Basically there is a guy on YouTube claiming he’s a “prophet”. One of many who are in error in that regard. I’m not posting that video here, because even when the person was questioned and tried to justify their claim it was not true to scripture. And there are so many people falsely claiming “prophet” on YouTube, so I’m not going to bother noting that one here. What I am posting is a video response to that particular person from our brother Oct31st1517 (Mark), which proves there are no modern day “Prophets” and no “Apostles” today either. Please watch the short video below.
The scripture often mishandled to justify what is called the “5 fold ministry” is the following.
Ephesians 4:11-13 (New American Standard Bible)
|
Let’s run down the list.
Now having said all that, why did the apostles have so many gifts and miracles and we don’t see it like that in a single individual today? Because that is what was given to an apostle. Not that God does not will miracles today, but you don’t see ANYONE honestly displaying ALL gifts of the spirit today. Paul noted that the signs and wonders that were performed by God through him were a sign of his apostleship.
2 Corinthians 12:12 (New American Standard Bible)
|
Again, God can will a miracle today, but we don’t go chasing signs and wonders, the age of apostles is done. We know that the chasing of signs and wonders in our time will lead one to ruin, 2 Thessalonians 2 and Matthew 24:24.
Finally I’ll say, there are no prophets, this does not mean people don’t prophesy today. Today prophesy is of the 1 Corinthians 14:3 kind and comes straight from scripture. It’s what pastors do most Sunday mornings. It is FORTHTELLING as in speaking from scripture, not foretelling as in trying to speak of coming events with no foundation other than claiming God said it.
Saints, stick to scripture, Sola Scriptura!
Related post: Why I Run From All Who Claim the Title “Apostle” or “Prophet”.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:15 pm
You know, I was pondering this very subject this morning. I have a lot to think about…
January 31st, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Ummmm, I feel you…I too have a lot to study, pray and seek the Lord on.
If this truly is proper interpertation of scripture, it would explain ALOT of things I “questioned” in the past…
January 31st, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Actually, I used to believe the same thing until I went back and looked at the Greek for apostle (apostolos) and prophet (prophetes) as used in the New Testament. You would be amazed at how many times people were called Apostles who had not been there when Jesus was raised from the dead. Even Paul’s insinuations of his “fellow workers” was that these people were in some ways equal to his office. The fact that Epaphroditus is called Apostle in Philippians 2:25 shows us that there were Apostles widespread all over, doing missions throughout the world. They had to because the role of the Apostle is to continue to build on God’s church. To say there are no more Apostles is to say that God finished his work. However, this was not the case as we saw the church expand all around the world. The notion that there are no more apostles, as spoken by protestants, is a vestige from the Catholic premise that they handed their power over to the bishops. THis concept is not found in scripture and is unnecessary since the Apostles jobs are still ongoing.
Which leads me to my next point that this exegesis of Eph 2:19 is bad. The more likely reference Paul is making is to the Old Testament prophets instead of New Testament prophets like Agabus. Second, even if he means NT prophets, this scripture does not say, CONCLUSIVELY, that there would be no more. If that were the case, there would have been no need for making more than 13 apostles (including Paul and Matthias). There is not need for Epaphroditus, or many other of the named Apostles in the New Testament like Barnabas. It should have ended right after the people who had the major ministries began and the rest could have been other callings. Also, given the last 3 verses 1 Cor. 12, Apostles and prophets and teachers are all necessary for the church. The scripture should have said, somewhere, that all of these would end once the New Testament was finished. But, in fact, it did not.
IndependentConservative reply on January 31st, 2008 at 8:09 pm :
mjatsog,
Actually you are incorrect. The translators got it right. The greek term apostolos carries various meanings and is NOT always synonymous with the Apostles who saw the resurrected Christ. This is why the term “Apostle” is appropriately NOT used at times. With Biblical Greek you have to learn about context and sentence structure, to better understand it. The translators got it right in that regard.
They were NOT “Apostles” though.
Philippians 2:25 KJV, Philippians 2:25 NASB and I could go on, but the term “Apostle” is not used although the Greek term apostolos is there.
We don’t flippantly make use of the term “Apostle” given the work of those who did lay the foundation of the church on Christ. Those were the “Apostles”. And even translators who are BIBLICAL GREEK SCHOLARS understand this and that is why Epaphroditus is appropriately NOT termed an apostle. Even if we say Epaphroditus is an “Apostle” you’re still talking about someone in a time of people who saw the resurrected Christ, unlike today.
The role of the Apostles was to lay the foundation, that work is complete, the foundation is already laid on Christ. See 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 and again Ephesians 2:19-22.
Ephesians 2:19-22 was well reviewed. Your view implies that Ephesians 2:19-22 is saying that God’s house requires a new foundation.
You mentioned Agabus, he was alive when Christ was alive from all historical accounts. During the building of the foundation of the church. No where does scripture note that foretelling prophets would continue to come. To have such would run squarely against Revelation 22:18-19.
But Revelation 22:18-19 does. The book of prophesy is closed within scripture.
You should read Acts 1. A REQUIREMENT to be considered an apostles was to see the resurrected Christ and Paul did, 1 Corinthians 15. And Paul noted that he was “one untimely born” and the last to see the resurrected Christ.
Barnabas and Paul were apostles as deemed by the Holy Spirit, Acts 13:2. Barnabas and Paul having seen the resurrected Christ.
You mentioned 1 Corinthians 12:29-31, this does not support any idea of a continuation of anything. Or would you like to show me someone TODAY with the full gift of healing and clearing out hospitals everywhere they go? If the Lord wills such a gift may be given again, however we don’t have it and we know the qualifications for an apostles required seeing the risen Christ. We also know prophets were foundational as noted in scripture. Neither apostles or prophets as were in scripture are with us today.
It said they laid the foundation. You’re trying to recreate foundation that was established long ago and yes, completed with scripture.
And again in your claiming Apostles are with us now, you can’t show anyone that can even fulfill 2 Corinthians 12:12, let alone having seen the resurrected Christ.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:21 pm
keep goin’ brother, keep goin’!!!
February 1st, 2008 at 6:34 am
Interestingly [and I have pointed this out to Pentecostals/Charismatics], if you look at the Greek construction of the verse in Ephesians, it is not a “fivefold” ministry but a fourfold ministry [if you can call it that], the pastor and teacher are one ministry!!!
February 1st, 2008 at 7:13 am
Was Timothy an Apostle? Did he see the Lord? What about Silas, did he see the Lord? We have, according to the Pauline record, the account that they were Apostles. 1 Thess 2:6 CLEARLY indicates that Paul, while addressing the church, was talking about himself and the other two named brethren, Timothy and Silvanus (Silas). Can we consider Apollos an Apostle? From the way Paul talks about him I think we can. Acts 1 does not give us an indication of how apostleship was to be decided after the pouring out of the Spirit. They chose someone who had been a disciple of Christ since the time of John’s Ministry so as to provide another witness of Christ’s resurrection. And it was these initial Apostles who were specifically chosen to spread the Spirit through the laying on of hands. But I do not think this was to be the precedent for all of the apostles. Simply put, an apostle is one who is sent. Acts 13 explains that Paul and Barnabas were named among prophets and teachers until they were sent by the Spirit. Notice that it was the prophets and teachers that laid their hands on them to send them. I make this point to suggest that there was an equality. Apostles were not above anyone else they were all part of the ministry that wanted to spread the gospel. At any rate, apostles are still necessary because even though the foundation was laid in Asia Minor the gospel needed to go elswhere. It is because of the corruption of the church that this dispensationalist doctrine has spread to suggest that God no longer works supernaturally in the world. You want me to believe that somehow, when we need him the most, that God does not want us to prophesy, even though he said covet to do so, speak with tongues, heal the sick, etc. Maybe there is something wrong with us. Maybe we have been too quick to accept an Enlightenment perspective on God and our lack of faith quenches the Spirit of God. I think we should look at this again brother and sisters.
djenk23 reply on February 1st, 2008 at 8:33 am :
I agree with this….but nowadays, I think that people who throw the title Prophet and Apostle in front of their names are doing it to exalt themselves….they’re not actually concerned with doing the work of said offices…
oct31st1517 reply on February 1st, 2008 at 1:38 pm :
Or maybe you just decided to swallow this pentecostal garbage and you have decided that you liked the taste. It boils down to this. WHAT IS YOUR FINAL AUTHORITY FOR MEASURING TRUTH! The Apostles of our Lord were hand picked by Himself to lay the foundation of His church.(Eph 2:20, Rev 21:14) The Apostles were used by the Lord to reveal His truth that He wanted us to know about.(Eph 3:5) We are to be mindful of thier words because they carry authority.(Jude 17) It is the highest office in the church because it carries divine authority.(1 Cor 12:28) So when an Apostle speaks, it is in actuallity not the Apostle speaking, but it is God speaking through the Apostle. If that is the case that means that the Apostles words are the word of God and is equal to scripture. Are you saying that these “so called” prophets and apostles, when they speak it is a word from the Lord Himself? If that is the case then you do not believe the bible ALONE is Gods word. You believe that there is more to divine truth than the bible alone. In the 1st century church, if you rejected the apostles and thier teaching, you in fact were rejecting the word of God itself. Since these pentecostal/charismatic apostles are not recognized by the majority of the church, are you saying that the majority of christendom is outside of the body of Christ because we do not recognize these men as apostles. That is something to really think about. Also, in the bible it tells us “If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work.”(1 Tim 3:1)also “For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” and “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.”(James 3:1) It seems these offices were expected to continue. Nowhere in the bible is it even suggested that the offices of prophet or apostle were to continue.
Now what is the real reason why people want there to be apostles and prophets today. Because it adds excitment to the church. How boring it would be if we didn’t have supernatural minfestations or gifts. How boring it would be to sing traditional hymns and simply hear the living word of God preached to us. My friends, this is a fulfilment of scripture “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”(2 Tim 4:3) And we are to be “holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.”
GaryV reply on February 1st, 2008 at 7:39 pm :
Hi MJATSOG!! You wrote……..
(MJ)Was Timothy an Apostle?
Did he see the Lord? What about Silas, did he see the Lord? We have, according to the Pauline record, the account that they were Apostles. 1 Thess 2:6 CLEARLY indicates that Paul, while addressing the church, was talking about himself and the other two named brethren, Timothy and Silvanus (Silas).
(GV) As has been said previously, use of the word “apostolos” does not necessarily imply the Apostolic Office. This is a common Greek word, and to tag Timothy with the OFFICE of an Apostle is something that should be confirmed by 2 or 3 witnesses. Otherwise there’s no reason to suggest that the term is being used of the Office. Paul and Timothy were “sent” to Thessalonica, but it stretches the Text to assume that Paul is referring to the Office AND conferring that Office on Timothy with absolutely no other Biblical witness to lean upon. IF the word apostolos was ONLY used of the Office, then we’d accept your analysis. But it clearly is not, therefore it’s inadequate in itself to support your bold assertion.
(MJ)Can we consider Apollos an Apostle? From the way Paul talks about him I think we can.
(GV) Again, no………and for the very same reason (not to mention the term isn’t applied to Apollos in any sense of the word, either the Office or the simple use. By that logic, we may well assume that Paul is telling us that Apollos is God, since he links Apollos not only with himself and Peter but with Christ in 1 Cor 1:12.
“1Cr 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.”
You see,the simple linking of Apollos to an Apostle in the Text no more makes Apollos an Apostle than linking him with Christ in the Text makes him God.
(MJ) Acts 1 does not give us an indication of how apostleship was to be decided after the pouring out of the Spirit. They chose someone who had been a disciple of Christ since the time of John’s Ministry so as to provide another witness of Christ’s resurrection. And it was these initial Apostles who were specifically chosen to spread the Spirit through the laying on of hands. But I do not think this was to be the precedent for all of the apostles.
(GV) Is this pure speculation, or can you support it with Scripture. “I don’t think…..” isn’t exegesis, it’s opinion. The fact is, the requirements that were demanded ARE there.If you want to make the claim that these requirements were amended or surpassed you must provide supporting text. In my study of Scripture, this is the ONLY place where the criteria for the Office of Apostle are delineated, so to abrogate them simply from opinion is bad hermeneutics.
(MJ)Simply put, an apostle is one who is sent. Acts 13 explains that Paul and Barnabas were named among prophets and teachers until they were sent by the Spirit. Notice that it was the prophets and teachers that laid their hands on them to send them. I make this point to suggest that there was an equality. Apostles were not above anyone else they were all part of the ministry that wanted to spread the gospel.
(GV) You just proved my point. ANYONE sent was an “apostle”. That is the meaning of the word. So why do you take this simple word and forge it into admission into the Office of the 12 whenever it appears??
That means, by this method, the men sent from Cornelius to Peter were Apostles too since they are called “apostolos” too. (Acts 10:17)
So were the serjeants in Acts 16:35 Apostles as well, since they are ALSO “apostellos”.Not to mention such “Apostolic” luminaries as Tychicus, the angels in Hebrews 14, the Holy Ghost in 1 Peter, the angel in Revelation 1 that spoke to John, the whole senate of the children of Israel in Acts 5,the Patriarch Joseph in Acts 7 …..etc etc etc.
There mere use of the term “apostolos” does NOT connote Apostleship, or else you have to by default name all these Apostles as well. You can’t pick and choose.
The confusion enters when we take a common word like “apostolos” and suggest that just because that word is attached to someone,that makes them a member of the Apostolic Office. If so, we have some strange Apostles in the Bible,because a whole host of folks were referred to by that title (including unbelievers).
We still have “sent ones” today, but the Office of Apostle is closed. There is far more to being recognized as an Apostle than simply having the common word “apostolos” next to your name.
(MJ)At any rate, apostles are still necessary because even though the foundation was laid in Asia Minor the gospel needed to go elswhere.
(GV) Again,where can we see support for this in Scripture?? The Bible only mentions ONE foundation of Apostles.
Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
Now, clearly, the Bible makes a distinction between the Apostles and those who are simply “sent ones”. If there were more to be added to the Apostolic Office,why stop at 12 foundations. There should be millions of foundations to accommodate all the “other” Apostles.Unless you contend that these “other” Apostles are NOT the Apostles of the Lamb?? Aren’t ALL of us,no matter what our gifts, “of the Lamb”??
(MJ)It is because of the corruption of the church that this dispensationalist doctrine has spread to suggest that God no longer works supernaturally in the world.
(GV)Category error and logical fallacy. You make the presumptive and unfounded accusation that those who hold to the closing of the Apostolic Office do not believe that God works supernaturally in the world anymore. Upon what do you base this?? It certainly does not describe either IC, or myself. Unless you are contending that God CAN ONLY work supernaturally through the Apostolic Office, and therefore its closing stops all supernatural work?? That is the ONLY way to come to the erroneous conclusion you reach here.
(MJ)You want me to believe that somehow, when we need him the most, that God does not want us to prophesy, even though he said covet to do so, speak with tongues, heal the sick, etc. Maybe there is something wrong with us. Maybe we have been too quick to accept an Enlightenment perspective on God and our lack of faith quenches the Spirit of God. I think we should look at this again brother and sisters.
(GV) No one wants you to believe such drivel……..but the fact that this is what you think we believe gives a good perspective into where the problem lies.
Tell me……..are the ONLY ones who can ever be “sent” Apostles?? Of course not.God never sent only Apostles, he sent all kinds of folk and still does. So how does the closing of the Office with the 12 stop God from “sending” anyone??
Are the ONLY folks who can prophesy Prophets?? Of course not. So how does the closing of the Prophetic Office shut down prophesy as defined in the NT??
1Cr 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men [to] edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
Are you saying that if the prophetic Office is closed, no one can ever speak words of edification, exhortation, and comfort anymore?? I think not.
What Office is needed to heal the sick?? What Office is needed to speak in tongues (as defined in the NT)??Are these gifts, or only part of the Offices of Apostle and prophet?? They are gifts, and therefore unaffected by the closing of any Office.
On another point, the Apostolic Office is ALSO delineated this way in Scripture.
2Cr 12:12 Truly the SIGNS OF AN APOSTLE were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.
So we see here that Apostles have certain signs that accompany and confirm their Apostolic Office. What are they?? Among them are SIGNS, WONDERS, and MIGHTY DEEDS. What are some “SIGNS WONDERS and MIGHTY DEEDS that the Apostles performed exclusively that marked them as Apostles??
They received infallible knowledge directly from God, free of error and completely authoritative for doctrine and life in the church. Are there any of the “new breed” of apostles today who can claim this??
Raising from the dead. Only the Apostles and Christ did this in the NT. Can any of the new breed substantiate their claims to do this??
Miracles. An event by which natural law is suspended or overridden, resulting in an occurrence that cannot be ascribed to natural processes. Like Paul striking a man with blindness in Acts 13, or demons being cast out by cloth from an Apostle (Acts 19), or death coming to the disobedient by the Word of an Apostle (Acts 5).
These are the signs of an Apostle. They are not LIMITED to the Apostles,but the Bible SPECIFICALLY says that genuine Apostles MUST have signs, wonders, and mighty deeds as evidence of their ministry.
2Cr 12:12 Truly the SIGNS OF AN APOSTLE were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.
Act 2:43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
Act 5:12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people;
The Bible specifically cites that the signs of an Apostle are signs, wonders, and mighty deeds. If you can produce for us someone claiming to be an Apostle today, who can publicly demonstrate the confirming signs of the Office by doing the sort of miraculous deeds that the Bible insists MUST be present with the Office, I’ll change my theology.
Until then, the mere fact that those who claim to be Apostles cannot produce the signs that validate their claim are proof the Office is closed. There is no such creature as an Apostle without the Biblical signs.
mjatsog reply on February 1st, 2008 at 8:56 pm :
One of the more interesting things I have ever experienced is unbelief within people who claim to believe in a Lord who was raised from the dead. The very foundation of Christianity is the controversy that God was acting in a completely new way than what the Jews were expecting. As Paul said, to the Greeks it was foolishness and to the Jews a stumblingblock, a scandal. It was proposterous to believe that the Messiah would have been crucified for a first century Jew.
It is even more laughable that the tenets of Christianity are fundamentally questioned by people who claim to live by them. GaryV and others, I know you are good Reformed believers but I challenge you read the Bible through another lens other than Modernity and tainted Calvinist theology. The very problem with the church today is that we have completely distanced ourselves from the New Testament Church in every way. Not only do we not attempt to work miracles and prophesy for the same reasons the early church did (hence, the reason why I’m pretty sure most people who call themselves Apostles and Prophets in fact are not) but I am also certain of the fact that we attempt to connect to the Christ of the New Testament for wrong reasons. Mostly, we do it on the basis of Reformation thinkers instead of what the scripture itself indicates. We are better Lutherans, Calvinists, and Zwinglians than we are Christians. We connect to Christ for the reasons they gave us instead of Jesus’. In essence, we still completely miss the mark. We end up believing in a completely despiritualized Christianity, inept, and lacking power, for the purpose of making ourselves more comfortable. I am saying this as a person adament against Pentecostal and all other forms of Second and Third Blessing Doctrine. Simply put, I just believe God who says nothing is impossible for those who believe. Which sets up the following paradigm that I want to argue for the believing Christian that wants to counter the modernism, Catholocism, and general Enlightenment foolishness that permeates Christianity. The foundation and continuation of Christianity depends on the action of God in the world. The second point is that the reason the church does not believe this anymore is because of the corruption and secularization of the church. Last, the only way to continue what the church began is to not deviate from what the New Testament proclaimed about it, to continue the ministries set forth.
The foundation of Christianity is the miraculous. The virgin birth was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (two miracles). We do ourselves damage when we refuse to believe this. In fact, Jesus’ ministry was grounded in his working miracles and specifically casting out demons. It’s funny, for people who believe in the loss of the ministries of Jesus Christ, well at least the first two, usually the accompanying practice is that they also deemphasize the Christians ability to cast out evil spirits. Casting out spirits, according to Matt 12, was a sure sign that the kingdom of God had come. Yet, at a time when evil spirits are manifesting in our societies and people all around us are using them (they speak to the dead and all sorts of stuff) most “mainline” and conservative protestants do not cast out spirits nor do they even believe this is necessary and possible. Yet, the New Testament is clear that we ought to be doing this. I have done this, I know evil spirits exist and are working in people. I know others who have as well. Talk to a missionary who has gone to Haiti and they will explain how very real signs and wonders are especially when dealing with the demonic. My point is that we need not reject the power of God and claim it is unnecessary in the form of signs and wonders because people do not believe. If we believed, then we would have the power necessary to do the will of God. All the scholars of the world who support this foolish agenda (God is dead, Christians are delusional, etc.) would be put to shame. But it is because we have nice “logical” Christians that these things do not happen. Remember, Jesus could not do mighty works in Nazareth because of their unbelief.
But our unbelief is the result of the secularization of the church. This happened before Constantine. Even with Irenaeus, the general consensus was that Christians needed to stop prophesying and begin to settle down, power was unnecessary, all we need is to discuss the word not do it was it was done in the beginning. The New Testament became history instead of a living testament to the current work of God in the world. The very reason why the church is the way it is, is because the bishops got control and claimed that the apostles vested their power into them. Without apostles, a church must be fixed. It cannot be built in other places. Which led to the belief that the seat of Christianity was in Rome because that’s where the bishops were. All the apostles were dead so the bishops, who do not travel, have all the authority. The authority was not spread it was all in one place. The need for larger buildings and accomodations arose and gave way to a church driven by gain instead of godliness. It was the belief in the apostolic succession that led to the secularization of the church because the bishops became rulers. And Jesus specifically told his disciples never to do this.
But the light of the Protestant Reformation was enough to jar the church away from some of this bad doctrine but not enough. Pastors still act like rulers and there is really still no power in the church. The problem is that we have people who claim to have a relationship with God but have to real signs or wonders that follow their faith. For those Calvinists and Reformed folk who don’t believe in God’s active work today, Most of you all will claim that one day you just knew that you had to give your life to the Lord. Most of you will claim that a feeling came over you and you knew it was the right thing to do. The argument that most of you all pose to me I would like to pose to you, how do you know that was God? You have no scriptural foundation for a “burning sense” of some sort convincing you of God’s presence. In fact, God functions through the hearing of his voice not a feeling. But most of you will protest that one cannot know if God is talking. Well, what differentiates you from a Mormon who claims that they know that the book of Mormon is truer than the Bible from a burning felling their gut. And furthermore how did Jesus know? How did Paul know? How did anyone of the prophets in the New Testament know? It all comes down to knowing the voice of the Lord as attested in his word and the fact that he does provide signs for you to know it’s him. The church needs to know right now what direction it’s going. With the prevalence of false doctrine and the imminent falling away, we need to be able to show who is on the Lord’s side as Elijah did in the Old Testament. I’m not seeking after a sign I’m seeking after the Lord who gives the sign of his presence. He has promised to never leave us and to always work with us. We need his gifts for his purpose. The same way he worked we need to be working today. This means that Eph 4:11 is still valid. If there is still a battle to be fought, all the weapons afforded to us are still necessary.
djenk23 reply on February 1st, 2008 at 9:11 pm :
Amen……
IndependentConservative reply on February 1st, 2008 at 10:58 pm :
GaryV, you’ve offered a good analysis and it should be noted that Timothy was an evangelist working to help Paul’s ministry at the request of Paul, Acts 16:1-3. We have NO RECORD of the Holy Spirit EVER telling to set Timothy aside in the office of Apostle. The varied use of a Greek term is not something we should mistake for being called and separated to the office of Apostle. Timothy was helping Paul and speaking on behalf of an Apostle, but Timothy himself was not in the office of Apostle and church history shows that Timothy later became a bishop/elder. Timothy was a young man, an evangelist helping Paul, 2 Timothy 4:5. The book of Acts chronicles Timothy and Silas and never notes either being called to the office of Apostle. Silas was selected to work with Paul and Barnabas, Acts 15:22. He was “respected” among all the brethren, but never noted ever as an Apostle. If he was an Apostle it would have been Judas called Barsabbas being selected to travel with Paul, Barnabas and Silas. Instead it was Judas called Barsabbas and Silas selected to travel with Paul and Barnabas. Because Paul and Barnabas were Apostles, not Judas called Barsabbas and Silas.
You are right to say that signs are not limited to an Apostle, because someone else is also into making signs and coming as an angel of light, 2 Thessalonians 2 and 2 Corinthians 11:14. But those in the Office of Apostle had the signs, wonders AND saw the resurrected Christ.
mjatsog, you said:
I’m just checking, so there is no misunderstanding, but do you feel an “apostle” must “lay hands” on someone today in order for them to receive the Holy Spirit? Because Cornelius received the Holy Spirit and Peter never laid a hand on him for him to receive it, Acts 10. There were a few specific instances where laying of hands was done for specific reasons in each case, but saints are baptised in the Holy Spirit instantly when they confess Christ in truth. The apostles did not lay hands on a lot of people who received the Holy Spirit.
Apostles certainly were our brothers and Christ. However, Apostles were the greatest, because they were the least, 1 Corinthians 4:9 and Matthew 23:11.
The foundation is completed in scripture. How many missionaries and others have simply given out Bibles and helped establish churches? Do we have to deem everyone who shares the gospel a member of the Office of “Apostle”? Because churches are continually planted by God working through people who would quickly tell you they are not of the Office of Apostle if you asked them. Now, as the gospel is spread we are all simply building on the already existing foundation. No new “foundation” needs to be made.
mjatsog, you can call us whatever you like and play off as much flattering speech as you desire, but we have given you our position standing on scripture. We are well aware of the power of God in our lives, but since we don’t claim it has to happen as you feel it must you claim we have unbelief. But we believe on the Gospel of the Lord Jesus and stick to scripture as our guide, because it is the sure word, 2 Peter 1:16-21.
You said:
What what city did the apostles cast all evil Spirits out of? This is starting to ring of New Apostolic Reformation drivel, but mjatsog there is another group of a similar name that I wonder if you are in doctrinal agreement with? The “New Apostolic Church”. I’m just wondering?
While we disagree on matters like the Apostolic office being closed, we speak with missionaries just like you and know miracles come as the Lord wills. Still YOU DON’T HAVE the gift of tongues or healings either. You claim you have such faith and you claim that I don’t, but neither of us has either the gift of tongues or healings. Perhaps we both have faith, but one of us understands things come as the Lord wills and leaves it at that.
I just pray you don’t go around telling sick people to stop taking their medicine when a doctor has advised them they need it.
You’re saying a whole lot and really coming up short on scripture. Flattering words for ears that desire a tickle. We are saints who speak to you from the Word of God and submit our “logic” to the will of the Holy Spirit, not your views that are not on solid foundation.
Unbelief He might do a miracle or unbelief that he was the Christ? I say it was the later and in all your beleif, tell us how many times you’ve spoken in tongues and actually ministered to someone of another language in their native tongue? Or are you supposedly speaking in tongues and “self edifying”?
That Bible we read.
I didn’t feel any “burn”, I felt the weight of conviction knowing I was in sin and needed a savior. Words we find in the Bible. The Spirit of God and the Word of God always agree. You present a view of the Apostolic Office that does not fully agree with the Word of God.
Like I said, I never claimed some burning in my gut and feel they need to take antacid. Search this blog, I have repeatedly WITH SCIRPTURE shown why Christianity is true and Mormonism is false.
You do understand that Jesus is God and existed with the Father before the foundation of the world, don’t you, John 1? This world Christ came to was made through Him, Hebrews 1:1-2. He knows, because He is God.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:06 am
I totally agree with mjatsog and djenk23. The statement that is often made that to say that “God said” is adding to the Word bothers me. If I need direction, how do I get it if He doesn’t speak? Why bother to pray a prayer where I need an answer if He doesn’t speak to me? What is a relationship with someone who never talks to you? What father would refer his children to his written book in order to never talk to them? Just because someone says that God said something to them does not mean an adding on to the Word; I would suggest that it be scriptural. I agree that God has spoken, but that He does speak to His people in accordance to His Word. For example, years ago, I told the Lord that I wanted to show my appreciation for something He did for me and asked Him to tell me what He wanted and that I would give it to Him - no matter what He asked for. His response: “Give Me your cigarettes” and I never touched another one, I never had withdrawal, nor have I ever since that day had a desire for one. I had smoked for over 14 years. That’s not adding to scripture, but it lines up in that He promised that whom the Son sets free is free indeed. That’s not adding to the Word. I believe that the Apostle and Prophets ministry are still here because we need them. The problem is that we only identify with those who stand befor the Church with the “God said I’m going to give you this” prophets and not the “straighten up lest you die” prophets. The latter is sure enough needed for today. But these kinds of prophets are not quick to call themselves prophets because of the turmoil they go through to have such a call. Not to mention the rejection they receive from the Church. An inspired Word doesn’t have to be a new Word, but rather a reminding and an awakening of what has already been spoken. We need someone who will, for example, help people to see that the Nadab and Abihu situation is at hand (Lev. 10:1-6) and bring about a revelation that people are not otherwise seeing; all while refering to the Word and not give any addage. We need to realize the prophecy does not always mean “a new Word” but can be and is often a reminder of what God has already said. When Elijah spoke to the people about who they were going to serve, were his words not already spoken by Joshua? That’s how I see it.
godlysoldier reply on February 1st, 2008 at 11:51 am :
I concur, based on the fact of what God has done in my life and how He used me to speak a prophetic word to a church according to Rev 2:1-5 and it came to past. Mind you, I would never call myself a “prophet”, but I know that God gave me a dream about the Pastor of that church that I only attended once and told me to speak that word from His “word.” I believe the “word of knowledge” one of the manifestation gifts of the Holy Ghost was at work, but the prophetic warning God had for them unless they repented according to Rev 2:1-5 came to past bacause they did not take heed. I do believe God desires and still speaks to His people. Again, as said by others, prophecy has been “abused” in the name of God to claim wealth and health and all kinds of nonsense. As far as the issue of “apostles” for today, I think most are using it in the sense of one being “sent”…but again, in this day and age when “man” is so caught up in “titles”, it leaves little room for actual “character” to matter.
trayjay reply on February 1st, 2008 at 1:45 pm :
Let me recant something I said on post #9: I do not agree with djenk23. When I wrote the post, djenk23’s second half was not there. I was agreeing with the first part of what djenk23 said. I do not agree with the second part.
djenk23 reply on February 1st, 2008 at 8:30 pm :
what second half are you talking about?
IndependentConservative reply on February 1st, 2008 at 11:10 pm :
Than it’s not adding.
I think the misunderstanding is here. People like myself are saying it will always be in line with what we have and nothing new. This form of prophesy comes continually and as I’ve said pastors every Sunday morning. Forth telling of scripture rather than some contrived foretelling and making excuses when the person who feels they are a “prophet” fails to be 100% accurate.
If those who claim to be a “prophet” today and attempt to make future predictions not of scripture lived in OT times, they’d all be in caskets full of rocks.
No there are no people holding the office of Apostle or Prophet, although those who claim such are getting lots of positive attention. Bynum as false as she is still has supporters. Someone claiming to be a “Prophet” can literally fill a stadium.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:37 pm
mjatsog, I know you probably think we didn’t notice, but you didn’t address ANYTHING I wrote.Do you need a chance to actually read it?? There isn’t a Scripture you posted to refute anything I said,there isn’t a response to any point I made.
Let me condense it for you,so you can try again to act like an adult rather than attack as “faithless” those who use the Bible to refute your views.
I addressed your contentions about Timothy and Apollos being Apostles. Respond.
I addressed your claim that the qualifications for an Apostle as laid out in Scripture have been superceded and no longer apply. I asked you for Scripture rather than opinion to support it. Respond.
I addressed your inconsistent use of “apostolos” referring to the Office of Apostles with Scripture showing that you must then include even unbelievers as Apostles to be consistent. Respond.
I refuted your erroneous claim that the Gifts of the Spirit cannot operate unless the Apostolic and Prophetic Offices are open, or that having them closed as Scripture indicates means that we don’t believe God acts supernaturally. Respond.
I carefully made the case from Scripture that the Bible clearly states that Apostles MUST HAVE accompanying signs, wonders,and mighty deeds. I then asked you to prove that anyone YOU claim to be an Apostle has these accompanying signs. This is the BIBLE that says these things must accompany Apostles.
2Cr 12:12 Truly the SIGNS OF AN APOSTLE were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.
If your “Apostles” CANNOT provide the BIBLICAL SIGNS of an Apostle, they are false and you are deceived. RESPOND.
I addressed you respectfully,thoroughly and Biblically. What was the response?? Ad hominem attacks on how little faith I have, and a meandering diatribe of pure opinion and historical and doctrinal nonsense. You didn’t address ANYTHING I wrote point for point from Scripture, which I was courteous enough to do for you.
Since I’m the “faithless” one,what do you consider yourself?? I rooted my response in Scripture,because there is where my faith lies. Let’s see where your faith lies. RESPOND.
mjatsog reply on February 2nd, 2008 at 1:13 am :
It’s funny, GaryV, you did not address many of the arguments I made especially regarding the secularization and the corruption of church doctrine. You should not accuse me of ad hominem attacks when the entire tone of your message is such that I must be stupid or I didnt read your message. It is precisely because I read your message that I did not answer it point by point. I did not think that was useful. Instead, I chose to address a broader point which is that your hermenuetic is flawed from the jump. You are reading scripture through a reformation lens, an argument that neither you or IC has addressed. Second, neither one of you actually went to 1 Thess 2:6 when Paul speaking about himself, Timothy, and Silas, says that they were Apostles. There is no way around it, he was talking about himself and the others.
I am not part of some new movement or something. I am a student of the Word of God I desire to know the truth. There is no other authority for me besides the Word. The same I cannot say for you all who have adopted dispensationalist theology which is not in scripture. What is amazing to me is that you believe the burden of proof is on me when I have shown that the source of the theology you hold is from Patristic teachers that taught that the Apostles handed their authority to the bishops. I do not need to answer any specific argument if that is true because that means that the most of your scriptural arguments are the result of proof-texting. But I want to foster dialogue and not vitriol so let me better explain my position from scripture.
The whole use of Apostolos I agree is diverse. But if you look at the translations it is only translated once as messenger to my count. But we have to make an interpretive decision. If we look at the references to Epaphroditus it would make sense that he would be called an Apostle.
But let’s look at the scriptures you all mentioned. On Apostleship, there seems to be two main issues. The first is if the person has actually seen the Lord. I know there are texts we can construe to mean that one has to have seen the risen Lord to be an Apostle but the text we have for that are probably Acts 1 and 1 Cor 9. Once where Paul says I’m an Apostle, havent I seen the Lord. The former, in Acts 1, disqualifies Paul because he wasnt there from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. We are not sure of Barnabas, whether he was there from the beginning,but we know that he was explicitly called an Apostle in Acts 13. The problem I have is that you all seem to dismiss– off hand, my suggestion that expand our notions of who the Apostles were. Apollos could have very well been an Apostle based on how Paul spoke of him in comparing him to himself. You must acknowledge that Paul calls Apollo a fellow worker with him in Christ such that he is even mentioned among himself and Peter in 1 Cor 1. That is not a small thing. Paul specifically saw Peter as a leading Apostle to the Jews and himself a leading Apostle to the Gentiles. Why would he mention someone who wasnt have real authority. And why would the people seek to be identified with a non Apostle some saying Im of Paul (an Apostle), Im of Peter (an Apostle), and Im of Apollo (non Apostle), Im of Christ (the Chief Apostle). Grant it, this argument is not that strong because there is no explicit reference to Apollo as there is to Silas, Timothy, and Epaphroditus.
You also make a point that their office has to be established by two or three witnesses. I’m not sure where you get that from. Scripture indicates that every word must be gotten through this but never does it say a call into ministry must be gotten by this. But even if thats true, we cannot say that did not happen outside of what we have written for said persons.
Now as to you second point that they must work miracles. I would generally agree but with a few questions. How many miracles did John, James (Brother of Jesus), Jude, the rest of the twelve, and others do? We have no record. In fact, we have no instances where John actually does a miracle. He does lay his hands on the Samaritans so that they could recieve the Holy Ghost in Acts 8. But we have more evidence of an Evangelist, Philip, working miracles than we do for John.
Here is my general point, after the outpouring of the Spirit we have no set guideline for what an Apostle must have happen before he becomes an Apostle. Yeah, Paul says he had the signs of an Apostle, but all of those things were done by Philip and even Stephen. Are those things signs of deacons and evangelists.
Acts 6
8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, wrought great wonders and signs among the people.9 But there arose certain of them that were of the synagogue called the synagogue of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen.10 And they were not able to withstand the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake.
Stephen had signs and wonders by the Spirit the same thing promised to every believer in 1 Cor 12. It was not just the Apostles and other ministers that had the gifts, everyone did.
Last, I’m unsure if youre confusing apostolos, apostello, and aggelos. Apostolos is only ever translated apostle or messenger. Apostello has a much broader meaning and is not used to denote an Apostle. And aggelos is the word used in Rev and Heb 13. Here is my point, when apostolos is used, its on purpose. The meaning is not as broad as you all want it to mean. The term is always used when speaking of the distinctive group. Give me some examples when used in another way because I couldnt find them. Acts 10:17 for example uses apostello which is a different word. Apostolos is derived from apo and stello to mean a distinctive group.
I find it astounding how you all use Rev 22:18-19 which does not mean that God does not talk anymore. That’s a horrid interpretation because you are not sure when this book was written. Hebrews may have been written after Rev since Rev. doesnt seem to discuss the destruction of the temple. But thats speculation. Ultimately, we do not know when the book was written and it cannot mean that God had stopped speaking to his people. In fact, Acts 3 indicates that the pouring out of the Spirit was for the purpose of showing God’s gifts. As we know, the Spirit is still with us and people are still prophesying. And I have seen prophecy come to pass. I live in Atlanta, and a brother of mine was able to predict the the coming of the rain while we were in the draught. The next day it rained. I have seen various other prophecies that only serve to bolster that which is written. It never counters it. Thats why Paul says we should covet this gift and not forbid to speak in tongues. But I have a question: Paul was ministering in Corinth. And he was teaching them about Spiritual gifts. Why didnt he mention ONCE that these gifts would end with the death of the last Apostle. Why didnt he warn them that there would come a time for these things to be over. And dont say 1 Cor 13 is that argument because it also says that knowledge goes away too and clearly we still need that.
In Rev, it mentions 12 foundations but clearly there were more than 12 Apostles. James, Jude (Both brothers of Jesus), Paul and Barnabas just to name a few. And if their purpose was just to lay the foundation then why were Paul and the others necessary. Why wasnt the twelve enough? Why did the church need Apostles AND prophets if they functionally did the same thing? What is the difference between them? And Evangelists and teachers, what about them? What was their purpose in the mix?
Again, I am speaking to a much broader point here. I was not saying that the closing of the offices mandates that you mean to say there are no more gifts. I am saying that Eph 4:11 indicates that the offices are in conjunction with Christ giving gifts. Thats why signs and wonders prove an Apostle as you stated. But my major point is that we still need Apostles and prophets. If we dont, then we never needed them. The world has not changed since the ascension of Christ. We are still living in the last times as Paul said so many thousands of years ago.
I will post on this again but it’s late and I have much to say. But anyway, the only qualification one has to meet to be an Apostle is that God has called him to that office by Jesus Christ. That’s it. I believe that still happens. I even know of people who have seen the Lord. Specifically, one story comes to mind of a militant Sikh who gave his life to the Lord after having an encounter with him.
We still need the power of God to function supernaturally. Just as we have people who use witchcraft and sorcery we need to the power of God to combat the power of the wicked one.
I want to explain a point further as I close. I believe that if apostles and prophets arent necessary, then they never were. Nothing has changed. Satan is still Satan and worse, the church thoroughly divided into needless denominations on the basis of differences as small as whether one is called a bishop or an elder. My point is that we need these authoritative offices, first and second as 1 Cor 12 places them, more than ever before. They are necessary to the functioning of the church of God because God made them for the church and NEVER declared them to be finished. The mystery of Christ still needs to be explained further to those who dont believe. I’ll say more later. God bless.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
mjatsog, can you please give us names of the following?
1 person you feel is holding the Office of Apostle right now? Name and location if you can provide it please.
1 person you feel is holding the Office of Prophet right now? Name and location if you can provide it please.
1 person you feel is a church elder/bishop/pastor/overseer standing on sound doctrine? Name and location if you can provide it please.
And since you live in Atlanta, I lived there for about 10 years and know many people there, I will ask one additional question if you don’t mind. Please name 1 church assembly in Atlanta that you feel stands on sound doctrine? Name and location if you can provide it please.
If you want to just name one person you feel is in all the Offices I asked about and leading a church assembly, it’s fine if you just answer with the name of 1 person and the assembly of saints they keep watch over.
Thank you in advance.
mjatsog reply on February 2nd, 2008 at 2:54 pm :
I’m unsure if my lack of knowledge of the existence of people with these offices is any indication that they are invalid. I can say that I know a person with a prophetic gift who is not using it properly. His name is Wayne Thompson, Pastor of Fellowship of Faith Church. I do not know of any Apostles which is not to say they do not exist. I like John Macarthur and N.T. Wright, two I think have the fundamentals down, though they disagree over a few points, but I think both are close to the mark. Finally, I believe that Greater Travelers Rest Baptist Church stands on sound doctrine, fundamentally. Although I loathe church where there’s a lot of shouting and screaming.
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
mjasog, I addressed ALL YOUR POINTS (INCLUDING the one about calling folks Apostles just because “apostolos” is used of them). Remember?? If that is the criteria then we have a slew of PAGAN UNBELIEVERS in the Bible that are APOSTLES according to you,because THEY have “apostolos” used of THEM TOO.
Your ducking and dodging is as transparent as Saran Wrap. “Oh,I just “decided” not to respond point by point.”
Yeah…….that’s what it was. Then you add layer upon layer of further errata. Why?? If you had the time and attention to bring out all these other rabbit trails, you had time and attention to devote to defending your initial post. Let’s deal with all that before we tackle your new distractions.
I particularly love this though……..”Well,just because I can’t name a single person on the planet who fulfills the Apostolic Biblical definition by working signs, wonders, and mighty works, that doesn’t mean they don’t exist, or that we don’t need them.”
Uh……..yes it does. Tell me what good it does to have your Mystery Apostles hiding in a cave somewhere when we supposedly NEED them HERE?? I mean, did Paul live in a hole in the ground?? Peter?? No,they were FRONT and CENTER fulfilling their calling. But I guess today we have all these Apostles (who we NEED hiding) in the woods or flipping burgers at Mickey D’s rather than fulfilling their ministry.
Can you tell us what the difference is between NOT having Apostles and HAVING Apostles that never show up for work??
When Paul and Peter and the rest of the Apostles were out there doing the miraculous, were they as hard to locate and identify as your Mystery Apostles seem to be today??
And,since the Apostles received direct revelation of the inerrant Words of Almighty God which were binding upon the entire Church, do your Mystery Apostles do that as well??If not,WHY not,since the Biblical Apostles did?? Should we keep blank pages in our Bibles in case we ever FIND ONE of them,since the REAL Apostles Words were enScripturated, and therefore (as “real” Apostles themselves) they must have the same authority in their Words??
The proposition is simply ludicrous. According to you,we have Mystery Apostles out there doing Signs Wonder and Mighty Works (which they somehow can hide with CNN around),and likely receiving direct inspired revelation from God,but they live in a cave or something so we can’t find them.
Sounds like the Alien cultists…….”Oh,just because you can’t SEE the Aliens doesn’t mean they aren’t there.They are hiding among us right now.”
Funny,they had no trouble finding the Apostles in the NT, and recognizing them by the miracles they performed. These Mystery Apostles of yours are already different from the Biblical ones………not only because they are completely impotent and incapable of even so much as matching David Copperfield’s gimmicks,but yours don’t even bother to punch the clock at all.They haven’t shown up for work since the end of the First Century.
I know……….maybe your Mystery Apostles are on ice at Area 51 with the Roswell Aliens??
IndependentConservative reply on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm :
GaryV, I’m sure Area 51 has something with a label reading “Apostle” on it
.
You did notice that mjatsog attempted to assert that we don’t have record of many of the apostles performing signs and wonders? So your paraphrase of some of mjatsog’s statements is more scripture based than mjatsog’s actual thoughts regarding the apostles.
Because your paraphrase says apostles bring signs and wonders, while mjatsog said:
As if laying hands and someone receiving the Holy Spirit was less evidence than miracles through Philip. Laying hands and the Holy Spirit coming upon someone is greater than many other miracles, given the gift of salvation is greater than many other miracles.
Either mjatsog has not honestly studied the book of Acts in full and is regurgitating some bad teaching they received from someone else, or they simply forgot the following if they’ve read the book of Acts themselves.
Acts 2:37-43 (New American Standard Bible)
Verse 14 of that chapter makes it clear Peter was with the other 11 and verse 43 above notes the APOSTLES were performing many wonders and signs.
I just don’t see the proof of actual study of the scriptures in mjatsog’s words, because they are making statements repeatedly that go against scripture. I do believe mjatsog is trying to learn though, but they are speaking kind of quick here on a subject they really don’t have a handle on.
And if they want to ask about Barnabas ever showing evidence of signs and wonders, Acts 15:12.
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Agreed IC……the fact is, the BIBLE say that APOSTLES have SIGNS, WONDERS, and MIGHTY WORKS. John makes it explicitly clear as well that the Bible does not record more than a FRACTION of what Jesus did and said either.
Acts is not a complete narrative of everything the Apostles did from morning till night. Shoot, the Book covers over 30 years…….IF mj agrees that John was an Apostle, AND the Bible says that the evidence of Apostleship is SIGNS, WONDERS, and MIGHTY WORKS, then according to the Bible JOHN DID SIGNS,WONDERS, AND MIGHTY WORKS because THAT is what Apostles DID.
Amazing how some folks will make the Bible subservient to ther doctrine rather than the other way around. Since he’s set on claiming there are Apostles today, he simply tosses out the signs the Bible says FOLLOW Apostles.
A sad thing……..WE supposedly have no faith,but HE is willing to throw out verses of the Bible where they prove him wrong.
This is what happens when critical thinking is not taught. People grab onto doctrine without bothering to think through the ramifications (like holding to modern day Apostles leaves behind the minor problem of proving Apostleship by signs, wonders, and mighty works TODAY just like the Bible dermands).
IndependentConservative reply on February 2nd, 2008 at 6:42 pm :
I don’t know if mjatsog is a “he” or a “she”, but I pray the Lord helps them see their error.
mjatsog reply on February 2nd, 2008 at 7:53 pm :
It’s funny. Neither one of you has dealt with the charges I made explicitly again and again. First, that 1 Thess 2:6 explicitly refers to Timothy and Silas as Apostles in ALL translations. Second, that you are using the wrong hermenuetic because of the your prevailing dispensationalist–Calvinist beliefs. I am going based on scripture here. I asked you to show me a specific place where the TEXT, not interpretation of the text, or some rendering, SAYS that these offices are no longer with us. You say that it’s explicit but I need chapter and verse. All you can say is that it must be obvious because they are working signs and wonders or something. But you are making the same remark as Elijah in 1 Kings. He claimed he was the only one but God said that he had seven thousand. Now as a prophet of God, why didnt he know that? You’re setting up false criteria to prove you arguments. And you think that if someone was really working miracles in the name of Jesus that CNN would want to show it. The networks already struggle with showing the good things people do in the world as it is. Why would they expect them to show something that proves them wrong? Why dont the networks invite real biblical scholars that can evidentially prove the resurrection on their shows. Why are they always inviting crackpots? Thats a bad standard.
But anyway, no GaryV you have not answered my argument. If you look again, I clearly showed that the word apostolos is never translated anything but Apostle and messenger. Read my argument carefully. It seems you skipped over somethings I said. Yes, apostellos in is used in reference to Pagans but that is a completely different word from apostolos. If it is, show it to me. Go look at the greek behind 1 Thess 2:6, it is clear that Paul is talking about himself, Silas, and Timothy as apostles. Please both of you guys go and check that. And it is not being used in a wider sense there.
I’ve been a Christian for a while now and have been studying the Bible since I was 10 years old. I could find it offensive that you assume that I haven’t studied. But again, my goal is not to spur vitriol but dialogue. I enjoy debate so let’s keep all of the insinuations and ad hominems aside. Even if I did not answer your arguments point by point intially, I did go point by point afterwards. But then you completely ignored the substance of my arguments. You may call them distractions GaryV but I think my arguments are quite pertinent. If your doctrine has no foundation in scripture, which I contend it does not, then that means your whole perspective is off. You’ve confused the Greek words and then accused me of expanding the definition of Apostle. As I said, yes Paul claimed that an Apostle had signs. But that was true for all of the Christians. Yes, in Acts the “Apostles” had signs, but I asked for a specific instance where John, James, Jude, or the other twelve are pointed out as doing something as Peter and Paul were. There are none. Jesus said that his disciples would work miracles. And that is the testament we see in the NT. Deacons healed the sick and so did Evangelists. And again youve set up a false standard, there are words in the Bible written by non-Apostles that we just as inspired and inerrant: Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews. Again, there is no specific scriptural criterion for the ministers of Christ. All of the ministers of Jesus Christ did great works. The only gift that is exclusive to the Apostles was laying the foundation and continual building of the church. They were called upon to ordain elders according to Titus. No one else in scripture did this but Apostles. That’s why conclude that we expand our notion to include Timothy and Titus because both of them were building churches in Ephesus and Crete.
I can give testimony to people being healed. I heard of a woman who was blind who was given sight about a couple of months ago. But it wasnt by an Apostle or a prophet. Does that count? Or I heard a prohecy given that came to pass that wasnt by a prophet, does that count. You all have placed me in a catch 22. If I explain that I have seen miracles done, you will say, well that doesnt prove anything. But if I claim there are apostles and prophets you will charge me because you will say that miracles prove nothing. I have given reference to miracles in my previous post. And I said I actually know and prophet and named him. And GaryV completely ignored it. Again, his name is Wayne Thompson. I also know one named Aubrey and I cannot give his last name. Aubrey Shines prophesied that president Bush would win the presidency. So does that prove me right? Of course not in your eyes because you have made a doctrinal decision. I am willing to believe what the scripture says. The fact that this debate comes down to the working of signs and wonders and offices of the apostle and prophet means that my argument is proven. The gifts are inherently tied to the offices. But again, I dont like saying stuff like that. My relationship with Christ is not solely experiential. The reason I began to believe there were apostles and prophets was not because I saw some. Contrary to what you have said about me, I did not come to this belief through some false teaching or some church but my own study. It was only until recently that I actually believed there were still apostles. I thought the office was closed until I noticed that there were people who were apostles in the New testament that I did not think were apostles. Again, I reject your hermenuetic on it’s face because what youre saying is not explicit in scripture. It is the product of patristic theology. I look forward to the response, God Bless.
P.S.
I am male.
IndependentConservative reply on February 2nd, 2008 at 9:17 pm :
mjatsog, I was going to ask you the following
———
You say you don’t know anyone alive today holding the Office of Apostle, so given all of church history after scripture, can you name anyone at all that you feel was an “Apostle” and not noted in scripture?
———
But please don’t answer that. Because after seeing your latest comment you continue in so much error that your response really would not matter. And your answering it would only show more error.
You’ve been saved since 10, congratulations, I was saved at 9 or 10 years of age myself, but I learned in time that many of my years were spent in great error and only the Holy Spirit helped me land on firm footing being the Lord’s.
You’ve noted Wayne Thompson as a “prophet”. I was not going to go personally at the people you named. I just wanted to hear who you would name. But it seems you desire for him to be exposed here for the FALSE PROPHET THAT SOMEONE LIKE THAT IS!
(Edit by Independent Conservative: the person I noted below is NOT the Wayne Thompson he was speaking of. I’ll note who he was speaking of in a follow up comment. I’m putting a single line “strike” through what I said below given it’s not who he was talking about.)
Wayne Thompson, pastor of Grace Fellowship is a Seventh-day Adventist.Grace Fellowship Seventh-day Adventist Church
You’re claiming someone of the cult of Ellen G. White is a prophet
.
And you named Aubrey Shines. I’ll just let the good folks here see that false prophet for themselves. Most who claimed agreement with you have seen enough of these frauds to see the real deal once they watch Aubrey Shines doing the usual showman stuff. I am certain that everyone that false prophet said would have turn around after that message have not all experienced it in the earthly sense he was speaking of within this life. You’ll never see someone like that come correct as prescribed in 1 Timothy 6. He’s the perfect cheerleader for a malcontent. Cheering them away from godly contentment, always keeping them thinking they will have “prosperity” on the way
.
And you said that because some false prophet said Bush would win an election…I’m just going to stop there, this is simply pathetic!
IndependentConservative reply on February 2nd, 2008 at 9:19 pm :
I was going to keep mjatsog around as long as GaryV wanted to try and help him, but we’ve agreed mjatsog is deluded and maybe the Lord will set him straight one day, but it’s a waste of our time to continue with him any further.
So mjatsog has been banned. Just because I’m not spending another moment on his continuing in error.
IndependentConservative reply on February 2nd, 2008 at 11:11 pm :
My apologies for the error regarding Wayne Thompson and confusing the person mjatsog mentioned with a Seventh-day Adventist of the same name. The person mjatsog was speaking of is Wayne C. Thompson, pastor of Fellowship of Faith Church International in Atlanta (East Point, GA).
I’ll just say, Wayne C. Thompson is a church elder, a pastor, which is the office he works in. He’s not a “prophet” and THANK GOD he does not make any apparent claim to be a “prophet”.
IndependentConservative reply on February 3rd, 2008 at 12:13 pm :
You can read more about Wayne C. Thompson, pastor of Fellowship of Faith Church International in Atlanta (East Point, GA) in this comment by GaryV.
While I’m not speaking against his being a church elder, he certainly is no prophet and has some doctrinal issues. It seems he does not claim to be a “prophet” on the web site, but does claim he is a prophet acting as a pastor in meetings. Given his doctrinal errors, he makes himself a false prophet, given he’s claiming some things in the Lord’s name that God did not command, while calling himself a “prophet”. Bottom line is as I’ve said before, folks who call themselves “prophet” today if held to the OT standard would all be 6 feet under in rock lined caskets. Because they error in things they claim are from God. That means they are NOT prophets.
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:08 pm
MJ, I’m going to try this one more time……….NOBODY SAID THAT GOD CAN’T HEAL OR PERFORM MIRACLES AS HE WILLS. THIS HAS ZERO…….ZIP…….NADA……..NOTHING…….BUPKIS…….ZILCH…..TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT. Seriously dude, you have comprehension issues. IF THE GIFTS ARE TIED TO THE OFFICES, HOW DID STEPHEN DO THEM IN ACTS??? HOW DID PHILIP DO THEM?? Wait, I know. He was an Apostle too, right?? Can you point to a verse that says he was an Apostle?? No.can you point to a person in the Bible who called him a Prophet?? No. Was he another Mystery Apostle…….an Apostle on da DL??
PS……as for your “prophet”. They received direct revelation from God that was binding, inerrant, and the penalty for erring was death. You telling us that this dude meets THAT criteria, or are you throwing THAT away too?? BTW….just between you and me…..Rush Limbaugh predicted Bush would win too.
And please tell us if the miracles you’ve seen were on the order of the Apostles, MMMMMMMMK??
Dead raised?? Blind receive sight?? Lame walk?? Document it.Besides, the Gifts ARE NOT TIED TO APOSTLES AND PROPHETS.
Also,ANOTHER intentional misrepresentation of what I said was you claiming I said ONLY APOSTLES were used to write Scripture. CARE TO POINT THAT OUT IN MY POST?? I said a MARK of an Apostle was that they were used that way, I NEVER stated that ONLY the Apostles were used to write Scripture. I’m feeling rather prophetic myself right now. I see a Remedial Reading Comprehension course in your future.
Now,you keep asking me to follow you down these rabbit trails,but you as yet haven’t had the simple courtesy of responding to my post and defending your doctrine point by point. First things first. You’re trying to distract by throwing a ton of stuff against the wall hoping something….anything…will stick. Simply respond to the post I wrote, either refuting the Scriptures or the context in each case.
How come you’re always too busy for that, yet you have time to pile more and more error and misinterpretation into this thread??
IndependentConservative reply on February 2nd, 2008 at 9:43 pm :
Well he certainly won’t toss any more error around here. Of course when you let scripture interpret scripture, you realize quickly that 1 Thessalonians 2:6 does not mean Timothy and Silvanus were in the “Office” of “Apostle”. Every Christian can be called an “apostle”, but we are not of the Apostolic Office. Timothy and Silvanus were working under the authority of someone in the Office of Apostle, Paul. Their actions were carried out under his authority as the Lord led Paul to instruct those working with him to lead churches. Some call them “secondary apostles”. It’s clear they were not of the Apostolic Office. Of course the scripture we provided to prove that was ignored.
I dare not spend all my time on someone who holds to error. And I dare not allow bad teaching to flourish, by allowing someone like that to continue here and ignore them. So he had to be banished.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:40 pm
IndependentConservative:
The scripture passages merely state that the church was founded on apostles, prophets, and Jesus Christ. Saying that it means that apostles and prophets are closed offices is at best a weak inference, especially when you consider that if you cross - reference that with the opening of Hebrews, then the reference to prophets could very well be not limited to the prophets in the apostolic church, but the entire line of prophets going back to the Old Testament. There are other scripture references to this effect too; that the church was predicted by the prophets and its foundation was the revelation given to the prophets just as the coming of Christ was foretold by the Old Testament prophets. So, we have both issues of weak inference and context here. I acknowledge that the case is stronger than people who use the “tongues shall cease” verse of 1 Corinthians 13:8 to claim that tongues were foundational and apostolic, but it really isn’t that much stronger.
I am sorry, but the nature and strength of the evidence is with the anti - cessationists and restorationists. The five fold offices (and for that matter tongues) were explicitly established by scripture by more than one witness. So there is no need for interpretation or inferences, whether strong or weak. I am just of the opinion that were it meant for those things to be one day taken away, scripture would have equally declared it.
We are on firmer ground when we can accuse our brethren of violating scripture and doctrines that any reasonable person can directly deduce from them. For instance, there is NO WAY that you can read the pastorals and continue to endorse women preachers or the prosperity doctrine. There is NO WAY that one can read 1 Corinthians and endorse slain in the spirit or a lot of this other alleged charismatic activity. But I am not going to speak against someone that fails to draw the same of doctrines based on weak inferences from Ephesians 2:19-22 and 1 Corinthians 13:8.
Also, we have to be better by defining these terms and their offices anyway. What does a prophet actually do? How does he (or she, for scripture does not restrict women in either covenant if Acts is any indication) conduct his or her office? This is moreso the case with “apostle.” Look, the apostles made by Jesus Christ were picked under the Old Covenant for the purpose of representing (replacing) Israel, and that is why there were 12 of them. The list of the tribes of the 144,000 in Revelation confirms this, so do the name on the pearled gates in Revelation, and that was why Judas Iscariot was replaced (to fulfill the prophecy and the purpose) but none of the others were.
But what of Paul, Barnabas, and the other apostles that the Pauline letters referred to? Even if you reject the notion that the church was officially founded on the day of Pentecost, the fact is that we know from Acts that both the Jerusalem church and the Antioch church were founded before Paul, Barnabas, and the other apostles that Paul referred to but did not name were called to be apostles, and it is possible that the church at Rome was as well. We also know that the gospel had gone to the Gentiles and the Samaritans before Paul received his apostleship. So what was the foundational purpose in making Paul and Barnabas apostles if the church had already been founded, and if anything owed its early spread to Paul’s persecution (which caused the gospel to go to Antioch, Samaria, Rome, and other places that Acts does not name due to the Hellenistic Jews fleeing Paul)? It is true that the gospel had not spread throughout the whole Roman Empire at the time of Paul’s apostleship. But that was not a “foundational issue” since there are yet still 2 - 3 billion unreached people today.
So then, what does the name “apostle” mean in the Greek? Some say that it means “sent ones.” That would imply that it means someone commissioned to take the gospel into unreached areas, start churches, and have some measure of ecclesiastical authority over that church in that area (though it should be noted that Paul and Barnabas never ran the churches that they found, but rather personally worked with them until they were autonomous). So, then, apostle would be a missionary with the authority to build up and plant churches. (That would render the common charismatic use of the term, which is someone who presides over a network of nondenominational churches, unbiblical.) With 2-3 billion unreached people, I unabashedly and unapologetically state that there is definitely a need for such an office today, and moreover will be until Jesus Christ comes back.
The irony is that the reason why we perceive this issue to no longer be needed is because of Roman Catholicism and the Protestant practice of emulating it. While there is clearly supposed to be unity and cooperation among them, the Bible clearly intends for each church to be an autonomous unit under the headship of Jesus Christ. Indeed, the conditions under which the Christian church was formed and existed for 300 years made any other arrangement impossible. So not only did Constantine introduce a central hierarchical authority to the church, but there had never even been so much as an ecumenical council before Constantine called one.
But the result of the centralized imperial church was that the institutional church itself took the authority of taking the gospel to the unreached. And you know what? THEY DID NOT DO IT! There was no effort by the Roman Church to spread Christianity outside of the Roman Empire. The great irony is that what spreading of Christianity that did take place in those days was by people that had been declared heretics and banished by the church. The imperial church did AFTER CENTURIES start sending missionaries outside the Roman Empire to make converts, but the driving factors were political, not religious. As a general rule, any legitimate attempts to do the great commission outside the Roman Empire came from personal initiative.
The best example? Maywin Socket, otherwise known at Saint Patrick, who took the gospel to Ireland. His evangelism efforts were not initiated by the Roman church, but rather by God. (Patrick is considered the first to take a legitimate form of Christianity outside the Roman Empire, a false claim but a telling one as well.) Patrick was taken as a slave to Ireland as a teen but escaped. Later, Patrick had an experienced very similar to that of Paul’s vision of the man of Macedonia that God used to tell him to return to Ireland to preach, and while he was in Ireland worked a great many miracles not dissimilar to those done by Paul and Peter in the New Testament. So Patrick, then, was not a SAINT but an APOSTLE!
Now this demonstrates my point. Paul lived in SCOTLAND (though he was Roman not Scottish, his parents were Roman colonists) and evangelized IRELAND. Now look at a map. IRELAND AND SCOTLAND WERE RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER, SEPARATED BY A NARROW BODY OF WATER, YET IT TOOK PATRICK BEING KIDNAPPED FROM SCOTLAND TO IRELAND AND HIS HAVING A MACEDONIA - CALL TYPE OF VISION FOR IRELAND TO BE EVANGELIZED!
But it is because of Constantinism that we do not regard there to be any more apostles, because we now rely on the institutional human church authority that the Bible never told us to establish to begin with to send people out. Whether it is Rome sending out their priests or our Protestant denominational mission boards sending people out, it is the same. And yes, when these people go out, they generally create churches that are after and under the extended authority of the main church - be it Rome or a Protestant denomination - as well.
But anyone that God sends out to an unreached area to preach the gospel, baptize, and plant churches is an apostle. Even if they don’t have the title. And their work is being hindered by the Constantinism mindset that they must be trained and commissioned by an institutional church and then sent where that church tells them to go.
IndependentConservative reply on February 3rd, 2008 at 12:06 am :
Brother, you say the case is weak, I say it rock solid, firm and strong, that there is no more office of “prophet” or “Apostle”, till 2 prophets of the tribulation come, Revelation 11.
You don’t have a definition for how people in the office of “Prophet” or “Apostle” should conduct themselves in the church, because no guidelines are required for roles that do not exists.
I’m not saying someone who buys into the idea of there being an “apostle” or “prophet” is not saved, but it leads right to the doorstep of nothing but false prophets.
Are you talking about 2 Corinthians 8? Because while some claim Paul was talking about “Apostles” there, it’s just not there. We don’t know who Paul was speaking of and it’s best not to try and write-in anything.
Call me crazy, but I think it has something to do with these Bibles we carry. While they were not of the 12, their actions had to be as part of scripture for our benefit. That is how they were foundational. Without Paul as an apostle, much of our Bible fails to exists. Also we must include their (Paul and Barnabas) disagreement, that separated them, but did not cause them to depart from the ministry. So that we know that we have issues with one another at times, but should remain together in Christ and later as the Lord leads reconcile.
We both agree missionaries are needed to plant churches, but we don’t agree that comes from the Apostolic office. Throughout church history after the apostles in scripture, the gospel has spread to various places via missionaries (evangelist), pastors and teachers, not “Apostles”. The foundation is finished and we simply spread the gospel as God brings increase. The apostles gave us the remaining needed tools for that work via what is recorded in scripture.
I feel given all the sick people around, that the gift of healing is “needed”, however GOD DID NOT GIVE IT TO ME. Lord knows I’d love to have it, I really do desire it. He has not given it to anyone we can name, while even saints get sick at times to physical death. So while I say there is a “need”, God says there is not such a “need” and for His own reasons and timing withholds that gift from us reading this at the moment. Not that healings don’t occur, they do even with myself personally, but I don’t have the “gift” of healing. Healings come now as the Lord wills and we can’t name a person who has the “gift” of healing, although a case could be made that there is a “need”. God has ordained otherwise. A case can be made for the need of an “Apostle”, but it’s closed.
The apostles did set churches to be autonomous, but they did revisit churches they planted, to ensure they stayed on firm footing. Remember, this is where Paul and Barnabas got into a debate over taking John along after what occurred previously with them. So they did exercise a continual level of oversight and that’s why we have so many epistles from Paul. Paul continually was keeping elders in check. Now scripture is complete and now the churches come without a need for an “Apostle”.
You can’t overlook the fact, Apostles heard straight from the Lord and their documented words and actions made scripture. If we still need apostles, we would need to record their deeds likewise and literally ADD to the book.
Maywin Socket aka Saint Patrick was a evangelist, led by the Lord to a ministry others did not do. He did not ACTUALLY see the risen Christ as Paul, Maywin Socket aka Saint Patrick had a vision of a place that needed ministry. He was not an apostle, can you show me where he claimed to be such? I think there is a valiant effort to claim someone was an “Apostle” who was not. Phillip was not an Apostle, but we know how his efforts spread the faith, likewise Maywin Socket aka Saint Patrick was a evangelist. An evangelist not operating from instructions of an elder, but of the Lord Jesus, the High Priest.
It is because even in scripture their role diminished as the book of Acts progressed, not Constantinism, why we know the Apostolic office closed.
They are today evangelists, but not of the Apostolic office. They are apostles in the broader sense of the term and all saints can be called “apostles”, however this is not at all to be confused with the apostolic office. Paul had evangelists that established elders and churches. Those working under Paul’s instruction were not going off the Holy Spirit on their own accord, but on instructions from Paul as the Holy spirit spoke to Paul. Today evangelists at times go as the Lord leads and many call them “missionaries”. Usually they are sent from a church and sometimes like Maywin Socket aka Saint Patrick they go as the Lord leads.
I see the press to make claims to modern offices of “prophet” and “apostle” as vestiges of Azusa. When I read scripture I see no way those offices are to be in effect now.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
WHEEEEWWWW! I couldn’t take anymore of that Aubrey Shine video! All I can say is THANK GOD for being delivered from that ummmmmmm ahh!
This was a good blog, truly a bible study lesson for me…just coming out of WOF anD all…I’m starting to truly understand “SOLA SCRIPTURE”…and also believing that the Almighty God can and does still do miracles at “His will” today. As for men and women with “titles”, all I can say is I now have faith in God, NOT MAN.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:49 pm
i’d like to think that i’ve made my feelings known about these people who are rushing to claim the titles of prophet and apostle…..it just seems like you guys want to throw the baby out with the bath water….are the places in the whole 14th chapter of 1 Corinthians where prophēteuō is used negated because of Ephesians 2:20?…was prophēteuō just for the church at
Corinth?…..1 Corinthians 14:3 uses prophēteuō….the number one meaning of prophēteuō is to prophesy, to be a prophet, speak forth by divine inspirations, to predict…..now if 1 Corinthians 14:3 just comes straight from scripture, how does that square up with 1 Corinthians 14:24-25(about the secrets of the unbelievers heart being disclosed)?…maybe im reading it wrong?
IndependentConservative reply on February 3rd, 2008 at 12:13 am :
Again, to prophesy today is speaking straight from scripture, that:
Hebrews 4:12 (New American Standard Bible)
We’re not tossing out the baby, but certainly getting rid of dirty bath water that comes in the form of error.
Again I’ll say, the people who make future predictions outside of scripture DO have instances where they fail in their predictions and if under OT standards would be in rock lined caskets. I’m not talking about someone that has a moment where they have a feeling about something, but people that claim the closed office of “prophet” as something that they feel they should undertake to predict Bush winning an election…
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:56 pm
The confusion seems to stem form the erroneous assumption that the word “apostolos” means Apostolic Office whenever it’s used. Peter may have picked Matthias by lots, but I never read of God sanctioning it. I believe Paul was God’s replacement for Judas, as evidenced by his ministry and the Apostolic signs accompanying him. Matthias on the other hand promptly drops into obscurity. Jesus Christ Himself chose Paul…..we have no record of God choosing Matthias.
There is no record of Barnabas or Silas or anyone beyond the 12 Apostles performing the confirming signs. That cannot be overlooked.So their being called “apostle” is not the same as putting them into the unique Office of Apostle, ALL OF WHOM were personally chosen by Christ.
Paul and Timothy and Silas were SENT by the elders at Jerusalem, so Paul included himself as one of those “sent ones”along with them. He could not have been referring to them ALL as members of the Office Apostle, because there is no record whatsoever that Timothy or Silas or anyone outside the 12 EVER had the necessary signs operating in their ministry. They were ALL “sent ones”but none had the confirming signs of the Office, and NONE were personally chosen by Jesus except Paul (whom God GAVE the confirming signs to as evidence of His choice).
IndependentConservative reply on February 3rd, 2008 at 1:33 am :
GaryV,
I have to disagree with you here brother. Acts 2 shows Peter stood with the other 11, that would include Matthias. They did signs and wonders, that would again include Matthias. The casting of lots was a common method used to determine the will of God in certain cases. (Some of the many examples include Joshua 18:10, Leviticus 16:8 and Jonah 1:7.) When considering the selection of the replacement for Judas, they had 2 good men as candidates, but knew they could only make one an Apostle. They drew lots after praying and let the HOLY SPIRIT show that Matthias was the replacement for Judas. Matthias was God’s choice to replace Judas, Matthias was the man the Lord Jesus wanted in that role.
Paul and Barnabas both performed signs as I’ve noted is documented in Acts 15:12. Paul and Barnabas are Apostles, they saw the risen Christ, they are witnesses of the resurrection of Christ as the other apostles. However, Paul and Barnabas were not there during Christ’s ministry. So Paul and Barnabas are not noted as part of the 12 in Revelation 21:14. Paul and Barnabas are foundational in the sense the ministry to we Gentiles would have never been what it is without God using Paul and Barnabas as He did. They helped to bring the “other sheep”, to fulfill the words of Christ. They helped bring about the scriptures we have today.
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:11 am
I looked at the website for the church MJ cited, and it’s the typical WOF/Charismatic stuff that lends itself to his particularly awful hermeneutic.
One of the usual books on faith is a “How To Activate Your Faith/How Not To Lose Your Faith” rot, and they mention to be involved in the church you have to be “Baptized In The Holy Spirit” (i.e. tongues).
Frankly…….I’m not shocked.
IndependentConservative reply on February 3rd, 2008 at 12:16 am :
You’re talking about what I mentioned in this comment.
Yes I saw some things there, but given I mistook the man before, I remained silent and just offered the link for others to analyze. Thank you brother.
Bottom line, the man is not a “prophet”. God didn’t tell him to have anyone babble.
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:06 am
I