Cessationism: Have the gifts ceased?

[Thunderchild]

TC if I remember right you do believe that one must be baptized in water before they are saved. So would you say that one could not receive the HS nor work miracles by the will of the HS unless they were baptized?

No - I would not. The Bible is clear in stating that people could perform exorcisms at least, despite not being baptised (presumably), and despite not being among the immediate followers of Jesus. The immediate disciples of Jesus attempted to forbid them from doing so - an action which Jesus declared to be invalid. However, it is also clear from the events in Acts with regard to the seven sons of Sceva, that a person who does not believe on the Christ cannot act or invoke his name with similar authority. Aside from that, there is record in Acts of the Holy Spirit being given before the people were baptised into the name of Christ, whereupon Peter ordered them to be baptised into the name of the Christ. Kind of a significant passage that.

Is the bible we have today complete?

I do not believe so - there are a number of areas which do not describe in sufficient detail what is expected and or required of believers. The particulars of the procedures with regard to baptism for instance, are not described. There are a number of areas which could easily be expanded with benefit.

Almost forgot. Do you belive that apostles can bind and loose today? Cant the remit and retain sin today?

Assuming you are referring to an apostle-chosen, rather than an apostle-called, yes. Assuredly that is one of the roles of an apostle.

Is it possible with the bible by itself to learn who the son of god is, the plan of salvation, and how to live a faithful life until death?

Learn ABOUT those matters, yes. Learn those matters, no. That cannot be done without the aegis of the Holy Spirit.

I have given scripture after scripture that backs up what I am saying in the previous post.

No, you have gone beyond what is written. The apostles decide to replace the one who was fallen with another, to his position. You then state that to be a pre-requisite to apostleship. No such statement is made in the passage - the pre-requisites applied to filling the post of Judas - neither more nor less. Moreover, your every argument fails on the point of Paul - though you allow his calling and choosing to be no more than an exception. However, even the existence of one other apostle invalidates your entire argument.

Act 14:14

[Which] when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard [of], they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Was Barnabas one of the original 12, or the original 11 + single replacement + Paul? Barnabas is in this passage quite clearly of equal status with Paul.

1Th 2:6

Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor [yet] of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ.

Who were the apostles of Christ mentioned here? Oh my - the authors of the second letter to the Thessalonians. And they were?

2Cr 12:12

Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

Hmmm. An apostle has a witness to his rank in the form of signs wonders and deeds. So we know how to identify an apostle (assuming that we take into account the necessity that he exhibit the fruits of the spirit, that is).

Rev 21:14

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Only twelve apostles of the Lamb? Of the thirteen, who misses out? Are there 12 known as the apostles of the lamb, with one or more others being apostles of God, though not being apostles of the Lamb? or did the author of Revelation miss one out in his count perhaps?

 

[Thunderchild]

Ah now - we have the Nave's topical dictionary's list of pre-requisites for apostleship.

( 1) that they should have seen the Lord, and been able to testify of him and of his resurrection from personal knowledge ( Jhn 15:27; Act 1:21,22; 1Cr 9:1; Act 22:14,15).

As we have seen, Paul meets that requirement, without having walked with Jesus of Nazareth. There is no reason to believe, even if this really IS a pre-requisite, that the event would not or could not be repeated.

( 2.) They must have been immediately called to that office by Christ ( Luk 6:13; Gal 1:1).

Unless I am mistaken, being chosen by lot does not meet this requirement. As to Galatians 1:1 - and again, the one who I referred to earlier has such a testimony. But making this a requirement still is drawing a long bow. 

( 3.) It was essential that they should be infallibly inspired, and thus secured against all error and mistake in their public teaching, whether by word or by writing ( Jhn 14:26; 16:13; 1Th 2:13).

Is this something like the Pope being infallibly inspired? Peter is demonstrated to have been error in his public teaching - Paul took him publicly to task for leading people astray.

( 4.) Another qualification was the power of working miracles ( Mar 16:20; Act 2:43; 1Cr 12:8-11).

The one I wrote of earlier has used the authority to perform signs and wonders ... Or is the working of miracles something different from that? Oh yes - that also is listed separately as one of the gifts, not restricted to an apostle... maybe the one I spoke of is a worker of signs and wonders... oh but wait, he also prophesies.

The apostles therefore could have had no successors. They are the only authoritative teachers of the Christian doctrines. The office of an apostle ceased with its first holders.

ROFL - the church is built on the foundation of the apostles AND THE PROPHETS. Is a prophet really not an authoritative teacher of the Christian doctrines? No successors - as in no apostle can appoint or ordain another apostle? Did Paul succeed someone, or was his an independent appointment?

 

[cougan]

quote: "The Apostles were the only ones to receive the HS Baptims on the day of Pentacost."

No it was all 120 in the upper room.

I could of gave you my own readers digest version of this but I will let this article speak volumes against this idea.

WERE THE 120 BAPTIZED IN THE HOLY SPIRIT? (Acts 1:15--2:4ff)

And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a mighty rushing wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance (Acts 1:26--2:4).

Little did Luke, the author of the Book of Acts, realize that these words which he penned so many centuries ago would be twisted, perverted, and so taken out. of context as to support false doctrine. In particular, Acts 2:4 has been used by almost every denominational group and false teacher to support the idea that the 120 assembled on that day of Pentecost were all baptized in the Holy Spirit. Not only do they assert that the 120 were baptized in the Holy Spirit, but also that such a baptism is available for all believers today.

Keeping in mind the basic rule of hermeneutics discussed in the introduction, let us examine some, if not all, of the passages referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The first mention in the New Testament is found in the words of prophecy of John the Baptist,

"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." (Matt. 3:11)

Remembering that the gospel accounts contain parallel and complementary accounts, I would direct the reader to Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, and John 1:33. There can be little doubt, after the reading of the above passages, that there would be those who would be baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Does this mean that the ones who were to be baptized with the Holy Spirit would also be baptized with fire? Does it somehow imply that all men, everywhere, for all ages, would be recipients of these baptisms? I believe not! Brother Guy N. Woods has stated,

"It is quite clear from the contexts in Matthew and Luke, that John referred to two classes of people some of whom were to be baptized in the Holy Spirit and others who were to be baptized "in fire." The pronoun "you," which the harbinger used is not universal; it is not meant that all men were to be baptized either with the Spirit or with fife; it is indefinitely used and signifies that among those whom John addressed were people who would be baptized in the Spirit and others who would be baptized "in fire."<2>

Although we do not yet know to whom John is specifically referring (other than the fact that it is at least part of the group gathered before him) in this general prophecy of John there are some things we can know from this passage: First, we know that the prophecy and promise were made that at least some would be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Second, we know that some would be baptized "in fire." Third, We know that the administrator of these baptisms would be Jesus Christ (John 1:33; Matt. 3:11f.

With the exception of the parallel passages, to be found in the other gospel accounts, the direct mention of being "baptized with the Holy Spirit" is not found again until Acts 1:5. It is here that the Lord (Acts 1:1ff) addresses his apostles (Acts 1;2,4), reminding them of the prophecy of John that they (his apostles) "... shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence" (Acts 1:5). It is readily admitted that, between the time that the Lord promised that they (the apostles) would be baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5) and the time that they received this baptism (Acts 2:1-4 -- some 10 days or so -- cf. Acts 1:3; 2:1), the apostles were gathered together with the 120 (Acts 1:13-15). Yet it must be emphatically stated that this fact does not warrant the conclusion that it was this group (the apostles along with the 120) which is referred to in Acts 2 as recipients of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Observing the hermeneutical rule of context it must be concluded that the prophecy and promise of baptism with the Holy Spirit was given to the apostles alone and that they alone are the rightful recipients of this baptism. It was the apostles who were told that they would be the recipients of the "Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost" (John 14:26; cf. Matt. 26:20; Mark 14:17). It was the apostles who were told, "but tarry ye in the city, until ye are clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49; cf. Luke 24:48; Acts 1:22; Acts 1:8). It was the apostles to whom the Lord spoke in Acts 1:4-8 (cf. Acts 1:2).

Why then does error prevail when this passage is considered by the denominational world? Can it be that in their attempts to "prove" that to be baptized with the Holy Spirit is a promise for every believer today, they have received from God a "strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess. 2:11-12)? One must try to misunderstand passage in order to arrive at their conclusion. Who are the "they" being referred to in Acts 2:17 For an answer let us turn to the Scriptures.

There are those who would assert that the "they" of Acts 2:1 are one and the same as those identified in Acts 1:15, the 120 disciples. Yet, upon even a casual examination of the context, it must be concluded that their assertion is erroneous. When the chapter and verse divisions are removed from the context it is immediately apparent to whom the personal pronoun "they" is referring, Observe:

"And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place" (Acts 1:26--2:1).

"They is a pronoun that stands for the apostles, the last word of the preceding chapter."<3> "Also, `numbered with the eleven apostles,' as it stands at the end of Acts 1, requires `eleven apostles' to be understood as the antecedent of `they' in Acts 2:1."<4> Guy N. Woods makes a similar observation:

"Moreover, the antecedent of the pronoun "they" in Acts 2:1, is not the hundred and twenty of Acts 1:15, but the "eleven apostles" in Acts 1:26. Thus, only the apostles "were all together in one place." Only the apostles "were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:1,41).<5>

In his commentary Acts Made Actual, Don DeWelt writes:

"The fact that the antecedent of any pronoun is found by referring back to the nearest noun (or pronoun) with which it agrees in number, etc., clinches the argument of the baptism of only the apostles in the Holy Spirit."<6>

Consider also the scholarship of J. W. McGarvey from his classic Commentary on Acts as he discusses Acts 2:1-4:

"The persons thus assembled together and filled with the Holy Spirit were not, as many have supposed, the one hundred and twenty disciples mentioned in the parentheses in the preceding chapter, but the twelve apostles. This is made certain by the grammatical connection between the first verse of this chapter and the last of the preceding."<7>

It must thus be concluded that a correct understanding of the passage before us can lead to but one undeniable conclusion, that "the 120" of Acts 1:15 are not one and the same as the "they" referred to in Acts 2:1-4. Therefore, it was not the 120 who were baptized with the Holy Spirit, but rather the apostles exclusively.

This portion, of our study would not be complete without at least a brief comment on the conversion of Cornelius as recorded in Acts l0 and 11. It is true that the prophecy of Joel to which Peter referred in Acts 2:17 concerning the pouring out of the Spirit upon "all flesh" did not find its entire fulfillment in the events on the day of Pentecost. Rather, the complete fulfillment was not seen until the events at the house of Cornelius.

"Thus, the clearly miraculous event of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is restricted to these two occasions when upon the Jews at Pentecost and upon the Gentiles here, the whole of mankind was symbolically included."<8>

Since this subject is more thoroughly dealt with in another chapter, let the words of J. W. McGarvey be sufficient as he comments on Peter's words as recorded in Acts 11:15-16:

"In these words he identifies it as a baptism in the Holy Spirit; and these two are the only events that are thus designated in the New Testament. The one was the divine expression of the admission of the first Jews into the new Messianic kingdom, and the other, that of the first Gentiles."<9>

 

[cougan]

No - I would not. The Bible is clear in stating that people could perform exorcisms at least, despite not being baptised (presumably), and despite not being among the immediate followers of Jesus. The immediate disciples of Jesus attempted to forbid them from doing so - an action which Jesus declared to be invalid. However, it is also clear from the events in Acts with regard to the seven sons of Sceva, that a person who does not believe on the Christ cannot act or invoke his name with similar authority. Aside from that, there is record in Acts of the Holy Spirit being given before the people were baptised into the name of Christ, whereupon Peter ordered them to be baptised into the name of the Christ. Kind of a significant passage that.

It is quite possible that Jesus gave this man that power and his discipels just did not know about him. I do not belive that this man could of just been casting out deamons in the name of Jesus with out being commsined by him. Like you stated those people in acts tried to cast out deamons trying to use Jesus name and those deamons said they did not know them and then tore them up. You do beleive that one must be baptized in order to be saved though dont you?

I do not believe so - there are a number of areas which do not describe in sufficient detail what is expected and or required of believers. The particulars of the procedures with regard to baptism for instance, are not described. There are a number of areas which could easily be expanded with benefit.

Are you saying the same thing Andrew is saying? Or are you saying that a prophet or an apostle can write us a new book for the bible giving us new and more detailed revelation to fill those questions we are dieing to know?
I dont see how you can say that the bible is incomplete that is a complete mystry to me. You go back and look at this verses I presented that show the self suffiency of the bible. The bible speaks loud and clear that it is complete and everything we need to become a christian and stay one.

Assuming you are referring to an apostle-chosen, rather than an apostle-called, yes. Assuredly that is one of the roles of an apostle.

Now wait a min. Whats the difference here between these two?

Learn ABOUT those matters, yes. Learn those matters, no. That cannot be done without the aegis of the Holy Spirit.

What the heck does aegis mean? What is the difference between learning about them and learing them? I believe that the word of God was penned by these different men with the Holy Spirit being their guide into all truth. So everthing that HS can do as far as leading, convicting, convertion and guideing can be done through the word. So I would say that the HS abides in us indirectly through the word. Since I do not belive that the HS spirit works in a miarcles way today as you do then you would say that I have only learned about Salvation and Jesus and how to live a christian life but that I do not understand it?

I still belive that the bible makes it abundantly clear that you had to be an eyewitness of Jesus. Notice what this verses say about Paul. Acts 22:14 "Then he said, 'The God of our fathers has chosen you
that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and
hear the voice of His mouth.
15 'For you will be His witness to all men of what you have
seen and heard.

You see an apostle had to be a eyewitness. That is why you see Paul list it as reason for his apostleship.1 Corinthians 9:1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work
in the Lord? I have already stated that the word apostle is used in a general sense as one sent out. So just because a the word apostle is used does not alway qualify it to be talking about those eyewittness of Christ.

Hmmm. An apostle has a witness to his rank in the form of signs wonders and deeds. So we know how to identify an apostle (assuming that we take into account the necessity that he exhibit the fruits of the spirit, that is).
[\QUOTE]
I already dealt with this. Remember Philip in Acts 8 he did signs and miracles but was not an apostle nor could he lay hands on those people their and give them the HS. The Apostels had to be called and they had to go to that place and pray and lay hands on them before the received the gift of the HS.

Only twelve apostles of the Lamb? Of the thirteen, who misses out? Are there 12 known as the apostles of the lamb, with one or more others being apostles of God, though not being apostles of the Lamb? or did the author of Revelation miss one out in his count perhaps?

Could you please eloborate on this. Im not sure what poing you are tying to make here.

I dont thing you answered my question about if a apostle could bind and loose today? If they can than that means they could make new rules for us to follow and or loose or take away a commandment that we current follow.

 

[Andrew]

cougan,

i will answer your last quest with a quest: Why do you think binding and loosing was only limited to the Apostles? In Mat 18:1-18, Jesus was addressing his disciples. In an earlier acct, Jesus was talking directly to Peter. binding and loosing is for every Christian, otherwise you also need to argue that the other church stuff from v1-17 is also meant for the Apostles only.

also werent there 70 disciples that went out and did miracles? Luke 10:17 i think.

 

[SnuP]

cougan, refer to my last post&nbsp;in 'Tithing/Speaking in Tongues' (195).&nbsp;

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=15834&amp;goto=newpost

&nbsp;Maybe you can find the error in it, and call me a fraud also.

 

[Thunderchild]

I dont see how you can say that the bible is incomplete that is a complete mystry to me. You go back and look at this verses I presented that show the self suffiency of the bible. The bible speaks loud and clear that it is complete and everything we need to become a christian and stay one.

I have never seen any passage of scripture which could rightly be said to show that the Bible is complete, that it is wholly accurate, or that everything in it is inspired of God. I have seen a number of passages for which the claim is made, but on close examination, the one making the claim is easily demonstrated to be going beyond what is written.

To demonstrate what is meant by "going on beyond what is written" I will take your comment about Paul's supposed list of requirements for an apostle -

You see an apostle had to be a eyewitness. That is why you see Paul list it as reason for his apostleship.1 Corinthians 9:1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

According to this explanation of yours, this is the list of the qualifications of an apostle:
To be an apostle one must
a/ be free
b/ have seen the Christ.
c/ have the Thessalonians as his work in the Lord.
Unfortunately, Paul is the only one who meets all three of those qualifications.

No - in this passage he is not declaring the pre-requisites of an apostle, he is pointing out that he is no lesser than any other of the apostles.


An apostle-called in contrast to an apostle-chosen - simply put, a person is called to a position, but not until that person is properly trained can he be properly said to hold that position. Take it as a matter of a first year student of medicine - one cannot call him a doctor. Take Paul's position - from the time he was called to be an apostle (which was at the time of his conversion experience, or perhaps when Ananias prophesied over him), to the time he took up duty. In the case of Moses, 40 years were spent in lead time till he took up duty.

The book of Revelation refers to the 12 sides being one for each of the apostles. If you take into account the original 11 plus the one who replaced Judas, plus Paul - you have 13 apostles. Which one is not represented by one of the sides?



Andrew is quite right - some of the aspects seemingly the province of apostles are in fact the province of commissioned believers of a variety of ranks.

I have already stated that the word apostle is used in a general sense as one sent out. So just because a the word apostle is used does not alway qualify it to be talking about those eyewittness of Christ.

You have made the statement - and the statement has been shown to be invalid. Your claim was based on the fact that the Christ is called an apostle - In the same place he is called a High Priest. A High Priest isn't necessarily a High Priest because the Christ is called a High Priest? Not a chance. There are places where "apostle" doesn't mean an apostle of Christ - sometimes he will be referred to as an apostle of this or that Church, at others an apostle of this or that person. However - demonstrated - Paul and Barnabas are clearly shown to be apostles both. The rank of each being the same, an apostle without a modifying "of so and so" shows them to be apostles of Christ.

 

[Thunderchild]

One can learn about swimming by reading books, watching others putting it into practice, listening to experts talk about it. The fact that one knows all about it doesn't mean that one can do it.

Learning to swim is a matter of getting into the water and putting into practice all the things that one has learnt about swimming. Thus, "learning about" is not the same as "learning to do." Going back to the doctor analogy, first the student learns about medicine, then he learns to practice medicine.

aegis = (more or less) guidance and protection.

 

[cougan]

cougan,

i will answer your last quest with a quest: Why do you think binding and loosing was only limited to the Apostles? In Mat 18:1-18, Jesus was addressing his disciples. In an earlier acct, Jesus was talking directly to Peter. binding and loosing is for every Christian, otherwise you also need to argue that the other church stuff from v1-17 is also meant for the Apostles only.

also werent there 70 disciples that went out and did miracles? Luke 10:17 i think.
[\QUOTE]

Actually he was only speaking to the 12 at this time. See the parallel passages Mark 9 and Luke 9. All those other things he was talking about in the preceding verses can apply to everyone. The idea here of binding and loosing from the best I can tell from the greek is that the apostles were reaveal that which was was already bound and loose on earth in heaven. Yes just like those people back then that were following the apostles doctrine Acts 2:42 could bind and loose based off what they had learned from the apostles. So the church should should bind and loose today based off the complete word of God. But the whole idea behind this binding and loosing that was giving to the apostles was that of reavealing the the new word of God that we now have so that we can know what to bind and loose. However what I am trying to point out is that if we still have apostles today that can bind and loose in the way that the 1 century apostles did then they should be telling us new revealtion or new words from God for us to do. You already said that you do not believe that more books could be added to the bible. If we still have apostles today then we should still be adding books to our bible. I hope that this explaination is not to confusing.

What point are you trying to make about those 70 that were sent out?

 

[cougan]

I will respond to your stuff in just a min TC. I really appreciate yours and andrews comments. I really like studying and looking up all this stuff.

 

[Andrew]

"Actually he was only speaking to the 12 at this time....All those other things he was talking about in the preceding verses can apply to everyone."

You see cougan, with all due respect, you are again picking and choosing to suit your theology. Just as with the verse that says God gave gifts to the church -- apostles, prophets, teachers, pastors...etc. --- you pick out apostles and prophets and leave in teachers and pastors.

so here again, you pick out v18 to say its for apostles only, and leave the rest in to say ok, the rest is for the common folks in the church. Can you honestly tell us that's how we shld do Bible study? Furthermore, there is absolutely no indication of a break in that passage that suggest that Jesus then pull the 12 Apsotles aside and said "ok this part is for your ears only"...

btw, I looked at Luke 9 cldnt find the parallel of Mt 18:1-18 but found this instead:

49* And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

again, you have a non-apostle working miracles.

 

[cougan]

To demonstrate what is meant by "going on beyond what is written" I will take your comment about Paul's supposed list of requirements for an apostle -
[/QUOTE]

You bring up an interesting point. What do you believe it means by not to go beyond that which is written found in 1co 4:6? Would you not say that this just might show that the things that were writen by these inspired men are complete and that we can govern our lifes by not going beyond that which is written? I still dont see how you can claim that bible is not complete and that a person can understand that Jesus is the son that we have eternal life through him and how to live a christian life. Yes one must do more than just read it they must do it because we are told to be a doer of the word. But I can see how to be a doer of the word by studying it and doing it. Let me list this again.

Do you not beleive that the word of God that we have today is self sufficent?

1. The Scriptures were written to be understood, that one might:
a. Know the certainty of what happened - Lk 1:1-4
b. Believe in Jesus, and have life in His name - Jn 20:30-31
c. Have an apostle's understanding of the "mystery of Christ" - Ep 3:3-5
e. Know they have eternal life - 1 Jn 5:13
2. The Scriptures are an all-sufficient guide for our salvation
a. The whole counsel of God has been preached - cf. Ac 20:27
c. The Word can save us, and help us grow - Ja 1:21; 1 Pe 2:2
e. It has been revealed once for all - Ju 3
f. Not even angels or modern apostles have anything new to add - Ga 1:8,9 See Also Rev 22:18 Det 4:2;12:32
-- The Scriptures are able to make the man of God "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" - 2 Ti 3:16-17 Yes in fact we are to study the word of God to be able to rightly divide the word of truth. 2Tim 2:15

Now notice also 2Cort 1:13 For we are not writing any other things to you than what you read or understand. Now I trust you will understand, even to the end. Unless I am misunderstanding this is this not saying that those things which Paul wrote could be read and understood?

What about James 1:25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the
work, this one will be blessed in what he does. Now the word perfect here denotes complete. This perfect law of liberty is in refrence to the completed word of God. This is the same perfect which is talked about in 1cort 13. Does this not plainly tell us that if we look into the completed word of God and continue in it that we will be blessed in what we do?

According to this explanation of yours, this is the list of the qualifications of an apostle:
To be an apostle one must
a/ be free
b/ have seen the Christ.
c/ have the Thessalonians as his work in the Lord.
Unfortunately, Paul is the only one who meets all three of those qualifications.

No - in this passage he is not declaring the pre-requisites of an apostle, he is pointing out that he is no lesser than any other of the apostles.


An apostle-called in contrast to an apostle-chosen - simply put, a person is called to a position, but not until that person is properly trained can he be properly said to hold that position. Take it as a matter of a first year student of medicine - one cannot call him a doctor. Take Paul's position - from the time he was called to be an apostle (which was at the time of his conversion experience, or perhaps when Ananias prophesied over him), to the time he took up duty. In the case of Moses, 40 years were spent in lead time till he took up duty.

The book of Revelation refers to the 12 sides being one for each of the apostles. If you take into account the original 11 plus the one who replaced Judas, plus Paul - you have 13 apostles. Which one is not represented by one of the sides?

The other apostles had these 3 qualifcation except not how you described the 3rd one. The 3rd one no doubt is in refrence to working of sign in miracles and imparting spiritual gifts to those people along with teaching them the word of God. The other apostles did this same thing with other groups of people. The qualifaction would be the works done not the specific group of people.

Now would you say that the 12 apostles were called in the begining but that they were not chosen until Petacost? What about Judas? Would you say that he was just a called apostle but not a chossen apostle? I am just trying to understand what point you are trying to make between an called apostle and a chosen one. I understand your explanition of the difference of the two I just dont see the releavence to our discussion.

Paul is not represented on one of the sides because he is not one of the oringal 12. Christ was the cornerstone and the 12 apostles were the next layer if you will. Remember Paul was an apostle born out of due season. Mat 19:28 again speaks of the 12 apostles sitting on the 12 thrones. Again I really dont see what point your makeing here? Could you clue me in?

You have made the statement - and the statement has been shown to be invalid. Your claim was based on the fact that the Christ is called an apostle - In the same place he is called a High Priest. A High Priest isn't necessarily a High Priest because the Christ is called a High Priest? Not a chance. There are places where "apostle" doesn't mean an apostle of Christ - sometimes he will be referred to as an apostle of this or that Church, at others an apostle of this or that person. However - demonstrated - Paul and Barnabas are clearly shown to be apostles both. The rank of each being the same, an apostle without a modifying "of so and so" shows them to be apostles of Christ.

First of all are you going to delcare that Jesus was a apostle of christ? No the word apostle here is used in the sense of one sent out. Jesus was sent out by the Father and Jesus is compared to how Moses was sent out. I have no problem whatsoever calling Moses an apostle as in the same sense that Jesus was an apostle. Jesus is a High Priest and no it does not mean that the use of the word high priest doesnt always refer to a high priest because a high priest does not have a genral term. It is very obvious from the context that the word apostle can simple mean one sent out. If our church sends somone out to knock on doors you could call them an apostle but yet they are not an apostle in the sense of the original 12 or Paul. Now I beleive that the verse you bring up about barnabas being an apostle is used in the geneeral sense as Paul and Barnabus were sent out. One of the reason I have a problem with barnabus being an apostle is because he was already considered a prophet Acts 13:1 Do you believe that he was both a prophet and an apostle? You never read of Barabus imparting the HS on anyone with the laying on of hands. I have the same problem with Timothy being an apostle because of verses like Col 1:1 and the others ones like it. Paul will say that he himself is an apostle then say and Timothy is a brother. If Timothy were an Apostle why didnt Paul just say something like Paul and Timothy apostles of Jesus Christ? Not to mention the fact that Tim received is HS by the laying on of Pauls Hands.

 

[sola fide]

I only have one question...if the canon of Scripture is closed....what need does God have of performing miracles today? And when is the last time you, or anyone, saw a miracle of Biblical preportions? excluding "the miracle of childbirth", a cold being cured, and xenoglossia. God has closed His Word, we now only await the end times, the destruction of Herod's temple around 70A.D. greatly changed to times, we are now in the Jewish dispensation, how are we to believe we are not in a dispensation of miracles also? God now has His intact, infallible Word to speak His cause, why does He need extra-revelation? I'm happy with the fact that I can boldy approach the throne of grace and plead my cause, I know God is faithful to guide me in perseverance, that is what He has promised.

Soli Deo gloria!

 

[sola fide]

sorry that was more than one question lol

Soli Deo gloria!

 

[cougan]

Here you go Andrew.

Mark 9:34 But they held their peace: for by the way they had
disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.
35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto
them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of
all, and servant of all.

Here you go here is my proof text that he was only talking to the 12. I sorry you feel like am slicing and dicing the scriptures. I do not want to be guilty of such a thing. I am just taking the complete word of God into consideration. Remember how Jesus told Peter in Mat 16 that he would be able to bind and loose well Jesus here in mat 18 lets all the 12 know that they to can bind and loose. Maybe Im not making my thoghts clear. Math 10:27 basical tells us that the Jesus wanted the apostles to teach those things he told them when they were together by themselves. So they would teach these things in those verses to the people to follow. I am not going to rehash the binding and looseing meaning again. I am not picking and choseing from Eph 4: I do not belive that any of those offices that were of a miracelous sense are here today. Those pastor and those teachers were HS filled and could back up what they taught with miracles and signs. Now yes I belive that we have pastors, teachers etc today just not Holy Spirit filled being able to miracles and sighs. If you are correct about 1Cort 13 and Eph 4 then we can never become spiritual mature until christ comes. I belive that the bible teaches that you can become spiritual mature before christ comes.

 

[sola fide]

Sorry for my two cents again, but I thought we were all "filled with the Holy Spirit" when we received the free gift of salvation. But I guess there are modern day "judges" who receive extraordinary amounts of this "in-filling". *sarcasm intended*

Soli Deo gloria!

 

[Andrew]

cougan,

you are still assuming too much and picking and choosing. now you are saying that it is somehow infered in that passage that the disciples knew v18 was for their private consumption while the rest were teaching subjects meant for the church (eg where two or three are gathered in my name...). I see your point, but then, to be consistent in the way you handle the passgae, you'd have to say the rest of it is also meant for the apostles only, since you insist Jesus was talking only to the 12.

quote:"Now yes I belive that we have pastors, teachers etc today just not Holy Spirit filled being able to miracles and sighs."

here you are again going by experience and not what the word says. now you are saying there are 2 kinds of pastors and teachers -- this is adding to scripture to suit cessationist theology. but the Bible never says that there are 2 types of pastors and teachers.

"If you are correct about 1Cort 13 and Eph 4 then we can never become spiritual mature until christ comes."

yes exactly my point!

quote "I belive that the bible teaches that you can become spiritual mature before christ comes."

No it does not in that passage. Remember it says maturity to the point of having the fullness of the stature of Christ. That's the criteria. Its one thing to say so and so is a mature Christian but a totally diff thing to say that he has reached the full stature of Christ and has perfect knowledge. Do you know of any Christian who is like that?

 

[Thunderchild]

Cougan&gt; An apostle is not just someone sent out, but sent out as a representative. In the very passage you pointed out, we know PRECISELY who Barnabas was sent out as a representative of - Act 13:1 - 2

Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

You might say that in appointing Barnabas to the post of apostle, God promoted him.

 

[Polycarp]

-

 

[sola fide]

Originally posted by Polycarp
Fascinating -

The Holy Spirit is free to do as he wills. If he decided that the gifts were nolonger needed because of the great faith of the people across the entire earth - then they would cease. If at a later date - he believed that there was a need then the would become available again.

Point being - Let the Holy Spirit decide the time and the place - the believer must simply be ready to act when prompted by the movings of the Holy Spirit.

I think people fail to realize that we (the modern church) have a gift that the apostles and the prophets did not have...we have the written, canonized Word of God. The Word is our sign. The canon of scripture is closed. Christ no longer appears on the earth. The Holy Spirit is no longer something bestowed only on a certain few to enable them to do miraculous works. The Holy Spirit indwells ALL believers. God does not deal with the modern day church in the same fashion He dealt with those in the first century.
It is a wicked and perverse generation that asks for a sign. God can and still does perform miracles such as healings. But he doesn't use His servants in the same manner He once did. The first time I hear someone speak in Biblical glossolalia my opinion on the matter might change, but it is obvious that God has no need of these types of miracles.
The Benny Hinn's and Rodney Howard-Browne's of our day might say different, but they still fail to document true miracles. We need not give ourself over to fables, we have the Word of God, that is our sign and our wonder.

Soli Deo gloria!