Our Need to Study and Learn from Others

[Anonymous]

John for Christ wrote,

It seems to me that you might be assuming a bit yourself.

Not really, John. I am suggesting probability not conclusion.

Hi John W.,

You assume that there are no apostles after the Twelve (or you include Paul and/or Matthias). You base this on what you feel to be a "pattern".

That's not probability, that's assumption. The evidence is not strong enough FROM SCRIPTURE to make this a probability.

People are popping up all the time making themselves out to be apostolic, speaking for God, introducing some new doctrine, theory or practice, including "spiritual gifts" that have no foundation with the real gifts of the spirit. The airwaves are crowded with the religious charlatans, leading souls astray. Neither Dr. Allen nor myself have indicated that we desire or attempt to limit God. "With men this is impossible, but with God, nothing is impossible". God is sovereign, He can and does as He wills, bless His Name!!! What we are saying is that God has demonstrated His will by a pattern of establishment for the operation of His churches. That pattern excludes apostolic ministry that has the weight of the 12 apostles of Christ. He has not, by evidence continued the work of revelation by Holy Spirit inspiration since the death of the Apostle John and it is in the last written work of that apostle, that the Holy Spirit included the admonition for and the curses upon, any who would add to or take away from the words of that prophecy. Granted that such admonition is specifically relating to the Revelation of Jesus Christ, but it is in principle, applicable to the whole Bible. It is an unwritten crime to alter the pronouncements of the Most High God. Such trespass ought not to be taken lightly. There is sufficient demonstration of how the Lord feels about such things (think Korah, Miriam). God can do what He wants, but we need to pay more attention to what He has done.

You have proven my point: Your primary concern is that "people are popping up all the time making themselves out ot be apostolic..." and so forth. If that wasn't your primary concern in this discussion, then you wouldn't spend so much time trying to make that point.

I disagree that the "pattern" you feel you have seen is actually a pattern that apostolic ministry of the weight of that of the Twelve no longer exists. You haven't shown any such evidence at all, and I keep getting back to the question, where's your evidence for that assumption?

Try and make it simple for me. I just haven't seen a single thing that you've said that points to such a pattern or that apostleship of the same level as the first apostles could not or does not exist today. There's no reason why apostleship couldn't be "broken" into time periods where it was needed. It need not be an unbroken succession of apostles.

He has not, by evidence continued the work of revelation by Holy Spirit inspiration since the death of the Apostle John and it is in the last written work of that apostle...

What? Do you not have the Holy Spirit within you teaching you and inspiring you?

It isn't evidence FOR that you need to look for, it is evidence AGAINST. The simple default is that if something existed in Scripture, then it continues on unless SPECIFICALLY ended. Nothing in Scripture indicates that revelation by inspiration of the Holy Spirit has ceased. If so, where is this evidence?

You view a gap in history between the early apostles and now as being the ending of something. If apostles are only needed when confusion is rife, then why would we expect them all throughout history? Confusion over Scripture is greater today than ever before. At least 100 years ago there was a general agreement. Now there isn't even that.

...that the Holy Spirit included the admonition for and the curses upon, any who would add to or take away from the words of that prophecy. Granted that such admonition is specifically relating to the Revelation of Jesus Christ, but it is in principle, applicable to the whole Bible.

Utter nonsense, in my opinion. Nothing suggests that they admonition not to change the words of the prophecy of Revelation applies to the whole Bible. You can't leap logically to that conclusion.

You claim a principle, but that principle would have applied to every writer then after Moses. God continued revelation for several THOUSAND years. We have no reason to believe He stopped, unless He says He stopped.

What bugs me the most about all this is that you and K.R. and maybe others are not being rational about Scripture. You are pulling out all sorts of ideas to prove your point, but none of them really do. Most of them are old traditions, and not one of those traditions is written in Scripture.

The Bible itself doesn't end apostleship, doesn't end the canon of Scripture, doesn't end prophecies, miracles, or anything else. If it does, please show me clearly where.

It is an unwritten crime to alter the pronouncements of the Most High God. Such trespass ought not to be taken lightly.

John, the first mention of adding or taking away from the word of the Lord is found in Deuteronomy 4:2, "You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish anything from it..." Now if that is so in Deuteronomy, then EVERYTHING after the Five Books of Moses would be heresy. None of us believe that, because we know that the rest of Scripture wasn't adding to the word which He commanded them in the sense that He was telling them. God was talking about changing what He had already said, not writing further Scripture.

The same type of statement at the end of the book of Revelation is meant the same way--just to refer to the book of Revelation.

It is a WRITTEN crime to alter the words of the Lord. But translating, or even writing new Scripture that comes from the mouth of God, is not altering the words of the Lord.

I don't know how to convey this in a way that makes sense to you and K.R.:

ALL of God's words, from the beginning to the end are of infinite value and power. Not one is greater than another, because they are His words.

Whether those words originated in the Bible or outside of the Bible doesn't make a bit of difference. IF they came from God, then they hold exactly the same authority as any of God's other words, including Scripture.

This is predicated upon whether the words are truly from God or not. If they are not from God, then the foregoing isn't true. If those words are from God, whether He prophesies to a person individually, or the Church corporately, the words are still 100% the words and authority of God on par with anything in Scripture.

...There is sufficient demonstration of how the Lord feels about such things (think Korah, Miriam). God can do what He wants, but we need to pay more attention to what He has done.

Okay, let's start over a bit. Please explain in the simplest terms possible, using Scripture, how:

(1) Apostleship ended when the last of the Twelve apostles died.
(2) Paul can be an apostle since he wasn't one of the Twelve.
(3) We can know that there was no other revelation or words of God given besides Scripture.
(4) That the canon of Scripture is closed.
(5) That there were two classes of apostles which were distinguished in Scripture.
(6) That there are no apostles in the world today.
(7) That there can be no apostles in the world today.

That's my challenge. On each item, I will expect some type of Scriptural proof that verifies your point rationally and logically. In fact I will expect that if a logical flaw is pointed out, that you will respond to it and show how it is not a flaw, without making any assumptions.

I want to do this slowly so that everyone can see my point. If there is anything that Christians today need, it is a simple course in basic logic. Too many people base their belief on assumptions and "facts not in evidence". Neither are a good thing to base one's beliefs upon.


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

John, I am not overlooking Paul. Paul (Saul) encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus and was discipled by Jesus Himself over a period of 3+ years. There is absolutely nothing different about Paul's apostleship, (except the dates he was trained) than that of the remaining eleven originals. Could the Lord intercept another man, hell bent on destroying Christians, transform his life and send him forth as a mouth piece for God, give him the position of recording inspired writ? Sure, He could, God can do anything, BUT who has He done that with since John (the apostle, not you and I. :lol: )? No one, but there have been many rogues that would claim the apostolic authority.

Hi John W.,

Paul's conversion and apostleship was distinctly different from that of the original Twelve. He never met Jesus personally in the flesh. He was a strong enemy of Christianity. He hated Christ from the outset, because he believed Jesus to have been an impostor. He wasn't selected by Jesus in the flesh, nor did Paul walk around with Jesus and get taught directly by Him.

Yes, we can argue that Jesus did personally select Paul (I certainly believe it), and we can argue that Jesus taught Paul personally. But we cannot say that cannot have happened to anyone else.

You keep asking WHO God has done the same with since John the apostle. That question is of no value to the issue. God sends apostles for a purpose. He doesn't keep a stable of them to have around all the time. He raises them up when they are needed, just like He did with the prophets.

If we need them now, He will raise them up now. We DO need them now.

I suspect that many people today, that desire the apostolic ministry to be the same as the 12, have a real problem with accepting the Word of God as it is. I have not seen so much distorting of the Bible by symbolizing and treating it as spiritual metaphor than I have seen in the last 15 years. Such treatment of the Word is what gives license to the religious charlatans that flood the airwaves.

Sure there is a ton of distortion of Scripture--AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHY TRUE APOSTLES ARE NEEDED TODAY!

But you are personally distorting Scripture as well, by arguing that there couldn't or won't be apostles today, or that God somehow ended apostleship after John. Just because you don't know of any apostles after John, doesn't mean they didn't exist. God didn't record all of His workers.

Also we have other apostles recorded in Scripture, which you deny based on nothing but the feeling that there is a difference. You have no solid proof of it, but just a bias based upon your beliefs.

Here's the thing. Any person coming into Christianity without the traditions, as you've been taught, would read Scripture and discover other apostles and have the rational conclusion that they are the same as any other apostles. There is nothing that I have found in those passages to distinguish them from the Twelve in authority, and nobody, including you and K.R. and scads of scholars have shown me any different. You are blinded by your traditions and your bias. The same once applied to you in regards to polygamy, and I'm certain other things as well. Step back a bit and really look at this if you can.


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

John, I will try to reply to your last post later tonight or tomorrow. I have our mid-week meeting starting soon. Let me say though, I appreciate the exchange and dialogue afforded us on this or other forums, but I do not appreciate your telling me how to reason or think. We may present information, debate opinions, but please don't tell me how I should use logic and reason. It comes across as condescending and demeaning, whether you mean it that way or not.

 

[Scarecrow]

I needed to address this particular section of a post because the obvious seems to have been overlooked...

.........................

"John 6:64-71
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

John 13:10-11
Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.



Both John 6:64-71 and 13:10-11 come years after the Twelve were chosen. There's no evidence in these passages to suggest that Judas Iscariot HAD NOT BEEN a true believer and had fallen away."

...........................

If you don't think that Jesus' words are evidence then there is nothing to debate, but Jesus stated that He knew from the beginning who should betray him. From the beginning he was a betrayer, not a believer.

Also...

"Paul's conversion and apostleship was distinctly different from that of the original Twelve. He never met Jesus personally in the flesh."

How do we know this to be true? Jesus appeared to the disciples in the flesh after his crucifixion, why then could he not spend time with Paul manifested in the flesh? Is there a passage that states that Jesus did not manifest himself in the flesh to Paul?

 

[Anonymous]

Hi John,

It sounds like you might take a "once-saved, always-saved" position. Is that true?

Yes, that is true, but not because I believe it. I believe it because it is true. I'm not sure we want to go down that road here.

The sheer arrogance of that answer is difficult to believe. The least you could do is attempt to prove your point rather than the way you just tried to tell me "how it is".

I've studied the same subject for many years. I've looked carefully at both sides of the equation as deeply as possible. For that reason I entirely disagree with you.

"They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away." (Luke 8:13)

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (Hebrews 6:4-6)

Luke says they are believers. That's all it takes to be saved. Yet they can fall away. Therefore, true believers can lose their salvation.

Hebrews makes it clear that if they do fall away, they cannot return to the Lord. This passage would have no significance if believers couldn't fall away.

"For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:38-39)

This is true, but only applies to things other than one's self, based upon both reason and the context. (See Romans 8:35, where the subject is "who", where that "who" must necessarily be someone other than the one 8:38-39 applies to.) We can separate ourselves from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

We have no assurance of salvation and are not "once-saved always-saved", but need to take care, lest we fall.

Both John 6:64-71 and 13:10-11 come years after the Twelve were chosen.

There were only 3 1/2 years, approximately of Jesus ministry on earth, so it can't be much later. No one has ever claimed that any works that Judas Iscariot did were genuine, in fact there is nothing recorded, anywhere of his specific work except carrying the bag (treasurer).

I disagree. There is a very specific account of Judas Iscariot's works which were genuine.

"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not...
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." (Matthew 10:5, 8)

Judas Iscariot was sent with the rest of the Twelve, and must have obeyed Christ, because nowhere is it suggested that he didn't. The presumption of this Scripture is that all Twelve did those things. There's more in Mark 6:7, 6:13, Luke 9:1, and 9:6, where the Twelve (including Iscariot) were given power, and cast out spirits, healed the sick, etc.

Three and a half years are more than enough for someone to go from a true believer to an unbeliever. I've known it to happen in less than one year with some people.

Based upon Scripture, I think it is self-evident that Judas Iscariot was saved at one time and fell away from his salvation.


John for Christ

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Depending on how you define the word "apostle" I would argue that I am an apostle today if a certain definition is used. The question remains, if that definition is the correct definition.

Hi DiscussingTheTopic,

Let's work from a Biblical definition, not a personal definition. Did Jesus call you personally for the specific task of keeping Christians on the straight and narrow concerning doctrine, and to build His Church, and to repair the foundations of the Church that have eroded?
Yes

Do you show the signs of an apostle?
Depends on the definition of apostle which is a definition based on the language.

What definition would you use for "apostle" that matches with the description of apostles in the Bible?
That is exactly my point. I would have to know Greek better. But it could be possible that all teachers that God wants to send out to teach, might be apostles. If I were to blindly believe the strong concordance number definitions I might consider myself to be an apostle.

ἀπόστολος

apostolos

1) a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... G652&t=KJV

If you distinguish between the Twelve and the others mentioned in Scripture, what clear dividing line can we draw that distinguishes one type of apostle from the other?

The designation of the twelve is not that they are special because they are called apostles but they are special because they are called the twelve.

One of the clear dividing line for the twelve was that they were called the twelve in the NIV translation

Another possible dividing line was that they were specifically chosen to be the twelve. They were both chosen to be the twelve and designated to be apostles (in fact NIV 2011 says, "whom he also designated apostles", the word "also" is important) it does not say that others were not designated to be apostles and that they were the only twelve apostles. I think being a "twelve" and being an "apostle" should be treated as two separate things.

12 One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. 13 When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: 14 Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, 15 Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, 16 Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.
Luke 6:12-13 NIV 2011

Another possible dividing line was, "it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us,"

21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
Acts 1:21-26 NIV 2010

I do not presently consider myself one of the twelve. I believe someone can be an apostle without being one of the twelve.

 

[Scarecrow]

"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not...Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." (Matthew 10:5, 8)

Judas Iscariot was sent with the rest of the Twelve, and must have obeyed Christ, because nowhere is it suggested that he didn't. The presumption of this Scripture is that all Twelve did those things. There's more in Mark 6:7, 6:13, Luke 9:1, and 9:6, where the Twelve (including Iscariot) were given power, and cast out spirits, healed the sick, etc.

Three and a half years are more than enough for someone to go from a true believer to an unbeliever. I've known it to happen in less than one year with some people.

Based upon Scripture, I think it is self-evident that Judas Iscariot was saved at one time and fell away from his salvation.

It seems that you are assuming that since Judas was among them he did these things...we don't know that do we? Even if Judas did those things is it impossible for an unbeliever to do any of these things if God has empowered him do do so? We are told that in the end times many mighty works and miracles will be performed to deceive the people...is it only believers that can do these things but they will be used to deceive people instead of save them? Your answers cause more questions for me than solutions. They don't seem to logically align with the way I understand/read the scriptures.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi John W.,

You said,

Please note that Paul advised that there would turn their ears away from the truth. Paul did not advise Timothy to perform as an apostle, but as a preacher and evangelist. The Word as it was compiling and soon to be completed was sufficient for inspired authority. According to the book of Jude, the faith once delivered to the saints does not need to be defended or restored, but rather "contended" for.

Here we get into the question of what an apostle is. From my reading of Scripture there were several "jobs" available:

(1) Apostles
(2) Prophets
(3) Evangelists
(4) Pastors (Shepherds)
(5) Teachers

This comes from Ephesians 4:11-16,

"...and He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as proclaimers of good news, and some as shepherds and teachers, unto the perfecting of the saints, for a work of ministration, for a building up of the body of the Christ, till we may all come to the unity of the faith and of the recognition of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to a measure of stature of the fulness of the Christ, that we may no more be babes, tossed and borne about by every wind of the teaching, in the sleight of men, in craftiness, unto the artifice of leading astray, and, being true in love, we may increase to Him in all things, who is the head--the Christ; from whom the whole body, being fitly joined together and united, through the supply of every joint, according to the working in the measure of each single part, the increase of the body doth make for the building up of itself in love." (Ephesians 4:11-16)

Notice that ALL of these are for the "perfecting of the saints, ministering, and building up the body of Christ UNTIL WE ALL COME TO THE UNITY OF THE FAITH..."

Now I will admit that "till" doesn't always mean "until" as we use it in English. However, in this passage it certainly seems to indicate that we will have each of those jobs IN EFFECT until the unity of the faith is attained.

We KNOW that the unity of the faith wasn't found in the first or second centuries, and the Twelve had long since died before the second century. Even the Bible itself in the Revelation indicates that complete unity in the faith did not exist at that time.

But would it make sense that apostles or prophets might disappear for awhile, then those offices would occur again someday? Well, it did in Israel during the time of the Judges. Prophecy was rare or non-existent for many years. Then prophecy was back on the scene. So there's no rational reason to deny that prophets and apostles can come once again, nor that some might not already be on the scene. (Nor even that there weren't apostles throughout history since the end of the New Testament period which simply haven't been famous or known except in limited areas.)

Timothy functioned as a teacher, a pastor, and an evangelist to the churches. But what exactly is an apostle? Maybe he functioned as an apostle too.

I submit that an apostle is one that functions in each of those areas: Prophesying, evangelizing, shepherding, and teaching. They evangelized, which was the central point of the first apostles--spreading the Gospel. They shepherded--raising up churches and helped to set up church leadership. They taught--laying the basic foundations within the churches. And they prophesied. I'm sure they weren't limited to only those jobs, but they functioned in all of the other jobs equally well, it seems.

An apostle is one that God has blessed in all of those areas to accomplish an important mission of guiding and expanding the church.

Timothy by that definition was an apostle. Maybe not at first, but as he grew in ability and knowledge, he functioned in the churches exactly like Paul or the other apostles did. There were others as well that did the work of apostles, and WERE apostles as Scripture itself names them.


John for Christ

John for Christ wrote,

Now I feel I have a very strong grasp of Scripture, but the same claim could be made by others as well. How can we know who is correct, so that we can safely teach the truth and learn the truth?

It's not enough that it be a personal thing for each individual, because some don't have the capability to understand on their own. They MUST have teachers. But when teachers disagree, how do we know who is true?

For that it takes powerful teachers, it takes the Holy Spirit, it takes someone acting in the office of an apostle.

John, that is the very heart of our difficulty on this topic. Please consider the following scripture,

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

2 Timothy 4:1-5

Please note that Paul advise that there would turn their ears away from the truth. Paul did not advise Timothy to perform as an apostle, but as a preacher and evangelist. The Word as it was compiling and soon to be completed was sufficient for inspired authority. According to the book of Jude, the faith once delivered to the saints does not need to be defended or restored, but rather "contended" for.

 

[Anonymous]

John, I will try to reply to your last post later tonight or tomorrow. I have our mid-week meeting starting soon. Let me say though, I appreciate the exchange and dialogue afforded us on this or other forums, but I do not appreciate your telling me how to reason or think. We may present information, debate opinions, but please don't tell me how I should use logic and reason. It comes across as condescending and demeaning, whether you mean it that way or not.

Hi John W.,

Nobody can make another person think rationally. However, there are certain rules that are established as logical. I didn't invent them, but I know how to use them. No offense meant in the following, but If you don't want me to comment upon your logic, then use it correctly. That's what a debate or discussion is all about, discerning rational thinking on a topic from irrational or illogical thinking.

You have made a bunch of assumptions. That is simply a fact. You may deny it, and I'm not out to offend you, but when I point them out, I rarely get a straight answer.

If your message is true, then your answers will fit the bounds of reason and good sense. If we can't find it in Scripture, then what right do we have to claim it?

I keep asking questions and you and K.R. keep avoiding them.

I ask you what in Scripture indicates that there are no more apostles after John. The only answer that anyone came up with is a sort of reversal of my question, what indicates that there are apostles after John? However, that isn't a valid logical position, to try to place the burden of proof upon us when we are simply continuing what Scripture says. The burden of proof lies with the person or persons deviating from the norm. The norm of Scripture is that there were apostles and they continued on.

You said that there was a distinction between the apostles, but you have yet to show it IN SCRIPTURE. Your side of this topic keeps adding things to Scripture which are not already there in order to explain your point-of-view. For instance, there are apostles and eminent apostles, yet the eminent ones are not listed, and making the assumption that those were the Twelve is not rational. You can believe it is rational, but if you do, then I have an obligation to point out that it is not, without further proof to the contrary.

I'm not certain what exactly you are talking about when you took offense at me telling you how you should use logic and reason. There was no attempt to offend you. However, if you were wrong, then it's my obligation to inform you, wouldn't you say?

While I am not purposely condescending to anyone, often plain statements come out that way.

On your part, you simply told me that you believed in "once-saved always-saved" "because it is true". To me, that speaks of arrogance. I at least attempt to prove most of my points. The whole OSAS debate has been around for years. You know that there are plenty of people that would disagree with your position. How is it not arrogant to state it so bluntly when you knew I'd disagree? (And all I asked you initially was an unbiased question.)


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Scarecrow,

You noted in John 6, "For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him."

I'm not denying that you may be correct, however, you are making the assumption that this is referring to the beginning of His ministry or the beginning of time, while this can just as well mean the beginning of that particular message, which also fits the context.

Jesus started speaking to them, and after the end of the speech, many disciples left Him except for the Twelve. That argues for an immediate context. He knew who believed not, and they left at the end of the speech. Nothing there specifically suggests that Judas did not believe at this point.

One commentary had this to say:

Same use of estin and note article and future active participle of paradidōmi, to hand over, to betray. John does not say here that Jesus knew that Judas would betray him when he chose him as one of the twelve, least of all that he chose him for that purpose. What he does say is that Jesus was not taken by surprise and soon saw signs of treason in Judas.

So while it sounds fairly damning to my case on the surface, all it indicates for certain would be that Jesus was seeing signs that Judas would probably betray Him in the future. Judas' state of belief isn't noted at this point.

But why are we arguing about Judas anyway? What does that have to do with the subject of whether there are or could be apostles in the future?

"Paul's conversion and apostleship was distinctly different from that of the original Twelve. He never met Jesus personally in the flesh."

You said, concerning my comment that Paul didn't meet Jesus personally in the flesh, "How do we know this to be true? Jesus appeared to the disciples in the flesh after his crucifixion, why then could he not spend time with Paul manifested in the flesh? Is there a passage that states that Jesus did not manifest himself in the flesh to Paul?"

Okay, this one is fairly easy. Paul gave his testimony often, but failed to mention ever meeting Jesus in the flesh. Such a thing would certainly be notable if it had happened. We have no reason to believe that Paul ever did meet Jesus in the flesh, but we do know that Paul did tell people he had met Jesus on the road to Emmaus.

But, even if Paul DID see Jesus in the flesh, that doesn't mean that the other apostles in Scripture did not, nor that a modern apostle couldn't see Jesus in the flesh.

The only reason we'd even bring up meeting Jesus in the flesh as a requirement for becoming an apostle is because of Paul's apostleship. But Paul's apostleship arguably did differ from the apostleship of the Twelve, and he was no less than one of them. And we have no reason not to believe that other apostles could be made the same way as Paul was today.

I personally think that the opposition on this issue is motivated by fear and/or tradition, but not Scripture.


John for Christ

I needed to address this particular section of a post because the obvious seems to have been overlooked...

.........................

"John 6:64-71
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

John 13:10-11
Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.



Both John 6:64-71 and 13:10-11 come years after the Twelve were chosen. There's no evidence in these passages to suggest that Judas Iscariot HAD NOT BEEN a true believer and had fallen away."

...........................

If you don't think that Jesus' words are evidence then there is nothing to debate, but Jesus stated that He knew from the beginning who should betray him. From the beginning he was a betrayer, not a believer.

Also...

"Paul's conversion and apostleship was distinctly different from that of the original Twelve. He never met Jesus personally in the flesh."

How do we know this to be true? Jesus appeared to the disciples in the flesh after his crucifixion, why then could he not spend time with Paul manifested in the flesh? Is there a passage that states that Jesus did not manifest himself in the flesh to Paul?

 

[jsw]

Ok, so I do not know how to post a new thread, so I thought this thread, or at least it's heading, would be the most appropriate place to put my question.

What CAN and HOW can I serve?

For the past week I have been struggling with a my emotions. A young lady stole my credit card and used it over and over again. After I found out who this young lady was, I then bashed her on my face book page and so did my friends. I have publicly apologized and deleted the posts I created. I now question how to handle this situation.

I have been informed by the police that this young lady, 22, has not only been arrested for this incidence, but also prostitution. I think of my past and what I have gone through and think maybe this girl just needs someone to reach out to her. I know we are to serve God and do good works, but what am I allowed to do in this case? I am a person that has NEVER read the Bible cover to cover. I mean, can you only share the word of God if you know everything about it?

Please help.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Ok, so I do not know how to post a new thread, so I thought this thread, or at least it's heading, would be the most appropriate place to put my question.

What CAN and HOW can I serve?

For the past week I have been struggling with a my emotions. A young lady stole my credit card and used it over and over again. After I found out who this young lady was, I then bashed her on my face book page and so did my friends. I have publicly apologized and deleted the posts I created. I now question how to handle this situation.

I have been informed by the police that this young lady, 22, has not only been arrested for this incidence, but also prostitution. I think of my past and what I have gone through and think maybe this girl just needs someone to reach out to her. I know we are to serve God and do good works, but what am I allowed to do in this case? I am a person that has NEVER read the Bible cover to cover. I mean, can you only share the word of God if you know everything about it?

Please help.

I you want to share the Bible, if you just read the Bible with another person and do not explain what it means that should be fine so long as it is translated correctly enough. If one really believes the scriptures are inspired by God then they have what God meant to say within them. This does not mean, that no explanation should be given, merely that it is not always necessary to give one especially if you are unsure if your explanation is correct.

That being said if you just randomly open in part of the Bible and stumble upon something complicated like a detailed genealogical or historical record with no explicit moral commandments and no explicit mention of how to have eternal life and no explicit mention of how to have a proper personal friendship with Jesus, etc. that might not help someone (who has not read the whole Bible before) as much as say for instance reading the book of John.

I would suggest starting by reading simple parts of either Mathew or John with her that are self-explanatory. That way you do not have to worry about teaching something wrong, because by merely reading it you will be giving her a translation of something that contains the words of God himself (Jesus Christ,) that cannot go wrong unless Jesus taught something wrong and Jesus did not teach anything wrong.

Please, let me know if my explanation was explained well enough or if I should clarify something?

 

[Anonymous]

Hi DiscussingTheTopic,

We've been through most of these arguments already.

Even if the Twelve were distinguished by being called the Twelve, they were not more eminent than some other apostles, since Paul was NOT one of the Twelve, but said that he was not less than the most eminent of the apostles. Of course we all know that to be true today, considering that he wrote more of the New Testament than any other.

My point, which I've made a number of times, is that Paul's apostleship was something that could happen to another apostle in both that age and this age. His appointment to apostleship differed significantly from that of the Twelve, yet compared equally with the authority of the most eminent of the apostles. For that reason, we can see that apostleship is not limited to the method of apostleship that the Twelve had, nor even to that time and age.

As there is no clear distinction, I'd say again that Scripture offers no reasons against or barriers to apostleship. If God calls a person to be an apostle, then they can become an apostle with as much power and authority as the Twelve.

I found your humor concerning whether you are an apostle or not amusing. Your example, though, was based upon a definition of the language, as you called it. We adapt the language to the Bible, not the other way around. It wouldn't make sense to force the meaning of Scripture into the mold of the Greek or English language. Words were use uniquely in the Koine Greek of the Bible. Some were used quite differently than used in secular Koine Greek writings.

By examining every passage containing "apostle" in the Bible, we can see what the meaning of "apostle" is.

I wasn't entirely sure if you were kidding or not, but you couldn't be an apostle because you don't understand Scripture to the necessary degree, like most of us. The apostles had the answers or were given the answers when they needed them.


John for Christ

Depending on how you define the word "apostle" I would argue that I am an apostle today if a certain definition is used. The question remains, if that definition is the correct definition.

Hi DiscussingTheTopic,

Let's work from a Biblical definition, not a personal definition. Did Jesus call you personally for the specific task of keeping Christians on the straight and narrow concerning doctrine, and to build His Church, and to repair the foundations of the Church that have eroded?
Yes

Do you show the signs of an apostle?
Depends on the definition of apostle which is a definition based on the language.

What definition would you use for "apostle" that matches with the description of apostles in the Bible?
That is exactly my point. I would have to know Greek better. But it could be possible that all teachers that God wants to send out to teach, might be apostles. If I were to blindly believe the strong concordance number definitions I might consider myself to be an apostle.

ἀπόστολος

apostolos

1) a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... G652&t=KJV

If you distinguish between the Twelve and the others mentioned in Scripture, what clear dividing line can we draw that distinguishes one type of apostle from the other?

The designation of the twelve is not that they are special because they are called apostles but they are special because they are called the twelve.

One of the clear dividing line for the twelve was that they were called the twelve in the NIV translation

Another possible dividing line was that they were specifically chosen to be the twelve. They were both chosen to be the twelve and designated to be apostles (in fact NIV 2011 says, "whom he also designated apostles", the word "also" is important) it does not say that others were not designated to be apostles and that they were the only twelve apostles. I think being a "twelve" and being an "apostle" should be treated as two separate things.

12 One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. 13 When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: 14 Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, 15 Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, 16 Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.
Luke 6:12-13 NIV 2011

Another possible dividing line was, "it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us,"

21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
Acts 1:21-26 NIV 2010

I do not presently consider myself one of the twelve. I believe someone can be an apostle without being one of the twelve.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

My point, which I've made a number of times, is that Paul's apostleship was something that could happen to another apostle in both that age and this age. His appointment to apostleship differed significantly from that of the Twelve, yet compared equally with the authority of the most eminent of the apostles. For that reason, we can see that apostleship is not limited to the method of apostleship that the Twelve had, nor even to that time and age.

As there is no clear distinction, I'd say again that Scripture offers no reasons against or barriers to apostleship. If God calls a person to be an apostle, then they can become an apostle with as much power and authority as the Twelve.

I am not saying that the twelve would neccessarily have more authority than ___ it would depend on who ____ is and how you are measuring .....

I am simply saying that what distinguishes the twelve is that they are called the twelve, so the twelve refers to the twelve and not some other twelve persons who are not the twelve. My wording is not perfect here, but I think you understand what I am saying.

That being said the twelve probably performed a lot more miracles than most people in the 20th century U.S. in my guestimation.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Scarecrow,

Well, let's get down to the reason why we would be concerned if Judas Iscariot was or was not saved when he joined Christ's apostles. Is it because you don't like the idea that he could have been saved, given the magnitude of his sin? Or is it because you ascribe to the "once-saved always-saved" doctrine? Or is it something else?

As for me, I don't care whether Judas was once saved or not. The only thing it would really affect is my understanding of God's conferred power--and it wouldn't really hurt my doctrines that much either.

Those that did the many mighty works and miracles in the last days probably didn't do genuine miracles, in my opinion. It really depends upon where you believe the power to do miracles comes from, I suppose.

I'm more concerned about the belief of some that apostles cannot exist because they've placed the Twelve apostles and Paul (and perhaps Matthias as well) on a pedestal that they don't belong on. It's tantamount to apostle worship, rather than God worship.


John for Christ

"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not...Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." (Matthew 10:5, 8)

Judas Iscariot was sent with the rest of the Twelve, and must have obeyed Christ, because nowhere is it suggested that he didn't. The presumption of this Scripture is that all Twelve did those things. There's more in Mark 6:7, 6:13, Luke 9:1, and 9:6, where the Twelve (including Iscariot) were given power, and cast out spirits, healed the sick, etc.

Three and a half years are more than enough for someone to go from a true believer to an unbeliever. I've known it to happen in less than one year with some people.

Based upon Scripture, I think it is self-evident that Judas Iscariot was saved at one time and fell away from his salvation.

It seems that you are assuming that since Judas was among them he did these things...we don't know that do we? Even if Judas did those things is it impossible for an unbeliever to do any of these things if God has empowered him do do so? We are told that in the end times many mighty works and miracles will be performed to deceive the people...is it only believers that can do these things but they will be used to deceive people instead of save them? Your answers cause more questions for me than solutions. They don't seem to logically align with the way I understand/read the scriptures.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

I wasn't entirely sure if you were kidding or not, but you couldn't be an apostle because you don't understand Scripture to the necessary degree, like most of us. The apostles had the answers or were given the answers when they needed them.

I do not think it is that hard, to say for instance hold a sign with a picture of an aborted baby, with the words "murder is bad." I am sure God is sending out plenty of people to do that, unfortunately a lot of them are saying no to their calling to be "apostles."

No.... I do not think it takes a vast degree of knowledge in this day and age to be an apostle. For one simply knowing that murdering babies is bad, can sometimes be enough to qualify a man to be an apostle if he does not reject the calling of God to be an apostle. That could qualify almost anyone who is not in the dark to be an apostle.

That being said there are some people who think they are sent out to teach things they do not really understand. But as for being sent out to do what is obvious, I certainly am sent out to do that. So I stick by my claim that I am an apostle (at least of the simple things I know,) unless you can show that I am linguistically wrong.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Jsw,

My wife and I went through a similar situation about seven years ago, when her credit card was stolen. You seem to be taking it pretty well.

After reading your message, the first thing that came to mind is to witness the truth to others from the love and knowledge that you have within you. Don't hide the fact that you don't know everything. Be honest. Just let them know how you know what you do know, and how it has blessed your life. Showing others the love of the Lord is the core of every good law and commandment in Scripture. Do that.

If they want more information on something you don't know, then refer them to someone that does know--a pastor, elder, or friend that has a solid understanding of Scripture.

But also, so you don't get caught without knowledge, it's always a good idea to know what Scripture has to say and do a little study from time to time to build up your own understanding. The Bible is about God and about you, and you ought to know what it has to say.

An easy way to get started doing that is to listen to an audio Bible. You can get free audio Bible MP3s online, or you can purchase audio Bibles fairly inexpensively, depending upon the version. But don't just listen hoping to absorb everything directly into your heart and mind. Pay attention and think deeply about it. The Bible is fascinating! After you've heard it once, do it again. The do it again. The more you hear Scripture, the more you will retain, and you will find it easier to see the "big picture" of Scripture as well.

Getting to know the Bible better will help you understand God and yourself better, and give you the ability to evangelize and love others as God would want you to do.


John for Christ

Ok, so I do not know how to post a new thread, so I thought this thread, or at least it's heading, would be the most appropriate place to put my question.

What CAN and HOW can I serve?

For the past week I have been struggling with a my emotions. A young lady stole my credit card and used it over and over again. After I found out who this young lady was, I then bashed her on my face book page and so did my friends. I have publicly apologized and deleted the posts I created. I now question how to handle this situation.

I have been informed by the police that this young lady, 22, has not only been arrested for this incidence, but also prostitution. I think of my past and what I have gone through and think maybe this girl just needs someone to reach out to her. I know we are to serve God and do good works, but what am I allowed to do in this case? I am a person that has NEVER read the Bible cover to cover. I mean, can you only share the word of God if you know everything about it?

Please help.

 

[Anonymous]

I am not saying that the twelve would neccessarily have more authority than ___ it would depend on who ____ is and how you are measuring .....

I am simply saying that what distinguishes the twelve is that they are called the twelve, so the twelve refers to the twelve and not some other twelve persons who are not the twelve. My wording is not perfect here, but I think you understand what I am saying.

That being said the twelve probably performed a lot more miracles than most people in the 20th century U.S. in my guestimation.

Hi DiscussingTheTopic,

Well, sure. The Twelve were the core of a new movement of God. Yet Paul, who wasn't of the Twelve, probably performed more miracles than any of the apostles. I'm not running the Twelve down in any way (well, at least not eleven of them), but rather I'm trying to focus on whether apostles could exist today.

I see that it is entirely possible, but I also think they would have big shoes to fill. I'm actually expecting to see some new apostles arise, speaking the words of God that He has placed in their mouths. But I'm not going to easily believe either... It would take a lot to convince me.


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

Hi DiscussingTheTopic,

I'm not certain that an apostle is what you think it is. Holding up a sign which tells an important moral truth against sin is probably good and useful, but I don't think it is apostolic in nature. It's more evangelical and teaching in nature.

The apostles in Scripture--the Twelve and Paul and the others--kept the Church on the straight and narrow concerning doctrine, and took God's word WITH POWER all over the earth. Their job was to start churches, teach the churches, then keep an eye on the churches concerning doctrine (though the last wasn't the primary job they did).

They weren't simply "messengers" or even simply "delegates". There was a much better word for messenger, and it is used throughout Scripture, "angelos". Apostolos carries a different meaning, stronger in regards to the mission of the apostle. Apostles were more than messengers. They were like ambassadors for the Gospel, speaking in the name of the King Jesus with His words and His authority. A messenger just delivers a message.

We don't want to devalue the meaning of the word "apostolos" as used in the New Testament, or we lose the value of what an apostle was within Christianity.

Not everyone called is an apostle, but some are also prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers. In fact, probably the least common "job" for Christians is that of apostle.


John for Christ

I do not think it is that hard, to say for instance hold a sign with a picture of an aborted baby, with the words "murder is bad." I am sure God is sending out plenty of people to do that, unfortunately a lot of them are saying no to their calling to be "apostles."

No.... I do not think it takes a vast degree of knowledge in this day and age to be an apostle. For one simply knowing that murdering babies is bad, can sometimes be enough to qualify a man to be an apostle if he does not reject the calling of God to be an apostle. That could qualify almost anyone who is not in the dark to be an apostle.

That being said there are some people who think they are sent out to teach things they do not really understand. But as for being sent out to do what is obvious, I certainly am sent out to do that. So I stick by my claim that I am an apostle (at least of the simple things I know,) unless you can show that I am linguistically wrong.

 

[jsw]

Thank you all for your feedback. I will pray and study what I can and try to come up with a direct plan before I see her in court. :geek: