enquire] of5228 Titus5103, [he is] my1699 partner2844 and2532 fellowhelper4904 concerning1519 you5209: or1535 our2257 brethren80 [be enquired of, they are] the messengers652 of the churches1577, [and] the glory1391 of Christ5547.
2 Corinthians 1:1 King James

Here it is translated as messenger instead of transliterated to a word that sounds like "Apostle"

Why? In my opinion priori assumptions.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi DiscussingTheTopic,

While there seems to be a general distrust on this forum of modern scholarly authorities, I'd suggest you read the Wikipedia article on "Christian apostles":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_(Christian)

The article provides some information and references to the apostles found in the New Testament.

One statement I think describes what an apostle does refers to being directly associated with the apostles of Jesus as students or trainees, "In the 2nd century, association with the apostles was esteemed as evidence of authority and orthodoxy." The key here is that the apostles represented "authority and orthodoxy".

The apostles in the New Testament were noted for several things, or were identified by several things:

• (1) Disseminating the Gospel to the world.
  (2) Planting churches.
  (3) Teaching "orthodoxy" to the churches they planted.
  (4) Helping to maintain "orthodoxy" among the churches.
  (5) Training up others to continue their mission.
  (6) Showing the signs of an apostle:
  
  • (1) Signs.
    (2) Wonders.
    (3) Miracles.
  (7) Being appointed by Jesus (whether physically or spiritually, as Paul experienced).
  (8) They functioned as Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors (in their function of starting churches), and Teachers.

These are the same things I would expect to identify an apostle in the modern world.

Earlier I offered a list of those named apostles in the New Testament. My list turns out to be incomplete, so here's a complete list of those called apostles in the New Testament:

• (1) Peter
  (2) James, son of Zebedee
  (3) John, son of Zebedee
  (4) Andrew, Peter's brother
  (5) Philip
  (6) Bartholomew (also known as Nathaniel)
  (7) Matthew
  (8) Thomas
  (9) James, son of Alphaeus
  (10) Jude
  (11) Simon the Zealot
  (12) Judas Iscariot
  (13) Matthias
  (14) Paul
  (15) Barnabas (Acts 14:14)
  (16) Andronicus (Romans 16:7) -- may have only been well known by the Apostles
  (17) Junia (Romans 16:7) -- may have only been well known by the Apostles
  (18) Silas (1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2:6, and Acts 15:40ff)
  (19) Timothy (1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2:6)
  (20) Apollos (1 Corinthians 4:9)

So, depending upon whom we count as Apostles, there were between 11 (the Twelve minus Judas) to 20 Apostles mentioned within the New Testament.


John for Christ

Hi DiscussingTheTopic,

I'm not certain that an apostle is what you think it is. Holding up a sign which tells an important moral truth against sin is probably good and useful, but I don't think it is apostolic in nature. It's more evangelical and teaching in nature.

The apostles in Scripture--the Twelve and Paul and the others--kept the Church on the straight and narrow concerning doctrine, and took God's word WITH POWER all over the earth. Their job was to start churches, teach the churches, then keep an eye on the churches concerning doctrine (though the last wasn't the primary job they did).

They weren't simply "messengers" or even simply "delegates". There was a much better word for messenger, and it is used throughout Scripture, "angelos". Apostolos carries a different meaning, stronger in regards to the mission of the apostle. Apostles were more than messengers. They were like ambassadors for the Gospel, speaking in the name of the King Jesus with His words and His authority. A messenger just delivers a message.

We don't want to devalue the meaning of the word "apostolos" as used in the New Testament, or we lose the value of what an apostle was within Christianity.

Not everyone called is an apostle, but some are also prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers. In fact, probably the least common "job" for Christians is that of apostle.


John for Christ

Pure and simply I would have to learn Greek better much much much better to get anywhere near to answering that question.

But I think where the choice between transliteration and translation is used is based on priori assumptions about the definition that obscure the real definition.

For another example

Verily281, verily281, I say3004 unto you5213, The servant1401 is2076 not3756 greater than3187 his846 lord2962; neither3761 he that is sent652 greater than3187 he that sent3992 him846.
John 13:16 KJV

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... G652&t=KJV

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 3992&t=KJV

Two different Greek words are translated to sent. But G652 is not transliterated to "Apostle" here, even though it is normally transliterated to "Apostle"

Why?

In my opinion it is based on a priori assumption of what an apostle actually is. It is not fitting of the modern English word Apostle as it is used in King James time, but it was fitting of a word sounding like Apostle in the time it was written.

I suspect that the meaning of Apostle changed!!!!! And people's priori assumptions cover up the truth.

Yet1161 I supposed2233 it necessary316 to send3992 to4314 you5209 Epaphroditus1891, my3450 brother80, and2532 companion in labour4904, and2532 fellowsoldier4961, but1161 your5216 messenger652, and2532 he that ministered3011 to my3450 wants5532.
Philippians 2:25 King James

Whether1535 [any do enquire] of5228 Titus5103, [he is] my1699 partner2844 and2532 fellowhelper4904 concerning1519 you5209: or1535 our2257 brethren80 [be enquired of, they are] the messengers652 of the churches1577, [and] the glory1391 of Christ5547.
2 Corinthians 1:1 King James

Here it is translated as messenger instead of transliterated to a word that sounds like "Apostle"

Why? In my opinion priori assumptions.

 

[steve]

Ali and/or Steve, I have several questions that I am curious in regard to your discussion with Pastor John to how you would respond in light of the apostleship comments. My set of questions are as follows:

1. Are you aware of, or do you see two or so distinct definitions for the term apostle from the original language?

2. If not would you mind defining the term apostle so we can see how you are defining your term?

i will let YHWH define and use the term in any way that He wants to, w/out limitations from my understanding.

3. Furthermore, do you think a "modern" apostle can speak a word that has the same weight of authority as say the apostles who wrote the NC writings after Christ's ascension? In other words, can a "modern" apostle in your view be given revelation and/or authority that is as equal in standing and authority to the words as given in the biblical books commonly called the NC scriptures?

if YHWH gives him/her the words it would be kinda rediculous and impertinent for us to judge the weight of them

[

4. Lastly, with multiple questions concerning thoughts from the actual writings of Pentecostal and Charismatic thinkers, what do you think about the fact that none of the major leaders in church history until the 1900's ever applied to themselves the term apostle?.......... How would you respond to Dr. Wayne Grudem, who himself affirms all of the spiritual gifts are for today and is one of the most well known Evangelical writers in the field of biblical prophecy and the fivefold offices/gifts of the church, who has said, "Though some may use the word apostle in English today to refer to very effective church planters or evangelists, it seems inappropriate and unhelpful to do so, for it simply confuses people who read the NT and see the high authority that is attributed to the office of apostle there. It is noteworthy that no major leader in the history of the church--not Athanasius, or Augustine, not Luther or Calvin, not Wesley or Whitfield--has taken to himself the title of apostle or let himself be called an apostle. If any in modern times want to take the title "apostle" to themselves, they immediately raise the suspicion that they may be motivated by inappropriate pride and desires for self-exaltation, along with excessive ambition and a desire for much more authority in the church than one person should rightfully have"

quite frankly, he sounds confused.


). How would you respond to Grudem,................ Or even with Dr. Gordon D. Fee,................evidence that Paul thought of a local church as having some in it called apostles, who were responsible for its affairs.............. And how would you respond to a Dr. J. Rodman Williams, a Ph.D Charismatic scholar from Columbia University, ...............How would you respond to these views as a representation of solid pentecostal and charismatic biblical scholarship?

I am not pressing a view here but would like to see how you interact with what most consider to be some of the most faithful scholars on those subjects from within the actual Charismatic and Pentecostal fields of theological thought. Do you differ with them, agree with them, or have any support of a better view from any other theologians beyond your own views on these matters?

they have their opinions, and a right to them.
the pharisees did an excellent job of explaining the scriptures and proving that Yeshua was not the Messiah. their spirit is among us today.

i believe in a simple reading and understanding of the passages that speak of the gifts. they were given because they were needed, and the only theorizing is being done by those who teach that they no longer exist or are needed as they once were.

 

[steve]

Earlier I offered a list of those named apostles in the New Testament. My list turns out to be incomplete, so here's a complete list of those called apostles in the New Testament:

• (1) Peter
  (2) James, son of Zebedee
  (3) John, son of Zebedee
  (4) Andrew, Peter's brother
  (5) Philip
  (6) Bartholomew (also known as Nathaniel)
  (7) Matthew
  (8) Thomas
  (9) James, son of Alphaeus
  (10) Jude
  (11) Simon the Zealot
  (12) Judas Iscariot
  (13) Matthias
  (14) Paul
  (15) Barnabas (Acts 14:14)
  (16) Andronicus (Romans 16:7) -- may have only been well known by the Apostles
  (17) Junia (Romans 16:7) -- may have only been well known by the Apostles
  (18) Silas (1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2:6, and Acts 15:40ff)
  (19) Timothy (1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2:6)
  (20) Apollos (1 Corinthians 4:9)

So, depending upon whom we count as Apostles, there were between 11 (the Twelve minus Judas) to 20 Apostles mentioned within the New Testament.

good job, and Yeshua never even makes the list because he was not named as one.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

if YHWH gives him/her the words it would be kinda rediculous and impertinent for us to judge the weight of them

So Steve, help me understand then. By that it sounds like you do believe that revelations today ought to be considered on the same level and equal to the authority as set forth in the 66 books of the Bible. Is that what you are saying? Are you saying that we should be preserving the words of modern day people (whatever term you use for them) and placing their words on the same level of infallibility and inspiration as what we have from those who wrote the 66 books of the Bible?

And secondly how would your words above line up with Paul's command to the Thessalonians where he said, do not despise prophecies but test them and hold fast to what is good yet abstain from every form of evil prophecy (1 Thess. 5:20-22)? Was that unsound for those believers there to weigh and discern if something was really of God or not? If they did that then has something changed? And if prophecies for today as you define them are of of the same degree of importance, and by that I mean if those of today are universally authoritative to the entire body of Christ as are the 66 books of the Bible then we are back to the original question, should those words then be bound and preserved and added to the Bible as equal to the rest of the books of the Bible? If so how are you going about doing this and what other books to the Bible do you have that you personally obey that also the entire body of Christ ought to obey as well?

the pharisees did an excellent job of explaining the scriptures and proving that Yeshua was not the Messiah. their spirit is among us today.

So help me understand this quote you made in response to the Evangelical Christian Charismatic Bible teachers who spoke about the doctrine of the gifts in the church. Are you saying by that quote that those men who I quoted from who claim the name of the Messiah as their Lord and who, unlike the Pharisees you mentioned, do openly affirm that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh are truly unredeemed or unsaved men because they take a different position than you? I see you said that Dr. Grudem sounds confused. Is that what you mean when you say, "their spirit is among us today"? Or do you mean those men I referenced are the ones who are like the Pharisees and among us today? If so how do you arrive at that conclusion? Do you have some prophetic word that gives you a position of infallibility on that or is it simply because they differ with you and thus from that you form that opinion or lean in that direction? How do you equate those men's interpretations to the Bible to be similar to the interpretations of the Pharisees who rejected Christ as Lord? How do those two ideas relate when these men indeed do embrace Jesus as Lord? Or is it some other reason that leads you to that position about those men or were you saying something else by those words that is not being understood?

 

[steve]

if YHWH gives him/her the words it would be kinda rediculous and impertinent for us to judge the weight of them

So Steve, help me understand then. By that it sounds like you do believe that revelations today ought to be considered on the same level and equal to the authority as set forth in the 66 books of the Bible. Is that what you are saying?

i am saying that the Creator of the universe should be allowed to speak to us in any way that He wants to, and that He should have a reasonable expectation that we will consider it as important and "weighty" as other communications from Him.

Are you saying that we should be preserving the words of modern day people (whatever term you use for them) and placing their words on the same level of infallibility and inspiration as what we have from those who wrote the 66 books of the Bible?

if He so wishes

And secondly how would your words above line up with Paul's command to the Thessalonians where he said, do not despise prophecies but test them and hold fast to what is good yet abstain from every form of evil prophecy (1 Thess. 5:20-22)?

what is not to agree with? i am advocating just that.

Was that unsound for those believers there to weigh and discern if something was really of God or not?

????????? no

If they did that then has something changed?

???????? no

And if prophecies for today as you define them are of of the same degree of importance, and by that I mean if those of today are universally authoritative to the entire body of Christ as are the 66 books of the Bible then we are back to the original question, should those words then be bound and preserved and added to the Bible as equal to the rest of the books of the Bible?

if YHWH so wishes

If so how are you going about doing this and what other books to the Bible do you have that you personally obey that also the entire body of Christ ought to obey as well?

actually, YHWH has a much greater desire that we have a relationship with Him, than that we have a relationship with written words. through that intimate relationship with Him He can speak through even imperfect written works when He so desires.

the pharisees did an excellent job of explaining the scriptures and proving that Yeshua was not the Messiah. their spirit is among us today.

So help me understand this quote you made .............
................. or were you saying something else by those words that is not being understood?

i was saying that man's need to understand and quantify the unknown has not changed, that instead of walking with the Living God, the pharisees focused on a relationship with His word, and completely missed the coming of His Son. the term "pharisee" has become a term of derision, but it describes each and every one of us that seeks to know Him and quantify Him outside of intimacy with Him.

 

[Scarecrow]

"actually, YHWH has a much greater desire that we have a relationship with Him, than that we have a relationship with written words."

????? The Bible is only "written words"?

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

How do we build our relationship with the LORD? We spend time in prayer, we spend time READING HIS WORD, we spend time associating with other Christians...we walk in the good works He prepared for us before the foundations of the Earth...

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukMix2pUpPo

 

[steve]

scarecrow,
i am sorry that my ability to communicate the distinction is inadequate. i wish that i knew how to get it across more clearly. :?

 

[Anonymous]

actually, YHWH has a much greater desire that we have a relationship with Him, than that we have a relationship with written words. through that intimate relationship with Him He can speak through even imperfect written works when He so desires.

Being a Pentecostal, I understand and accept the Gifts of the Spirit..."HOWEVER" the written "Word" is the foundation for our relationship with God. It isn't a book like other books. It is alive and infallible. It is our standard for what is true. God does want a personal and intimate relationship with us but He will never go against what is written in the Bible. As for judging modern prophecies or revelations...the Biblical standard for prophets hasn't changed even though many Christians ignore what the Bible says about them. A "prophet" who gives a prophecy that does not come true is a false prophet. It doesn't matter if he got 100 right...if only one fails then he has spoken presumptuously and is not a true prophet. Any word that contradicts what the Bible says should also be rejected.

Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[steve]

Yes, a very precise replica. Sheep are among, if not, the dumbest of domesticated animals. If they did not have a person caring for them, they would not survive for long and certainly would not flourish. I did not come up with the shepherd/sheep analogy, God did. He calls us the sheep of His pasture, yes we are as dumb as sheep and need His Holy Spirit to sustain us. If we were not so sheeplike God's people wouldn't be fleeced as we are by so many of the money grubbers we see on TV as "Pastors", they abound and thrive. Somehow in His infinite wisdom, God designed churches and pastor/people relationships. Remember pastors are just sheep that have been given a particular job to do. Pastors are not superior to the flock in any way and have no authority but that given by God in His Word..

thank you for another honest response, let me just say that i embrace a more empowering view of the Great Shepherd's ministry to His flock.

 

[steve]

the written "Word" is the foundation for our relationship with God.

His love for me is the foundation for my relationship with Him. His Word is one of the ways that He communicates His love for me and His desire for relationship with me.

Any word that contradicts what the Bible says should also be rejected.

i could not agree more. :!:

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Steve,

You said the Lord could add to his word "if he so desires." First, has he ever added any new prophetic revelations to the current existing Bible since the time after Apostle John's death? If so what books or words would that be?

Also, secondly, how would you know if the words of what you call modern day prophets are to be added as universally binding words for all people in the body of Christ? How would you know the Lord wants those words added? By what standard would you use to determine what needed to be added as equal to the Bible?

I am so curious as to your answers to these specific questions since you seem to think there can be additions to the Bible by those you think qualify as a modern day prophet and/or apostle.

 

[steve]

i have never said that anyone qualifies.
i have just repeatedly stated in various ways that we have no right to hold a doctrine which precludes Him from communicating with us in manners of His own choosing.

 

[Revgill87123]

I know no one should follow man in the first place. More so just not going back to verify and taking the word of their pastor. We pastors are human and we make mistakes even when it's not intentional we do. I used to be so greatful for the people who were studying the word cause when I would have a moment and they would come to me after church and let me know. Some times I would be right and some times I was wrong. When I was wrong how ever I would correct my self and make sure every one understood pastor makes mistakes. Good thing too cause it helped me so much to grow. That is why I love this site cause there is a group of elders who let me know when I start talking more about me and not about G*d! It's called accountability the way it's supposed to be cause no man knows every thing no matter how much we study and wish we did.

john,
you have just made my point.
there are many different pastors with varying opinions. call us sheep if you want to, but we must individualy decide what to keep and what to pitch.
i do not think that you would advocate that we just choose a denomination (even that would require discernment on the individuals part) and believe what that denomination teaches. or choose a pastor and believe what that pastor teaches.
many do just that though, they trust what has been handed down in the succession of that particular group rather than what our Lord might want to teach them.
most of us with the polygeny understanding have been led to this understanding in spite of what our pastors tried to teach us, so i would think that you are going to not find a lot of people on this board that are willing to non-critically follow what a man might teach.
it has been my observation that one man, pastor if you will, is very strong and solid in one or more aspects, but may be weaker in others where another is strong.
it is up to us individually to pick out the wheat and ignore the chaff, spoiled wheat, pebbles, and other junk.
no one has the right to say, "i am sent from G-d and should be 100% trusted."

 

[welltan]

It is not necessary or possible to know everything about God and define everything about God. Many attempt this with a false confidence that scripture is meant to accomplish this task and presume to contain all of scripture in the mind and then to stretch it to cover everything about God. The problem becomes that a lack of, or stunted living relationship with Christ causes application of scripture knowledge to fail as it has little root outside of scripture. Satan knows scripture, but it does not save him. Neither is there any salvation power in the Bible, but rather in Christ which scripture speaks of and bears testimony to. Knowing God only in the rational abstract can not but tempt a man to create God in his mind's image or his own theo-construct's image. This makes the Bible an idol or at least God in a bottle. If God can only be defined by scripture then scripture becomes the definer's God. The Bible was never intended to be an idol. The first chapter of John talks about the beginning and the word but it does not mention scripture unless God is inferred limited to just scripture, which of course did not exist in "the beginning". If only scripture can define God, then since the phrase "only inspired word of God" is not in scripture, man has added to scripture by uttering that phrase. God does not need permission from the keepers of the phrase "only inspired word of God" to talk. But, the keepers of that phrase, which is not supported or found in scripture, have committed the crime of their fears by adding to scripture themselves. This does not accomplish the motive of defending God but rather creates little idols to beat other Christians with who hopefully have inferior idols. Does this mean we should not accept scripture? Of course not. However, scripture should not be used to try to establish that God is dead or at least can not talk, walk, or caulk new holes in people's hearts. The early church in Acts was not instructed to wait on a scripture collection, KJV or otherwise, but rather the authority and presence of the Holy Spirit. It is remarkable to me that people are willing to accept Christ walking on water, Noah saving the world in the Ark, a donkey talking, and all the great truths recorded in the Bible and completely balk at the filling of the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit might have something to say. If Christ has walked the raunchy path to our hearts, knocked on the door and we have opened and let Christ in, then don't slap his mouth and love shut with the duct tape of your fear of what God wants to speak into your life and heart.

 

[Revgill87123]

Amen Bruddah!

It is not necessary or possible to know everything about God and define everything about God. Many attempt this with a false confidence that scripture is meant to accomplish this task and presume to contain all of scripture in the mind and then to stretch it to cover everything about God. The problem becomes that a lack of, or stunted living relationship with Christ causes application of scripture knowledge to fail as it has little root outside of scripture. Satan knows scripture, but it does not save him. Neither is there any salvation power in the Bible, but rather in Christ which scripture speaks of and bears testimony to. Knowing God only in the rational abstract can not but tempt a man to create God in his mind's image or his own theo-construct's image. This makes the Bible an idol or at least God in a bottle. If God can only be defined by scripture then scripture becomes the definer's God. The Bible was never intended to be an idol. The first chapter of John talks about the beginning and the word but it does not mention scripture unless God is inferred limited to just scripture, which of course did not exist in "the beginning". If only scripture can define God, then since the phrase "only inspired word of God" is not in scripture, man has added to scripture by uttering that phrase. God does not need permission from the keepers of the phrase "only inspired word of God" to talk. But, the keepers of that phrase, which is not supported or found in scripture, have committed the crime of their fears by adding to scripture themselves. This does not accomplish the motive of defending God but rather creates little idols to beat other Christians with who hopefully have inferior idols. Does this mean we should not accept scripture? Of course not. However, scripture should not be used to try to establish that God is dead or at least can not talk, walk, or caulk new holes in people's hearts. The early church in Acts was not instructed to wait on a scripture collection, KJV or otherwise, but rather the authority and presence of the Holy Spirit. It is remarkable to me that people are willing to accept Christ walking on water, Noah saving the world in the Ark, a donkey talking, and all the great truths recorded in the Bible and completely balk at the filling of the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit might have something to say. If Christ has walked the raunchy path to our hearts, knocked on the door and we have opened and let Christ in, then don't slap his mouth and love shut with the duct tape of your fear of what God wants to speak into your life and heart.

 

[Tali]

Oh, thank you!!! Superbly stated, Rev and Weltan.

I was asked a few pages back whether or not I thought there were modern day apostles. I do, and will take a moment to describe their lives, which sound like they are straight out of the book of Acts.

Rolland and Heidi Baker both have Ph.Ds from King's College in London in systematic theology.We were introduced to them back in the 90s by some dear mutual friends, and the Bakers were instrumental in our getting involved in foreign orphanage work. They would cringe if you called them Doctor, or anything else, for that matter, other than what Africans call them, Mama Aida and Papa Rolland.

To date, scores have been raised from the dead, and one dead body was carried to the hospital, examined by medical authorites, pronounced dead, death certificate issued, and THEN the team headed up by Pastor Sorpresa, (one of their sons in the faith) prayed.... more paperwork.... :lol: They did that strictly for Westerners who are skeptical.

The deaf hear- (documented)
The lame walk (documented)
The blind see ( documented)
Food is multiplied (documented)
Over 5, 000 churches started, as well as several orphanages, one of which in Mozambique I spent almost two weeks enjoying everything immensely....

However, my favorite tale occurred when I was still working on my book and was was watching Al-Jazeera, (that bastion of fine broadcast journalism recommended by Hillary Clinton :roll and two Muslim men were hosting a talk show where they were bemoaning the fact that Africa was being lost to Christianity. They put up statistics on the screen about how many thousands of conversions were occuring each day, how many baptisms, and THEN they showed a film clip made by our friend Gordy of "Mama Aida" baptizing children in a cistern. Needless to say I laughed in joy.

The second is a fellow named Billy Graham Paulouse, whom I just saw two weeks ago as he was visiting and ministering. He is a native of India, went to theological school in the US, and yes, has had the chance to meet and speak with the man for whom he is named.

Billy's ministry in India is very similar to the Baker's. Same miracles, huge numbers of churches, orphanages, and has nearly died for the gospel on more than one occasion. My friend Rita has filmed the testimonies of two people that were raised from the dead. These are just two examples of a number of people we know personally in several countries whose ministries are confirmed with signs and wonders, just as in days of old.

Apostles? I think so, but I also know that not a one of them has time for the debate, nor do they care about the title. They are just getting the job done, and that's all that matters to me.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

What a blessing it is to hear of their work for the gospel. The gifts of the Spirit are wonderful blessings to see and when he uses his people to bring healing physically and/or spiritually that is always something to rejoice in and give praise over. What a marvelous blessing it is to see God's grace at work through his powerful gifts of grace being bestowed on others.

It does lead me to ask though, do they claim to be apostles in the same sense as a Paul or Peter or is that a title you have placed on them? I see that Steve has said "i have never said that anyone qualifies" as an apostle.

On this end I would agree and place them in the same boat as an apostle in the secondary sense of the term, such as the likes of William Carey and many others who have gone forth in new fields as pioneers for the gospel in new areas. As noted the term apostle can be translated as messenger. But my question specifically Ali was one of do they have words of such inspiration that we ought to record and place those in the Bible so that all people of all ages in all places need to read and obey as we obey the writings of Scripture.

If Steve does not think they qualify and yet you do my question then becomes this: do you think their words should be recorded and placed along in the Bible as equal to the inspired words we already have in the Bible? Steve has said he does not think anyone qualifies. Does then your view that they are apostles (or prophets or whatever term you use) mean that there speeches, teachings, or writings need to be preserved as inspired scripture like what we have in the 66 books?

I ask not because of a spirit of seeking to debate but as one of practicality. If there are those words floating around from someone whose words are needed for the entire body of Christ as authoritative for all then it would be good to know that and why that is indeed the case.

 

[steve]

I see that Steve has said "i have never said that anyone qualifies" as an apostle.

If Steve does not think they qualify and yet you do....

Steve has said he does not think anyone qualifies.

1) try not to twist my words. i did not say that i think that no one qualifies. all that i said was that i had not defined anyone as having qualified. unlike some, i will not presume to speak for the Almighty.

2) try to keep my words in the context in which they were made. i was responding to the specific question about written or spoken words that should be placed on par with scripture. i was not speaking about whether or not anyone qualifies as an apostle.

an apostle in the secondary sense of the term,

:lol: that is rich! when did that idea get added to scripture?

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

when did that idea get added to scripture?

I'm not sure if you use Greek lexicons or not. But if you look in one it works just like our English dictionaries do in that there will be a range of meaning for terms. Just like some English terms have 2, 3, 4, 5, or more definitions (all within an associated range of commonality) to the one term the Greek term apostolos has a semnatical range of meaning. One of the meanings given to it by linguists has been in that sense in which I spoke of it.

As for the other, I apologize if I did not get your words in the proper context. If not then I guess I'm back to my original question then: do you think apostles (or prophets or whatever term you choose to use for them) in the same sense as Paul and Peter exist today and if so how would we know who they are and if they do exist then should what they write or teach be preserved along with Scripture as authoritative for the entire church body universally just as the 66 books of the bible are currently preserved? I thought your point was that it was possible for such an apostle or prophet to exist but that you had yet to truly find any who you defined as qualified. But if that was not your point then please elaborate for me how you see it.