New Apostolic Reformation

[Biblicist]

That's certainly true and this is shown in 1Cor 12:28; but they are not directly equated to church government as anyone can be a prophet. . .

I made an important change to this point with:

". . . but they are not directly equated to church government as anyone can be a prophet".​

 

[ToBeLoved]

I still would like us to move this out of the congregational safe house. I'm thinking about starting another thread as an add on to this one outside of this congregational safe house but I can see that taking a turn to the left, so I'm not sure yet. I'll let you guys know if I decide to.

But I am following along and need to catch up on Bibs latest posts.

 

[jiminpa]

Yes, I read through your latest posts, and what you are claiming isn't in the Bible, not in context anyway. You still have not established in the scriptures that there is anything wrong with having someone called an apostle in a leadership position. Those in 1 Corinthians 12 were teaching a false gospel as shown in 1 Corinthians 11, and using their self-appointment to apostleship as credentials. If you could, (and you haven't so far), establish that NAR teaches a false gospel then you would have a point, but again, NAR is teaching a far more biblical gospel than their critics. You keep citing those with truly bad doctrine for credibility.

If you can't substantiate your claims of heresy and horrendous doctrine with scripture, in context, then your claims are at best unfounded and highly incendiary.

 

[Biblicist]

Yes, I read through your latest posts, and what you are claiming isn't in the Bible, not in context anyway. You still have not established in the scriptures that there is anything wrong with having someone called an apostle in a leadership position. Those in 1 Corinthians 12 were teaching a false gospel as shown in 1 Corinthians 11, and using their self-appointment to apostleship as credentials. If you could, (and you haven't so far), establish that NAR teaches a false gospel then you would have a point, but again, NAR is teaching a far more biblical gospel than their critics. You keep citing those with truly bad doctrine for credibility.

If you can't substantiate your claims of heresy and horrendous doctrine with scripture, in context, then your claims are at best unfounded.

This post was completely reworked about 10 minutes after it was first posted.

Let's move back a bit by looking at if it is possible to have an apostle as the senior leader of a local congregation. As the Scriptures tell us that the governing body of each local congregation is by a local board of Elders, where we have a second tier with that of the Deacons, where the Scriptures do not speak of a single person being in charge, this does not mean that one of the Elders who could be a brilliant organiser (maybe within the Office of guidance), could be given the job to coordinate the activities of the local congregation, where this role could even be migrated to other Elders every year or two.

Does this mean that an apostle could be the 'president' of the board of Elders, well I suppose so, but as an apostle is someone who is involved in church planting they would probably be spending much of their time outside of the confines of his local congregation.

As an apostle (church planter) would be responsible for many of the duties of government and leadership within a new church plant, they he would undoubtedly hold a very senior role for a period of time, but once the church has been established and a board of Elders has been appointed, then he should withdraw.

 

[Biblicist]

You still have not established in the scriptures that there is anything wrong with having someone called an apostle in a leadership position.

As the Scriptures provide us with absolutely no information that a single person (Office) is to be in sole or primary charge of the local congregation; I was wondering that instead of having an apostle in charge of a church that we could maybe go absolutely wild by maybe having a pastor in charge of each local church - what a novel idea . . . but somehow I think that his has been done before and without any Scriptural support as well.

 

[jiminpa]

Incredible! Maybe you should be a bit more upfront by saying that you don't care what anyone says, let alone with what the Scriptures have to say.

Question: Do you understand the difference between an Apostle-of-Christ and an ordinary congregational apostle?

That's irrelevant to the issue. You would still have to establish boundaries for any difference from scripture, and you haven't done so. I'm not the one in this conversation who isn't caring what scripture says. As to what anyone says, when it comes to accusations such as heresy and horrendous Christian teachings, no I don't care, especially when those anyones are themselves even more guilty of horrendous doctrines.

I am quite up front in my conscious and intentional rejection of the opinion of men on doctrinal issues. It is my goal to consider the Bible as the only relevant resource for doctrine. I am also very aware that I am human and very likely am influenced by human teaching, but I do work to conform my doctrinal philosophies to only the Bible. It seems to be very frustrating to you that I keep on insisting that you use scripture in context to substantiate your unsubstantiated and highly inflammatory accusations.

 

[jiminpa]

As the Scriptures provide us with absolutely no information that a single person (Office) is to be in sole or primary charge of the local congregation; I was wondering that instead of having an apostle in charge of a church that we could maybe go absolutely wild by maybe having a pastor in charge of each local church - what a novel idea . . . but somehow I think that his has been done before and without any Scriptural support as well.

So you finally acknowledge that you have zero scripture for your declaration of heresy.

And now you are creating a false scenarios to make your point that a hierarchy with a single head could go out of balance, when, if I understand it correctly, the whole point in these groups of the position being called "apostle" is to provide accountability. You are refuting yourself now.

 

[Biblicist]

That's irrelevant to the issue. You would still have to establish boundaries for any difference from scripture, and you haven't done so. I'm not the one in this conversation who isn't caring what scripture says. As to what anyone says, when it comes to accusations such as heresy and horrendous Christian teachings, no I don't care, especially when those anyones are themselves even more guilty of horrendous doctrines.

I am quite up front in my conscious and intentional rejection of the opinion of men on doctrinal issues. It is my goal to consider the Bible as the only relevant resource for doctrine. I am also very aware that I am human and very like am influenced by human teaching, but I do work to conform my doctrinal philosophies to only the Bible. It seems to be very frustrating to you that I keep on insisting that you use scripture in context to substantiate your unsubstantiated and highly inflammatory accusations.

I had hoped that my complete rework of post #124 would have made it back in time but its seems not; as you can see my own frustrations can easily come to the surface at times particularly when I have included about as many Scriptures that have ever been included in most posts and with a high degree of commentary; to see someone say that they want me to keep Scripture in context after such a detailed pair of posts can be rather annoying.

When I come across statements such as "rejection of the opinion of men on doctrinal issues", this tends to tell me that no amount of solid Biblical argument would be enough to change your views; where maybe you have never had the opportunity to engage with the material that has been produced by the Christian academy. At least I would like to think that I am teachable enough to be able to both engage and carefully interact with the scholarly "opinions of men" where I will both agree and strongly disagree with them, but at least my understanding will be greatly increased where I will be better able to make a sound decision.

 

[Biblicist]

So you finally acknowledge that you have zero scripture for your declaration of heresy.

And now you are creating a false scenarios to make your point that a hierarchy with a single head could go out of balance, when, if I understand it correctly, the whole point in these groups of the position being called "apostle" is to provide accountability. You are refuting yourself now.

Oh dear . . . now we're moving from the ridiculous deep into the land of oz.

 

[jiminpa]

This post was completely reworked about 10 minutes after it was first posted.

Let's move back a bit by looking at if it is possible to have an apostle as the senior leader of a local congregation. As the Scriptures tell us that the governing body of each local congregation is by a local board of Elders, where we have a second tier with that of the Deacons, where the Scriptures do not speak of a single person being in charge, this does not mean that one of the Elders who could be a brilliant organiser (maybe within the Office of guidance), could be given the job to coordinate the activities of the local congregation, where this role could even be migrated to other Elders every year or two.

Does this mean that an apostle could be the 'president' of the board of Elders, well I suppose so, but as an apostle is someone who is involved in church planting they would probably be spending much of their time outside of the confines of his local congregation.

As an apostle (church planter) would be responsible for many of the duties of government and leadership within a new church plant, they he would undoubtedly hold a very senior role for a period of time, but once the church has been established and a board of Elders has been appointed, then he should withdraw.

You keep making assertions like this, but you can't actually show these assertions in scripture. The requirements for these positions are listed, but the function is not, (at least not in the Bible).

 

[jiminpa]

...and with a high degree of commentary...

And that is the problem right there.

 

[jiminpa]

Oh dear . . . now we're moving from the ridiculous deep into the land of oz.

I keep asking for Bible, so if we've moved through ridiculous into Oz, who took it there? Not the Bible.

This is very much like trying to talk about the Bible with a cessationist. As was stated in another thread, I think to you, what's the point in having a Bible discussion if the Bible is going to be considered irrelevant?

 

[Biblicist]

You keep making assertions like this, but you can't actually show these assertions in scripture. The requirements for these positions are listed, but the function is not, (at least not in the Bible).

Now that's a good reply!

Even though the Scriptures tell us that each local congregation is to be governed by a board of Elders with a second tier of Deacons, where 1 Timothy certainly speaks of the credentials of both an Elder and a Deacon but there is no mention as to who and what these people are.

As the silence of Scripture toward the makeup of a local Eldership allows in my opinion for a degree of diversity when it comes to the arrangement of the Elders, this does not mean that the Elders could not appoint someone to coordinate their meetings, such as with how the Synagogues of Jesus' time apparently appointed presidents for each Synagogue council, where the presidency was rotated between the Synagogue elders.

Paul tells us in 1 Cor 12:28 that the Father has established within each local congregation 8 Offices and theoretically, if these Offices are in proper operation, then we would expect these same Offices to be reflected within each local board of Elders, though I doubt that most congregations would have enough people to fully reflect these Offices within such a board.

1Cor 12:28 In the Church God has established . . .

1. apostle (aka, church-planter, missionaries who are directly involved with establishing new works.)
2. Prophet
3. Teacher
4. Deeds of powers (aka, miracles)
5. Healings
6. Guidance (aka, administrations)
7. Helps
8. Tongues​

Even though our Evangelical brothers tend to dismiss the view that the Office of the apostle is for today, they have oddly enough been sending out apostles for some centuries under the guise of church-planting missionaries; where after a period of time, where many of these apostle/missionaries have often been in sole charge of a local Body of Believers they have then moved on, which is what even the Apostles-of-Christ themselves always did.

As there are no longer any Apostles-of-Christ, which means that no ministy can justify trying to connect their ministry with Eph 2:20 "...foundation of the Apostels and prophets"; then any attempt to establish a system under this model where there is supposed to be an apostle over a particular region is absolutely untenable.

It should be pointed out that this thread is not so much about who is in leadership of each local congregation, but with the Latter-Rain/NARzie distinctive teaching that apostles are supposed to be in charge or various regions of the world.

 

[Biblicist]

I keep asking for Bible, so if we've moved through ridiculous into Oz, who took it there? Not the Bible.

This is very much like trying to talk about the Bible with a cessationist. As was stated in another thread, I think to you, what's the point in having a Bible discussion if the Bible is going to be considered irrelevant?

Forum rules forbid me from replying as I would like. Suffice to say, why do people who support odd views always behave in the manner that you do; are you maybe still in your teens?

 

[jiminpa]

Forum rules forbid me from replying as I would like. Suffice to say, why do people who support odd views always behave in the manner that you do; are you maybe still in your teens?

^because when you need to win the argument, and can't support your position, just insult the other person.

Apparently, asking for scripture in what is supposed to be a Bible discussion is an odd position.

 

[jiminpa]

Forum rules forbid me from replying as I would like.

Forum rules also forbid you from hurling unfounded insults at respected leaders of the forum's group, but you haven't let that stop you.

 

[Biblicist]

Yes, I read through your latest posts, and what you are claiming isn't in the Bible, not in context anyway. You still have not established in the scriptures that there is anything wrong with having someone called an apostle in a leadership position. Those in 1 Corinthians 12 were teaching a false gospel as shown in 1 Corinthians 11, and using their self-appointment to apostleship as credentials. If you could, (and you haven't so far), establish that NAR teaches a false gospel then you would have a point, but again, NAR is teaching a far more biblical gospel than their critics. You keep citing those with truly bad doctrine for credibility.

If you can't substantiate your claims of heresy and horrendous doctrine with scripture, in context, then your claims are at best unfounded and highly incendiary.

You have me at a bit of loss here as I cannot remember where Paul has ever told the Corinthians that they were "teaching a false gospel", particularly as chapter 11 (which you referred to) begins with;

"I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you"​

As I am also unable to find any issues regarding some supposed "self-appointment to apostleship" you will have to fill me in on this as well.

 

[jiminpa]

You know, I think we've danced this dance too long now. I ask for scripture, you list a scripture that says nothing like you are saying, I point out that scripture doesn't say what you say it says, you call me some variation of thick-headed, I again ask for scripture for your unfounded accusations, and around we go again....

So it's time to stop going around....

 

[jiminpa]

You have me at a bit of loss here as I cannot remember where Paul has ever told the Corinthians that they were "teaching a false gospel", particularly as chapter 11 (which you referred to) begins with;

"I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you"​

As I am also unable to find any issues regarding some supposed "self-appointment to apostleship" you will have to fill me in on this as well.

See my above post. I'm done. You are hurling unfounded insults around all over the place and refusing to acknowledge what the Bible actually says. There is no way to have a Bible discussion if the Bible is going be thrown aside.

 

[Biblicist]

See my above post. I'm done. You are hurling unfounded insults around all over the place and refusing to acknowledge what the Bible actually says. There is no way to have a Bible discussion if the Bible is going be thrown aside.

That's okay ol' boy, leaving the scene can be a far wiser choice when no valid defense can be given to a question.

Though I'm a bit unclear as to how you are connecting "hurling unfounded insults" with my request for some additional information that was needed to properly explain your point.