- Jun 28, 2018
- 15,549
- 5,879
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Where did the New Covenant words come from?I appreciate your position on this, but it seems a bit... unlikely that with two or three prophets and two or three tongues messages with interpretation were being evaluated (weighed carefully) by the churches and that somehow these revelations ended up in the NT texts. Just the math is astounding. Six messages times 52 weeks/yr at one church times how many decades times how many churches equals a lot of prophecy.
I thought they came from Christ.Where did the New Covenant words come from?
Jesus fulfilled and taught the true understanding of the Old Covenant. Much of what he taught became the backbone of New Covenant ethics. The rest came from New Covenant revelation spoken in tongues and prophecy. It made clear what the OT only hinted at.I thought they came from Christ.
I can sort of see your point. But the concept sounds foreign to me. Do you see some scriptural references to this happening? That would help. Thanks.Jesus fulfilled and taught the true understanding of the Old Covenant. Much of what he taught became the backbone of New Covenant ethics. The rest came from New Covenant revelation spoken in tongues and prophecy. It made clear what the OT only hinted at.
I think it is obvious the prophets and those speaking in tongues were speaking truth not available in the OT. Or they would have relied on it for their main source of truth. The messages became the NT scriptures when written and collected. But the revelation was fragmentary until then. Also the Holy Spirit brought to mind all that Jesus had said. And the Apostles and NT writers imported all that pertains to the New Covenant. Some things didn't make the cut, but lots of it did.I can sort of see your point. But the concept sounds foreign to me. Do you see some scriptural references to this happening? That would help. Thanks.
I guess I have been operating under the impression that the NT writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what they did. In many cases it was letters to specific churches addressing the specific needs of those churches and general doctrinal themes. I don't recall any references to them distributing New Covenant revelations being handed on to them.I think it is obvious the prophets and those speaking in tongues were speaking truth not available in the OT. Or they would have relied on it for their main source of truth. The messages became the NT scriptures when written and collected. But the revelation was fragmentary until then. Also the Holy Spirit brought to mind all that Jesus had said. And the Apostles and NT writers imported all that pertains to the New Covenant. Some things didn't make the cut, but lots of it did.
My view is that tongues when interpreted and prophecy (is no different from OT prophecy) which is God speaking.I guess I have been operating under the impression that the NT writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what they did. In many cases it was letters to specific churches addressing the specific needs of those churches and general doctrinal themes. I don't recall any references to them distributing New Covenant revelations being handed on to them.
I agree in general. But after the outpouring (and even today, IMHO) it seems that prophecy is much more rhema than logos. (more individualized and less general) I keep coming back to the definition in 1Cor.14My view is that tongues when interpreted and prophecy (is no different from OT prophecy) which is God speaking.
A foundation can only be laid once? No sir. Churches are local institutions (local buildings). Every BUILDING needs a foundation laid afresh - and laid by experts (the apostles and prophets).
Don't take my word for it - just listen to Paul. Please address post 89 where I discuss what Paul had to say about it.
And thus the apostles and prophets are NOT the foundation (they are not a once-for-all foundatoinal-thing that cannot be repeated). God never intended to convey that, as you just conceded. That's just a figment of cessationist imagination (You'll deny this, but you cannot have it both ways, let's not equivocate on that word foundation). Rather, as Paul said (again see my post 89), the apostles and prophets are the experts needed to LAY DOWN that foundation in EVEVERY GENERATOIN AND EVERY REGION, where a region is defined, minimally, as 'somewhere Christ is not yet known' (the region-concept may be broader than that but at least Paul gives us that much of starting hint).OK, I looked at it. I don't see any validity to it at all. There are no more apostles of Jesus Christ. There isn't the "gift of apostleship." There is one foundation which is Jesus Christ. That is the foundation that everything is build on.
So th
And thus the apostles and prophets are NOT the foundation (they are not a once-for-all foundatoinal-thing that cannot be repeated). God never intended to convey that, as you just conceded. That's just a figment of cessationist imagination (You'll deny this, but you cannot have it both ways, let's not equivocate on that word foundation). Rather, as Paul said (again see my post 89), the apostles and prophets are the experts needed to LAY DOWN that foundation in EVEVERY GENERATOIN AND EVERY REGION, where a region is defined, minimally, as 'somewhere Christ is not yet known' (the region-concept may be broader than that but at least Paul gives us that much of starting hint).
This reinforces the other statements of Paul. Look how Paul defines a church:
"In the church god has appointed first of all apostles, then prophets, then teachers, workers of miracles..." (1Cor 12:28).
Did Paul ever recant this definition? Nope. Paul didn't KNOW of an authentic church unfounded by apostles. Such is a figment of cessationist imagination. It doesn't come from Scripture.
"Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ" (Eph 4:11-13).
How many time does Paul need to repeat his definition before the cessationist will accept it?
Every exegesis involves inference. Stop faulting me for it.I'm still trying to figure out where you get the idea that apostles are anyone other than those who Christ chose and sent out. He sent 12 apostles, that's it. No more. Again, your argument is built on inference.
It's His will to keep 'choosing' and keep 'sending'. Our job is to put up enough prayer to move Him to do it: “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. 38 Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.”I'm still trying to figure out where you get the idea that apostles are anyone other than those who Christ chose and sent out.
Every exegesis involves inference. Stop faulting me for it.
Where did I get the idea that God can raise up more apostles when the conditions are ripe? Same place I got the idea he can raise up more prophets when the time is ripe. Scripture. That - and common sense? Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Also it's based on Paul's definition of a church. Since that definition involves apostles and prophets, and since it their job to lay down the foundation (regionally) it had to be God's will to raise up fresh apostles and prophets in every generation.
Where did you cessationists get the idea that pastors are supposed to appoint themselves, as they do today? In my Bible, the APOSTLES AND PROPHETS appoint them. At least my version came from Scripture, right?
It's His will to keep 'choosing' and keep 'sending'. Our job is to put up enough prayer to move Him to do it: “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. 38 Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.”
It is theoretically possible (not likely) that God's definition of a church CHANGED. In the final analsysis, then, I can't know for sure that cessationists are wrong, because I'm not infallible (see my signature). What I CAN say, with a high degree of certainty, is that their position didn't come from Scripture. And that's the nature of THIS debate.
Um..It's part of his definition of a church. Prove to me that there are pastors and teachers other than those in the early church.I disagree that every exegesis requires inference. However, quite bit of you argument is based on inference. You've shown me nothing here that would indicate that there are apostles other than the 12 sent by Christ.
Exactly. You're just proving my point. He GAVE some to be pastors and teachers. Past tense, right? So pastors and teachers have died out, by your logic?In an earlier post you referenced Ephesians where is says that Christ gave some apostles. Note that it said "gave," past tense. It didn't say, He gives, or He will give, it says He gave. That's past tense.
There you go again.As far as I am aware, there is nothing in the Scriptures that speaks of the office of apostleship. Your insistence that they exist today is based solely on inference. An inference isn't a fact and can easily be wrong.
Good for you. Except none of that was ever in debate here.When I made my argument it was from clear statements in Scripture. When I said, tongues was a sign to unbelievers, I showed it in the Scriptures. When I said the gifts were a sign, I showed it from Scripture. When I said the gifts were a confirmation of the apostles message, I showed it from Scripture. When I said that tongues was a judgment against Israel I showed it in the Scriptures. They're plain statements in Scripture, not inferences.
Actually I should thank you for bringing up the inference-issue. Just ground for another proof of the need for prophetic revelatoin. Should our doctrines come from God, or from men? From God, right? Which means that Sola Scriptura cannot be God's plan. Here's why. WHERE do you learn Greek and Hebrew?From a lexicon or grammar book. Who wrote it? MEN! Only direct revelatoin has the capacity to liberate us from the opinions of men!I disagree that every exegesis requires inference...I find is odd that you attack the cessationist position so vehemently when your argument is so thin. It's a house of cards built on inferences.
I don't know why your mind cannot CONCEIVE the possibility of multi-generational apostleship and prophethood. A real tunnel-vision there. To counteract this, at post 137 I demonstrated that evangelism is prophetic utterance, and therefore prophecy is indeed multigenerational:I'm still trying to figure out where you get the idea that apostles are anyone other than those who Christ chose and sent out. He sent 12 apostles, that's it. .
I just remembered something. What about the whole cessationist doctrine that the completed cannon is the 'complete' prophecy and knowledge of 1Cor 13?Again, your argument is built on inference.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?