New Apostolic Reformation

[jiminpa]

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.

I will explain this far...I could explain my point, but it would serve no purpose, because all through this discussion you have refused any scripture and all reason that does not support your inflammatory and unfounded accusations. To continue to try to make you acknowledge what is plainly right in front of you is pointless. You insist on "winning" this thread at any cost, and I concede the game portion of this thread to you. You can have the win. It doesn't make you right, but it does give you the win. Congratulations! It's not a game to me, so I am out.

 

[Biblicist]

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.

I will have to apologise for the rather disjointed nature of my two posts. As I was attempting to provide a reasonable amount of data so that people could do some of their own research, this meant that there was a lot to go through. I will be taking up your suggestion to formalise that draft material where I want to provide a bit more detail on each verse as I recognise that most people will not own a good lexicon or the better contemporary commentaries.

As this thread is about NARzie distinctives, if we can understand the differences between an Apostle-of-Christ, particulary with their connection to Eph 2:20 as against that of a local congregational apostle who is only appointed by his local congregation (or even denomination), then this would be of value in itself. Then there's the nature of the commissioning of an Apostle-of-Christ as against the Office of the local congregational apostle.

Once it is realised that the role of the Apostles-of-Christ ended with the Apostle John, then we can quickly dismiss any NARzie claims that suggest that the Scriptures are saying that there are supposed to be regional apostles in charge of various regions. As the Apostles-of-Christ were commissioned by Christ himself, and that Paul was both commissioned by Christ and given the unique role of providing the primary doctrinal foundations for the Church, then we can view the congregational apostle in a completely different light, where he is simply a modern day church planter.

 

[Biblicist]

I will explain this far...I could explain my point, but it would serve no purpose, because all through this discussion you have refused any scripture and all reason that does not support your inflammatory and unfounded accusations. To continue to try to make you acknowledge what is plainly right in front of you is pointless. You insist on "winning" this thread at any cost, and I concede the game portion of this thread to you. You can have the win. It doesn't make you right, but it does give you the win. Congratulations! It's not a game to me, so I am out.

It's not about winning or loosing as you only need to clarify your statement that said that the Corinthians were "preaching another Gospel" or that there were some "apostolic rumblings in Corinth" then that's all I am asking for - I would have thought that I wasn't really asking for much.

 

[jiminpa]

It's not about winning or loosing as you only need to clarify your statement that said that the Corinthians were "preaching another Gospel" or that there were some "apostolic rumblings in Corinth" then that's all I am asking for - I would have thought that I wasn't really asking for much.

Look, if I thought you had the slightest interest in my point of view I'd answer, but I have absolutely no confidence in that whatsoever. I will say that what you are asking is as plain as day in the text, but I honestly don't believe that you care.

...and to be clear that is relevant because it means that further discussion is only for the sake of continued strife, since I see no chance of anything being gained from here on.

 

[Biblicist]

Let's see, we've been at virtual loggerheads for about three hours now where I am supposed to be doing other things (as we probably both should be), but the alerts keep grabbing my attention and in spite of what you might think you have provided some great imput (with maybe some not-so-great input) which has enabled me to reply to your points of view.

I'm guessing that maybe your Corinthian comments might have been ones that you might not have made if you had some time to think things over, but hey, I've had those times (and there's been a few) where I have quickly typed in a few thoughts without thinking things through where it has only been after the print has appeared on the page that I have realised my gaff and thankfully the <Last edited: Today at ...> has not appeared after I have deleted or seriously modified my post, which unfortunately did occur with one of my replies that I sent to you earlier.

What I haven't mentioned so far is that beginning way back in 1988 my family and I joined a large congregation where the senior minister was a leading Latter-Rain advocate here in Australia where he had been thrown out of the AoG in Australia maybe 20 years earlier for his L-R teachings, after he returned from the US, by the mid 90's the AoG had fully re-embraced him. This was before the days of the Internet where things can be easily checked so I was more than happy to say that this particular person was probably the "best theologian in our country" (and to my embarrassment I can vividly remember saying this on occassions), where it was maybe a decade before I realised that his teachings were in fact a cancer on the Church. On one occassion I remember him telling the congregation "When someone asks you . . . don't say that we are Pentecostal as we are Latter-Rain". Well, this meant nothing to me but I do remember thinking that his comment was quaint and even his number two mentioned that most of the staff didn't take his comment all that seriously.

So, if I was back in those days, where I was "less experienced" and I had come across this particular thread, I suspect that I would be heavily defending "my pastor" even though I knew absolutely nothing about the eccentric views of the Latter-Rain movement, which was the pre-cursor to the NARzie movement.

 

[Purge187]

IIRC, there was a video clip I saw where the ministers of a NAR church were encouraging the congregants to "take a toke" of the Holy Spirit. Some of those congregants were laughing hysterically and running around like they were being chased by an angry swarm of hornets.

Discernment is a wonderful thing.

 

[Biblicist]

IIRC, there was a video clip I saw where the ministers of a NAR church were encouraging the congregants to "take a toke" of the Holy Spirit. Some of those congregants were laughing hysterically and running around like they were being chased by an angry swarm of hornets.

Discernment is a wonderful thing.

Within the NARzie fold, I would think that blind obedience would be the order of the day. As for discernment, this could be counter productive to the NARzie way of thinking.

 

[AGTG]

There is no "NAR" per-se. The term is derived from a quote from a charismatic Christian named C. Peter Wagner. The term "New Apostolic Reformation," primarily, has been used by detractors who don't agree with the theology of people who among those who are connected, loosely or otherwise, with C. Peter Wagner and others. In order to use broad, sweeping terms against these people, the term has been thrown around a great deal (especially on the internet).

One clear group who has a problem with the so-called "NAR" would be anyone who believes the Spiritual gifts have ceased. Additionally, there are charismatics who believe in the moving of the Spiritual gifts, but refuse to recognize the 5 fold ministry giftings today.

Moreover, they don't really understand the 5 fold ministry. The ministries are not "Spiritual" gifts, they are different. It's basically a powerful manifestation of Jesus in one or more of the 5 fold ministries that He walked out when He was on the earth.

For example, Jesus will put something of a supernatural element within those whom He has chosen to walk out leadership ministry callings. What basically happens is Jesus "gifts" the Body of Christ with a person whom He uses in very powerful ways to lead the Body, and equip and train others.

Billy Graham, for instance, was an evangelistic gift to the Body. God saw his humble man surrender and so He chose to put something no man can boast about within Him in a supernatural manifestation of Jesus working as an evangelist through Him. When Billy Graham preached the gospel, it was Jesus the evangelist working through Him, which is why his ministry was so effective.

Another beef detractors have is that they claim apostles are no longer walking the earth. This is kind of silly, as apostles are given a supernatural manifestation of Christ to to two things: Establish things for the Kingdom of God, and train and equip other leaders.

Consider Paul's evangelistic efforts to establish the church in Asia Minor. Consider his letters to Timoty and Titus to train them to be leaders in the church. Paul was functioning in that apostolic gifting.

The truth is, these giftings have been active since Jesus began to give gifts when He ascended on high. Look down the ages at men of God and how Jesus used them. Surely, Martin Luther was a prophetic, apostolic gift to the Body, as he was used to call out the failing established church from its error (as a prophet) and then establish (as an apostle) a new, reformed order that would allow God's people to thrive and get back on track with Him.

Look at all the powerful movements of God down the last 2,000 years. Each one had leaders who stood out with one or more of the 5 fold ministry giftings.

Hudson Taylor, Count Zinzendorf, Richard Wurmbrand, Calvin, Martin Luther, Billy Graham, John Wesley, etc, etc, etc... I could go on.

If we look at any of these ministries, we would clearly see one or more 5 fold ministry gift at work, and that's to the praise and glory of God because the gift, in fact, is Jesus manifesting through mankind to establish, build, and expand His Kingdom on earth.

Jesus said, "I will build My church." And He wasn't kidding...

 

[AGTG]

IIRC, there was a video clip I saw where the ministers of a NAR church were encouraging the congregants to "take a toke" of the Holy Spirit. Some of those congregants were laughing hysterically and running around like they were being chased by an angry swarm of hornets.

Discernment is a wonderful thing.

That's a really sick thing to witness, but each person needs to be held to account personally. To lump people doing foul stuff like that with anyone would surely be doing an injustice to people who would never do such a thing.

The biggest problem with the modern charismatic/pentecostal (which, essentially, is who the supposed "NAR" is made up of), is the unchecked practice of praying rebellious prayers in the wrong spirit trying to "get things done" for the Kingdom of God. Of course, it does a lot of harm to the Body, but God has a plan for that called reaping and sowing. Hopefully, people will figure it out and see the error of their ways and repent.