---------------------
David Smith writes:
Greetings.
The obvious is never irrelevant. (Obviousness is not an indicator of relevance. It is obvious that the sun rises in the east, but that obvious fact has no bearing on what I'm going to eat for lunch today.)
Jesus Himself appealed to the readily apparent. (Sometimes, sometimes not. He also appealed to mysteries and profundities never before seen.
Mt. 13:35 So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.” [Psalm 78:2]
Mt. 10:26-27 ...There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs.
Mt. 11:25 “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."
Lk. 18:34 The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about."But if I do then, even though you do not believe Me, believe the WORKS, that you may KNOW AND UNDERSTAND that the Father is in me. and I in the Father." (John 10:38 NIV)
Your use of Eph. 4:11 is a classic example of reading too much into a verse. Paul's use of the words, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers is nothing more than his personal verbiage to show that Jesus has and will send forth messengers to proclaim His gospel. ("Personal verbiage?" What does this mean? If this is true, how would we know when Paul is employing "personal verbiage" [which apparently means it's not relevant for us] as opposed to inspired Scripture that comes to bear on our lives today?)
This sentence is in no way presenting a list of distinct offices or hierarchy of leadership or even the continuation of each one. (I made no claim about distinct offices or hierarchy of leadership.
Paul leads us into the discussion with this: Ep. 4:7 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. He is not talking about offices or hierarchies or something that will pass away, he is talking about the proper ministry of the Body, one to another. Its operative environment is grace, and each one of us has a particular measure of grace to carry out the operation of the Body.
He then turns his focus to certain parts of this apportionment of grace in Ep. 4:11-13:
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until 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 fulness of Christ.These crucial people are needed in the Body so as to facilitate its maturity, unity, and growth. There is no hint anywhere that the Body at some future point will no longer need to be taught and equipped or spurred on to maturity. In fact, such an idea is preposterous, since the whole of Scripture is essentially a call to holiness.
Paul concludes this way: Ep. 4:16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. This is the way the Church should be; interacting, edifying, encouraging, and each recognizing the apportionment of grace in others. It's a level of depth of connection and singular vision that is so lacking in churches today.
However, Mr. Smith is so quickly willing to blot out apostles [and prophets] because either he doesn't understand how these work in the contemporary Body, he's a part of a different stream of understanding and cannot recognize legitimate differing opinions, or he's so jaded because of the excesses of the more extreme parts of the charismatics.
As near as I can tell, he doesn't believe they are present in the contemporary Body simply because someone told him so. I say that because he reflexively rejects the derivation of doctrine and practice from the Bible, in favor of reformation theology, or perhaps what some supposed Bible teacher says.)
You are simply grasping at straws. (No, I am looking at Scripture and wondering why we are not obedient to its clear teachings.)
Your demand for a scriptural case does not hold water. Unlike the office of elder or deacon, the Bible has no arguments for or against the continued office of "Apostle". (Hmm. If there is no Scriptural evidence pro or con, why is Mr. Smith so vehemently and persistently opposing modern day apostles and calling into question my reasoning? And based on that, how am I be grasping at straws any more than Mr. Smith is grasping at straws on the other side of the issue?
Perhaps rather than discussing elders or deacons, Mr. Smith might address how there is a continued need for evangelists, pastors, and teachers, since they also appear in the Ephesians 4:11 list. If there are no modern day apostles, there are no modern day pastors.
But more to the point, why is the Scriptural case important? Because cessationists make it important. They lash out against certain charismatics, accusing them of being cultish or engaging in heresy, they make claims about important doctrines, they assert they're correct and everyone else is wrong, therefore we must appeal to the Scriptures to establish or refute substantial assertions about what the Bible teaches. The Bible must be our only guide for faith and practice.
One does not get to claim that modern day apostles are unbiblical, then fault the opposition for asking for the biblical case.)
Your insistence for a "scriptural case" is nothing more then a self-imposed and self-serving deflection of the issue. (Mr. Smith's disdain for Scripture is inexplicable.)
Turning an easily answerable question into an impossible to settle debate. (Mr. Smith regularly makes unsubstantiated assertions like this. He apparently finds the issue to be easily answered, but he hasn't actually answered back, he has simply dismissed.
And by the way, there is no requirement for a debate to be settled. Various doctrines great and small have been debated for millenia, with honest interlocutors on each side. It's a good thing, a benefit to us. When we debate we examine the issues, as well as our biases and preconceptions. This is a healthy process, and there is no requirement to establish a winner.
This demand for biblical proof (Not proof, evidence.)
of the non-existence of modern day Apostles reeks of a defense of a pre-conceived notion and not a honest search for the truth. (Now Mr. Smith knows my motives, apparently. I am not engaged in a honest search for the truth. How he knows this is anyone's guess.
Where do we look to find the truth? We turn to the Bible! It is people like Mr. Smith who make the claim of the cessation of these things. And it's not a small claim. The case they make is appallingly weak, as I've noted, but rather than respond to my scriptural analysis with his own, Mr. Smith expends every effort to avoid actually answering.)
This lack of evidence is the "elephant in the room" that you are trying to ignore. ([?] The lack of evidence is the obvious evidence?)
Your lack of acceptance of the obvious (That is, what is obvious to Mr. Smith as he relies on inference and supposition for his biblical understanding.)
is the prefect (sic) field of battle that atheists love to argue from. "See how silly Christians are, they won't even admit the world is round". (This makes no sense. I present my case from the Bible, and Mr. Smith presents his from... what? Then we are to measure our success by how atheists perceive us?)
(Now begins the at-a-distance psychological analysis:)
I don't know your background but I suspect your continued defense on this issue is tied to a set of denominational beliefs, (My denominational beliefs were conservative, cessationist Baptist. I assumed that those beliefs were right, but when I examined them in the light of Scripture, I found them lacking. I was forced to change my mind and reject my previous error. It is hard to admit one's self to be wrong, but the truth must win out.)
and you find it difficult to separate this issue from the rest. You seem to not want to tackle the real issue at hand and prefer to banter on about the different ways people can interpret the word apostle. (No, this is quite clearly a misrepresentation. I quoted Thayer, an esteemed Bible scholar, who was discussing Strong's entry regarding the meaning of the word "Apostle." It is clearly relevant that the word means various things in various contexts.)
Mr. Finnell has made it quite clear that he is not speaking about the average Joe who wants to be called apostle because he has a "message to send forth" but to those who claim both the ability and authority of the first century apostles. (No he did not. Not in the least. He dismissed the entire concept of modern day apostles. Categorically. He did not make an exception for certain kinds of apostles from his critique, or even mention them. He specifically asked, "If there are apostles today, why do they not mirror the acts of the apostles of the first century?" That is, if they aren't doing what Paul and Peter did, they aren't apostles.)
The lack of Apostles today does not imply the Bible is fraudulent, (I made no such point.)
since the Bible makes no claim of their continued existence. I have read many of your posts, you are a smart and talented writer but seem to be willfully blind on this point. (It's a strange criteria indeed to suggest that in order for a Bible teaching to apply to today that the Scriptures must specifically tell us that it does. I search in vain for any other doctrine or practice of the Church where such a biblical statement exists.)
Greetings.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your prompt reply. I find it refreshing that you are willing to engage in a frank manner and to allow others to see and chime in on the issue. It shows you as quite sincere and sure of your beliefs.
Let me begin.
Are you taking the stand that we should ignore the obvious even when it clearly pertains to the subject at hand? Forgive me if I am wrong but this is what it seems you are advocating. The lack of physical evidence to a claim that by nature should be right in front of our eyes makes your defense sound bizarre. Your four verses about Jesus speaking in and of the unknown does not negate our need to accept the readily apparent.
I am not sure how to address your issue with my use of the words "personal verbiage". It simply means that Paul personally chose to list a few different types of messengers, not as a formal demand for there use but to prove God's desire to spread His gospel.
I must state again, the crux of the matter is about those who claim the AUTHORITY and/or ABILITIES of the 1st century Apostles. Not simply anyone who wants the title because of the less common meaning "messenger send forth". If this is what these posts are about, who cares. If someone wants to be called a Christ, simply because someone anointed his head with oil, are we to accept this title? If our definition is this loose then we are all "apostles" at one time or another and the title is meaningless. The title apostle is rarely used in the Bible and rightly so. After the death of Judas the remaining apostles would only allow ONE person to enter into their office, Matthias. and refused Joseph called Barsabbas (Acts 1:21-26). Again, if this discussion is simply about the use of apostle as an "honorary title" lets end this now.
Let me be clear. I don not believe there are living Apostles today for the same reason I do not accept the world has four corners. Because it is apparent that it is round and if someone presents Ezekiel 7:2 and demands from me a "scriptural case" otherwise, I will not debase my intellect by giving one. You may label my belief in the non-existence of modern day apostles as a bare assertion. But so is my belief that the world is round and no "scriptural case" is going to sway me into ignoring the obvious.
You can banter till the Lord returns about apostles walking the earth today but without evidence you are but speculating. If someone showed you a medical book that stated humans normally are born with twelve fingers would you go and find a different medical book to prove him wrong? Of course not, the truth is apparent and a "medical case" is not needed.
I do not offer you or demand from you a biblical case for something that does not exist. This is simply a matter of common sense trumping theory. Your sentence, "The Bible must be our only guide for faith and practice" is quite true but there is a tacit understanding that we should reject what can not be correct. Surely you can see this.
Since you seem to know the workings of the "contemporary Body", please tell me the criteria for using the title of apostle and what limits of authority do they have.
I look forward to your apply.
Here's what I said about obviousness: "Obviousness is not an indicator of relevance." I will further say that "it's obvious" is not a statement of fact, nor is it a defense. What you regard as obvious I regard as yet to be an undocumented and unestablished assertion.
ReplyDelete"Personal verbiage" looks like rhetorical dodge. No theologian has used such terminology to describe anything in the Bible.
"I must state again, the crux of the matter is about those who claim the AUTHORITY and/or ABILITIES of the 1st century Apostles" No, it's not. You might wish it to be so, but what we are debating is Steve Finnell's position, not yours.
It is false to claim that Matthias was the only other apostle. Paul, Barnabas, Andranicus, and Junias were also identified as apostles. Jesus Himself is identified as an apostle.
I do not find it necessary to you about the "contemporary Body," since the Bible covers this in great detail. Similarly, the operation of apostles is also found explained there. Once you have completed your study, get back to me.
Greeting Rich.
ReplyDeleteYour defense of the notion of living apostles of the same authority and abilities as Matthew or John is not convincing and I am someone who wants to be convinced. Your whole argument is based on your belief that the Bible teaches this doctrine. This in itself is noble, but by insisting that someone MUST present a "biblical case" you have convinced yourself to such a degree that you have shut off any other avenues of debate.
Just as Catholics err in their defense of the doctrine of transubtantiation, so to is your error. I am sure you are aware of this doctrine. Those who follow this faith see the eucharist miracle as an undeniable fact (Matthew 26:26). They believe that anyone who denies this scripture is fighting the clear words of Jesus and they will refuse to listen to any other argument no matter how logical. No appeal to common sense or apparent flaws in their thinking will sway them. "Just show me a verse that states its NOT human flesh." is their common response. The internet is full of blogs that protect this belief and their defense is quite the same as yours.
I believe that the Bible is the word of God, I believe it has no errors and is the bedrock of His church. Our approach to it must be with a clear mind and open heart. To put blinders on as to not see a logical misstep on our part is unwise. We can debate verses for days but to not admit our views are flawed simply because someone can not point to a scripture that neatly refutes our error is foolishness. Mankind can and has come up with a multitude of false beliefs and to think that there is a verse custom made to refute each and every possible one is wrong. If someone believes that the moon is made of green cheese, I have no verse to prove otherwise.
Now on to your reply.
My appeal to the obvious is quite sound. It is the basis for our everyday lives and can not be ignored just because we are dealing with a spiritual issue. We even accept our rights as citizens as "self-evident" without the need to document or establish the assertion. We make decisions both important and mundane by our acceptance of the readily apparent. There is nothing wrong with this, just necessary.
You really seem to have an issue with my use of the words "personal verbiage". I was not a "dodge, just my attempt to explain Paul's style of writing. There was no attempt at "theological terminology". Did you actually look this up? If it helps, how about "particular circumlocution" instead. Don't look it up in Thayer's, its not there.
Your desire to narrow this discussion to Mr. Finnell's view of the definition of an apostle is a side step. You are well aware of the real issue here. Let's be clear, you believe that the Bible teaches the notion of modern day apostles of the manner of Peter or Paul, I do not. You also believe that they are walking and working among us today, I do not. Is this not correct? Don't hide behind Mr. Finnell's post or uncommon definitions for the word. We have long since passed that point, defend what you believe.
My mention of Matthias was meant only in the context of the given verses. I am aware of those 1st century apostles you listed. My point was that there were requirements for the office as those verses point out. I am not aware of Jesus being called an apostle but He was called many things and can not be used as an example. Your refusal to answer my question about the requirements and authority of present day apostles was calculated. I am well aware of the Bible's listing of requirements for elders and deacons and your non-answer is rather telling.
I look forward to your reply.
Either you did not read what I've written about apostles, or you didn't understand. I made no claim that modern day apostles have the "same authority and abilities as Matthew or John." I quite clearly made the case for a variety of apostolic ministries in the Church.
ReplyDeleteAs to the rest, I have quite adequately explained your error.
Greetings.
ReplyDeletePlease excuse the long delay.
Again, what is the authority and abilities of modern day apostles? If you believe that the office is still active today, explain it. What is the difference between now and then? Your refusal to answer these questions speaks volumes. All you have proven is that there WERE apostles during the 1st century, nothing more.
Once again, if your definition is merely one of an "honorary title" and holds no authority our discussion is meaningless. I suspect this is not the case. Since you have made "no claim" of their having the "same authority and abilities" please give us your "biblical case" as to their current abilities and authority in the modern church. Surely this is not too much to ask?
I look forward to your reply.
Ac. 4:33 "With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all."
ReplyDeleteAc. 15:2 "This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question."
Romans 1:5: "...to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith."
1Co. 12:28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues."
Ep. 4:11-14 "It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until 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. 14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming."
Greetings Rich.
ReplyDeleteThank you again for your prompt replies.
Your five verses do not answer the questions.
1. What is the authority and abilities of modern day apostles?
2. What is the difference between then and now?
You seem to be on both sides of this issue. Where do you stand? Are modern apostles but figureheads with honorary titles or do they have authority like elders and deacons? Do they have the same God given supernatural abilities as Peter or Paul? Are they but simple "messengers send forth"? You know where I stand. Could you clearly state how you view modern day apostles?
Scripture is my answer. If it doesn't answer your question, you need to study the Word more.
ReplyDeleteGreetings Rich.
ReplyDeleteThis discussion has moved in the direction that I suspected, with a curt response and no real answers. You have shown no biblical, logical or physical basis for accepting the existence of modern day apostles in the manner of Peter or Paul. Your use of definitions such as "messenger sent forth" is meaningless to this subject. I do not believe for a moment that you would go through this much effort just to prove that the word "apostle" has more than one possible meaning.
You have been rather coy about your belief on there being living apostles of the authority and abilities as Peter or Paul. It's like getting a straight answer out of a politician. But this does not excuse the willful blindness that non-cessionists have on this issue. The notion of supernatural physical manifestations happening today in anyway even loosely mirroring what was happening in the New Testament is beyond absurd. If just a small fraction of the physical supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit were active today as it was in the New Testament we would not be debating it now. To think that it is happening right under our noses and we just can't or won't see it is rather puerile. It is nothing more than sticking our heads in the sand. Is it not possible that God expects us to live by faith and not sight?
Rich, you are bold and sincere but on this issue you are boldly and sincerely wrong.
I look forward to your reply.
As long as you are diverting and bringing up irrelevancies, I am not terribly motivated to answer.
ReplyDeleteYet again I point out that I did not make a case for modern day apostles being in the manner of Peter or Paul. That was Mr. Finnell's discussion point, not mine.
This is the problem, that you have your pre-conceived notions, and nothing will cause you to deviate from your talking points. It is therefore frustrating to engage you in a debate, because your arguments, when not obfuscating, are based on, well, nothing.
Scripture is not relevant to you. My narrative gets ignored so that you can repeat points I already denied. As such, we have little to debate, since you are a dishonest interlocutor.
Regarding your last point about the existence of supernatural manifestations in the present day, all I can attribute your statements to is willful ignorance. It is an easy thing to locate evidence like this https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=supernatural+manifestions
Whether or not they are in any way legitimate is entirely another issue, but their existence is plain for all to see.
My faith is not tied to such things, so there is no issue of living "by faith and not sight." I don't require God to perform for me, but I also don't blaspheme by saying He cannot do as He pleases, in accordance to His previous revelation.
You have made no appeal to this revelation, the Scriptures. You have quoted no verse, cited no reference, nor have you made any case at all for your position. As such, you have been little value.
Greetings Rich.
ReplyDeletePlease excuse the long delay.
The issue of the continuation of the physical supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the manner of the 1st century is not a debate of scripture but of tangible, observable, provable and recordable facts and events.
Pentecostals and charismatics are making a claim they can not prove. A claim that should be as simple to prove as the notion of heavier than air flight. Just look up and see the planes or visit an airport. The planes are not "preforming", they are but doing what they were meant to do. So too would the tangible supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit IF they were active today in a manner as in the New Testament. Again, you can banter as much as you want about your biblical case and refuse to answer simple questions but unless you can show some obvious evidence you are but speculating as well as ignoring the readily apparent. You have so convinced yourself that you can not see the open prairie for the lack of trees.
I do not need to prove that something is NOT happening. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim and your coy responses are fooling no one. Despite your efforts, anyone reading these posts knows exactly where we both stand on this subject. Jesus PURPOSELY offered tangible supernatural events to prove His message and authority (John 20:26, Mark 3:16, John 9:1-12, Luke 5:18-26, John 10:38). The resurrection itself was a purposeful tangible event, but what do Charismatics offer....YouTube clips. Whaa?
The existence or non-existence of the tangible supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit is not a "grey area" or an idea with lots of wiggle room. It is either true or untrue. Christians can not sit on the fence but must acknowledge the truth not matter their personal bias. Your implying of blasphemy on my part is not welcome or warranted. The same blasphemy can be said of labeling cheap parlor tricks as acts of the Holy Spirit.
I offer you this analogy:
A young man and I are waiting at a bus stop, he proclaims that he can fly. He tells me of all the joy he and his friends have just flying around the neighborhood and of all the benefits of flying among the clouds. He states boldly, "Why walk when you can fly!". He offers to teach me how to fly. I ask to see this flying first hand. He replies, "Sure, watch this". He begins to run in circles while quickly flapping his arms. After a few minutes he stops and proclaims, "See wasn't that great". I reply that all I saw was him running and flapping his arms. He then pulls out a large textbook of aviation and proceeds to show me articles on how birds fly. I point out that the chapter he is quoting is on the ability of sparrows to fly not humans. He closes the book, gets on the bus and yells, "You just don't want to fly".
This is the Pentecostal mindset.
I look forward to your reply.
"Pentecostals and charismatics are making a claim they can not prove." I am not inclined to defend pentecostals and charismatics. I don't know why you think I should.
ReplyDelete"I do not need to prove that something is NOT happening." How convenient. You apparently can make all the assertions you want, but it's me who has to prove my case. You know, I'm beginning to suspect that you are not a Christian at all, you are a leftist. You argue like a leftist, you exempt yourself from requirements you place on others like a leftist, you change the subject like a leftist, and you continually attribute things to me that I have not said and have repeatedly denied, just like a leftist.
Further, I offered a link to youtube which had hundreds of videos of miraculous events, which I'm sure you didn't even visit. Then you demand the same proof again, just like a leftist.
Then feigning woundedness, you protest the use of the word blasphemy, claiming I called you blasphemous. I did not. Again, you're just like a leftist.
"This is the Pentecostal mindset." Ok, go talk to a pentecostal. Again, I'm not sure why you think I should defend them. I'm sure they will delight in your systematic, logical, biblically documented presentation.
Greetings Rich.
DeleteThank you for your swift reply.
I will attempt to respond in a ordered fashion.
You many deny the labels I am using for your mindset but you are plainly in their camp. I have read a number of your posts on this subject and you are surely in step with this movement. I am not asking you to defend their view but yours. You have made a habit of expressing what you ARE NOT and what you DO NOT believe or HAVE NOT said. You have, with a Bill Clinton finesse attempted to dodge my request for firm answers to your stand on this issue. Replies such as, "Scripture is my answer" or "I do not find it necessary to (sic) you about the "contemporary body"" are fooling no one.
You are attempting like most non-cessionists to turn the question of the existence of tangible supernatural events from a physical one to a Biblical one. The scriptures are clear that they will cease. It does not say when but they will cease. Looking to the scriptures to know when this will happen is not possible Therefore there is no "biblical case" for knowing what the "perfect" is or when it is to come. You may believe you know the date but it is but speculation. But if you believe the perfect has not arrived then you have a lot to explain about the lack of obvious evidence that should be all around us.
Yes Rich, the lack of evidence for a notion that should be as easy to produce as simply opening our eyes is damning evidence to the contrary.
You are obviously a very learner individual in many areas yet your inability to admit to me or sadly yourself that your belief in this ideology of modern day apostles simply is not supported by physical evidence is telling. It seems your ignorance is merely a result of your arrogance. For you to admit your mistake you would have to realize you are not the wise man you perceive yourself to be. Rich, you are capable of being wrong. You are human.
You are searching for a spiritual answer to a physical question. This is as wrong as looking to the Bible to prove if the world is round. The world is round, this is obvious. The tangible manifestations of the Holy Spirit has ceased, this is obvious. All the YouTube clips in the world do not prove that the blind are healed or the dead are raised. If these YouTube clips are convincing to you
then please DO NOT watch the loch ness monster, bigfoot or space alien clips.
You may sincerely believe the Bible supports this notion but surely you can not believe your YouTube evidence holds any weight on this subject.
I accept that people may see issues differently but this subject is not a battle between scriptures but simply an issue of "common sense trumping theory", nothing more.
On your belief that I am not a Christian, you are very mistaken. I have been a born again, Bible thumping Christian for 32 years and not shy about confessing my faith in Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God. I am also not in anyway a leftist. I am a social conservative, free market Republican from the very red state of Louisiana. I stand for many of the same beliefs as yourself. I enjoy reading your posts on many issues and am encouraged by your strong stand against the liberal PC crowd. You words are very frank and that is refreshing.
It does seem as if we have come to a road block to any further discussion on this subject. So if you do not wish to reply, I find no fault.
It is interesting that you accuse me of dodging your questions when I’ve been quite clear about what I believe. Quite simply, there are apostles today, just as Scripture requires. They act in accordance with their mandate to build up and mature the Body. They are notable men of faith, prayer, wisdom, and maturity. They are everywhere, humbly doing mighty things in the name of Jesus.
DeleteBut now we are required to have “physical evidence” of apostles? What in the world does that mean? Fingerprints? Blood samples? You need “physical evidence,” but you don’t need it regarding the Perfect? Why yes for one and no for the other? Your criteria are completely arbitrary!
Ok, so let’s deal with “physical evidence.” First, “Physical evidence” is not how we derive doctrines. Second, evidence is not the problem; your ignorance of the evidence is the problem. Third, if indeed I am learned (something which I am loathe to embrace), it seems to make sense that maybe my learnedness might apply to this issue as well.
It seems clear that you either don’t understand or haven’t read many of the points I have made to document my claims. So let me expound.
In a nutshell, the Church has failed to follow the clear teachings of the Bible. The second generation Church immediately began to fall way from the teaching of the Apostles. Had it stayed faithful to those teachings, we would see a powerful church throughout history up until present day. But instead, we have a powerless, disobedient, unbelieving church, content to cower in their buildings and make great shows of their Correct Doctrine, happy to beat down dissenters like me.
Imagine that. The powerless Church uses its own historical failure as evidence to refute those who believe the Bible!
That is the reason we are debating now. You appeal to this apostasy as your sole evidence. However, the historical situation does not further your case, because apostasy is not evidence. It cannot instruct us about how we should believe today.
God is beginning to revive His Church, calling It back to the Its first love. He is calling His people back to the faith once delivered to the saints. There is evidence of this stirring all around. After centuries of being empty of the Holy Spirit, things are changing.
But you won’t find it in your circles. Your circles mock everything and everyone who is not like them. You won’t find it in dead religion. You won’t find it until you talk to people who are laboring in the trenches, unrecognized and unrewarded.
They are not Benny Hinns or Jesse Duplantises or those other purveyors of false doctrine and false hope, imposters and charlatans looking to make a buck and pollute the move of God. No, the ones who are doing the work of God don’t trumpet themselves, post videos, or call up the local news and make God perform for them. Rather, they are obedient to God’s prompting, and let God receive the glory.
I accept the wheat and reject the tares. You reject both the wheat and the tares, because it contradicts your carefully lined out doctrine. You are on the side that wants to stay where the church is now, powerless, and I am on the side of those who are willing to embrace what God intends in these days.
You don’t like it. And I’m sorry you don’t.
Greeting Rich.
DeleteI will attempt to address your response in an ordered fashion.
You are most certainly dodging my questions, now is the time to speak definitely. I have asked the following:
1. What is the authority and abilities of modern day apostles?
2. What is the difference between the apostles then and now?
3. What criteria is used to determine who is and is not a modern day apostle?
4. How does the role of modern day apostles differ from elders and deacons.
Your silence is deafening.
When asked about names of modern day apostles, you object.
When asked if the role is a honorary title, you ignore the question.
When questioned about the lack of physical evidence, you imply blasphemy.
When asked to defend your charismatic views, you suggest that I am not a Christian.
On what I believe to be honest debate, you label me a leftist.
And finally you accuse me of being "happy to beat you down". Talk about the plank in the eye.
Fingerprints and blood samples will not prove the office of apostle, but 2nd Cor. 12:12 will.
It is true that doctrines are derived from scripture. But physical evidence exposes fallacy. If someone believes the Bible teaches that humans can fly, then either they are misunderstanding the scriptures or the Bible is wrong. I will not attempt to refute or give a "biblical case" for such a notion with scripture but simple God given logic.
Your "nutshell" discourse does not address the issue of the lack of physical evidence on this subject. What you believe happened in the 2nd century is not germane to this discussion. If the 2nd generation church lost the tangible supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit, how is the same lack of these manifestations evidence that it is making a come back? You may consider yourself a "dissenter" but you appear to just be confused.
I am not mocking your views, simply exposing a rather large logical hole in you defense. If your best physical evidence are YouTube clips then you are as much of a purveyor of false hope as Benny Hinn. The Great Commission is a call to action for all Christians. Seating around waiting for "God's prompting" is but an excuse for why their work does not mirror the work of the New Testament Apostles.
This is not an issue of wheat and tares, just a group of people wanting desperately for something to be true. Willing to ignore the obvious to such an extent that it borders on the absurd. Refusing to admit the emperor has no clothes.
Evidence is of no consequence when emotions enters the fray and this is where blind faith is born, a seemingly abundant commodity certain "churches" feed on fervently if not lavishly. But in learning and argumentation, what passes the logic test, free of fallacy and pretense, then must pass the test of biblical accuracy in order to proceed as an adopted, reliable truth/doctrine. This is where your defense falls apart. You have put the cart before the horse. You have convinced yourself that the Bible teaches the existence of modern day apostles. But instead of applying common sense to your theory you simply accept the assertion and are now struggling with the obvious problem of the absurd lack of evidence to you belief.
Finally, you state that I will not understand your view unless I talk to these apostles myself. I will hold you to that. Have one of these "notable men of faith, prayer, wisdom and maturity" contact me. Since as you say, "they are everywhere, humbly doing mighty things in the name of Jesus". Have one or more of them contact me on my non-Christian leftist blog,
bedrockunderthesand.blogspot.com
They can leave a comment on any article. If an apostle is not available I will accept a prophet.
So no more banter, generalities, loose definitions, coyness, YouTube clips, curt responses or self righteous "biblical cases". Just have they contact me, maybe they can defend their position better then you.
I believe I have exhaustively dealt with your questions. That’s not good enough for you. I’ve explained, corrected, and explained again. You summarily reject my every effort. I quoted scripture, the only source of doctrine and practice. That’s not good enough. I directed you to the Bible, where the answers to your questions are found. You simply restate your objections.
DeleteAnd thus you seem to think that because I do these things I have not measured up. I have relied on the Bible and referred you to it because I thought you had the ability to read and study for yourself. But you’d rather have me spoon feed you.
I refuse.
I refuse to answer nonsensical statements like
"If someone believes the Bible teaches that humans can fly, then either they are misunderstanding the scriptures or the Bible is wrong. I will not attempt to refute or give a "biblical case" for such a notion with scripture but simple God given logic."
because the Bible does not teach that humans can fly, but it does teach about the need for apostles in the Church.
I have discovered that no matter what I say or how many times I explain something, you simply restate the objection as if I had said nothing at all.
Example one: You made the charge on at least three occasions that I claimed modern day apostles were the same as biblical apostles.
Example two: You made the charge at least twice that I accused you of being a leftist.
Example three: You claimed I said you weren’t a Christian.
Based on this and other evidence, I conclude that you are either not a careful reader, or you lack logical skills, or you are deliberately dishonest. I cannot countenance any of these any longer.
I enjoy a good debate with a thoughtful interlocutor. Sadly, this is not you.
Please cease from further comments.