Apostolic Authority

[cnystrom]

Seems pretty clear that his understanding of apostleship didn’t die with the original 12

Again. Not arguing. Just curious. If it did not die out with those who received directly from Jesus, then how did apostleship die out? If it did not die out, how are they perpetuated? I mean for example, elders and deacons have qualifications, etc. which started this whole thread. So presumably we can still have those. Is there anything like that for apostles? If so, what are the qualifications? Who can be an apostle today? And if people can today be apostles today who are they? Can you name one? If there are apostles today do they have the same authority that apostles had in the early church?

Still curious, but in your readings of ancient writings who was named a later apostle, say a generation or two after Jesus? How did this person if they exist get to be an apostle?

 

[andrew]

I am not arguing. I am just curious. What has he said since the Bible? Who said he said it? Is it written down anywhere? What does it say? I am guessing that the Quoran and the Book of Mormon are out, otherwise you would be members of those faiths. What are you referring to?

Chris, are you saying God quit speaking after the 12 died off? Seriously, at what level do you want to have this conversation? Has God said anything to anyone since the first century?

 

[andrew]

Let's start with prophecy. What was Paul talking about in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 14? Does 1 Cor 14 have anything useful to teach us today about what our gatherings should look like, or was that just for the 1st century Corinthians? If it was just for them, why would he speak through prophets at their assemblies but not ours? Why did he stop speaking? And if those passages don't apply to us today, then what other passages don't apply to us today, and how can we tell which ones do or don't?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Chris, are you saying God quit speaking after the 12 died off? Seriously, at what level do you want to have this conversation? Has God said anything to anyone since the first century?

Strawman. No one said He hasn't said anything to anyone. But a lot of people believe He stopped saying things to everyone. There's a big difference.

 

[andrew]

Did you even read Chris's questions? Or do you not know what the definition of a straw man is?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Did you even read Chris's questions? Or do you not know what the definition of a straw man is?

Chris's questions were not relevant to my attack on your informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

 

[andrew]

I just asked Chris a question, Zec. So there's no refutation, no fallacy, and no strawman. Now would you back off and let Chris answer the question?

 

[The Revolting Man]

I just asked Chris a question, Zec. So there's no refutation, no fallacy, and no strawman. Now would you back off and let Chris answer the question?

And I just answered your question. And you are having a public conversation so I probably won't back off although in all honesty I probably won't get to check back in on it for a while.

 

[andrew]

You didn't come close to answering my question, or even trying to. And suit yourself, but I'm still waiting for Chris to answer the questions. If I don't want him wasting my time, I sure don't want both of you wasting it.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You didn't come close to answering my question, or even trying to. And suit yourself, but I'm still waiting for Chris to answer the questions. If I don't want him wasting my time, I sure don't want both of you wasting it.

And this is why I got involved, because Chris had some excellent points, that you even quoted. "cnystrom said: ↑ I am not arguing. I am just curious. What has he said since the Bible? Who said he said it? Is it written down anywhere? What does it say? I am guessing that the Quoran and the Book of Mormon are out, otherwise you would be members of those faiths. What are you referring to?"

Then you immediately deployed a debate technique to subtly shift the debate to the more tenable position of. "Well God still speaks to people." Which is true but so that non-victory can then be slid over to cover the original argument that when boiled down to it's basics is that the commands as written aren't that important because God is still speaking to us today and so might say something new and different, or at least fresh and redirected.

But we know that He won't because He said that He wouldn't and that if anyone said otherwise, whether it be man or an angel from heaven that we were not to be fooled. Like the Mormons or the Muslims were.

So it seems that you are the one with questions to answer. Chris brought up good points. What is to validate these new utterances? Is there fresh, universal truths to be revealed? Where is the line? You should deal with these before going on the counterattack.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You didn't come close to answering my question, or even trying to. And suit yourself, but I'm still waiting for Chris to answer the questions. If I don't want him wasting my time, I sure don't want both of you wasting it.

I probably need to come back and say that this is me trying to catch up on this debate after not being on the site for a number of days. If I mischaracterized anyone's statements I apologize and ask for forgiveness.

 

[andrew]

Zec, you've got issues....

Let the record reflect that Zec claims to knows my mind and (sinister) motives and direction here, but is accusing me of arguing a strawman for asking a couple of questions intended to clarify Chris's intentions.

Zec you are literally putting an argument in my mouth that is unfounded and uncharitable, while accusing me of a low-level logical fallacy that wouldn't apply in the first place to a simple request for information. Something about logs and beams applies here.

Chris, I'm ready to continue our cordial conversation whenever you are.

 

[andrew]

I probably need to come back and say that this is me trying to catch up on this debate after not being on the site for a number of days. If I mischaracterized anyone's statements I apologize and ask for forgiveness.

Zec, please go back and re-read the whole thread (or at least the last couple of pages) when you have time, and see if you're still so wound up about the questions I asked Chris. Better yet, why don't you just let Chris speak for himself, and then watch and see where the conversation goes.

 

[cnystrom]

Chris, are you saying God quit speaking after the 12 died off? Seriously, at what level do you want to have this conversation? Has God said anything to anyone since the first century?

God does not speak to everyone to the same level. Numbers 12 comes to mind. Miriam and Aaron were severly rebuked and Moses writes large portions of scripture.

It seems to me that he spoke to the Apostles to another level than he speaks to you and me. The twelve walked the earth with him and lived with him. Paui encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul tells us in 2 Cor 12 that his encounter with Jesus was more than "Nice to meet you. Sorry about the whole persecution thing.".

The twelve did not have to justify their apostleships but Paul did, and the thing that he seems to keep coming back to is the personal contact with Jesus and the fact that he recieved the Gospel directly from Jesus and not from any man.

Paul might be suspect since he was not one of the twelve, but Peter confirms him and even refers to Paul's writings as scripture. The apostles were authority figures.

Now moving on to the last 2000 years or so. Those who have since claimed to be apostles in authority in either word or deed to my knowledge have all been false. I have already listed Muhhamad and Joseph Smith, etc. If you have a different answer to this presumably you would not be here.

So lets look at the leaders, the pillars of the Christian faith for the last 2000 years? Who are they? Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Edwards, Whitfield, Moody, Barth, Graham to only name a few? To my knowledge not one of them claimed to be an apostle or claimed to have any apostolic authority. Any authority they had rested on scriptures and to my knowledge they themselves would not claim otherwise.

So like it or not that is where we are today.

I am open to other views, but so far no one has been able to say who might the other apostles be and what they taught?

 

[andrew]

You're not really answering my questions, at least not directly, as much as just repeating certain assertions. You're sort of camped out on the "there can be only 12" issue.

I'm gonna move this to a new thread, but it'll be tonight or tomorrow, then I'll get back to a response.

Just for starters, though, we're going to have to look at what Christ meant when He said it was better that He go away and send His Spirit. And you totally ignored my comments on 1 Cor 9; why is that?

 

[cnystrom]

Let's start with prophecy. What was Paul talking about in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 14? Does 1 Cor 14 have anything useful to teach us today about what our gatherings should look like, or was that just for the 1st century Corinthians? If it was just for them, why would he speak through prophets at their assemblies but not ours? Why did he stop speaking? And if those passages don't apply to us today, then what other passages don't apply to us today, and how can we tell which ones do or don't?

I believe prophecy has a larger meaning here than simply "prediction of the future". It means sharing the word of God. The whole point 1 Cor 14 is to engage your mind. Some vague prophecy that the Russians are going to take over Syria or something about the end times does nothing to edify the church. No, what Paul is talking about here is speaking God's truth to each other which of course does not rule out speaking from scripture. Indeed even Paul himself is using reason and scripture (v21) in this chapter. Clearly the Holy Spirit, reason, and scripture are not mutually exclusive.

I do think this applies to the modern church, and some of it we could do better. For example, I do think for example v29 should preclude having a single speaker sharing God's word, something I have never seen in any church.

 

[cnystrom]

What is to validate these new utterances? Is there fresh, universal truths to be revealed? Where is the line?

Exactly. Apsotles could do this. Not that it was their own, but rather that they had recieved it from Christ and could pass it on.

As Peter writes in 2 Peter 1:16 - "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty."

 

[cnystrom]

You're sort of camped out on the "there can be only 12" issue.

No, not at all. That is not my position. The Bible refers to the twelve as the twelve as in Matthew 10:2 and so have I, but it is not my position or point that there can be only twelve. Obviously Paul was an apostle, too, for example, but to my knowledge is never referred to as being part of the twelve. Indeed, that is why he had to justify his apostleship.

And even back then there were false apostles. What was the problem with false apostles? They were false authority figures (2 Cor 11).

 

[cnystrom]

Chris, you see that 1 Cor 9 includes Barnabas in the 'we', and that Paul distinguishes those he may not be an apostle to from those he definitely is an apostle to, and those he was sent to are the seal of his apostleship, right? So being a 'sent one' involves two things: a sender and a destination.

It wasn't the apostles' doctrine was it, really, if the whole point is that they were personally given a message from Christ to share with others? Did the apostles make up stuff, or were they faithful witnesses, who then entrusted their message to others who then carried on the same work? Make that three things (no one expects...): a sender, a message, and a delivery destination.

Think carefully about what Paul is saying in 1 Cor 9. His apostleship is to the fellowships the Holy Spirit directed him to call out and establish. He's not an Apostle in the sense that he has the corner office and a key to the executive washroom and now everybody'd better do what he says 'cause he got the promotion. He's an apostle in the sense that he is doing the work the Lord called and equipped him to do in the communities to which the Spirit sent him. The 'seal of his apostleship' is not his Damascus Road encounter, but the fellowships he has established and equipped. And apparently whatever authority he has in that sense is something Barnabas (among others) shares.

I do not really disagree with anything you are saying here. All Paul is saying is that if anyone should accept his apostleship it should be the Corintheans, since they are the fruit of his work.

But I do not think Paul is claiming he could have been an apostle without the encounter on the road to Damascus and any other experience he has had with Jesus. He is not saying merely aquiring followers makes you an apostle, otherwise maybe David Koresh was an apostle?

Whether Barnabas is himself an authority figure or is simply a proxy for Paul seems too small a point to quibble about.

 

[andrew]

Chris, you know my mind (from our last get-together) re what I believe God is directing me to do in the near future and how that applies to the relative merits of activities in meatspace and cyberspace, so you'll understand (I hope) what I'm about to say as not being copping out but stepping up, whether anyone else gets that or not.

I'm going to leave this thread right here. If anyone else cares, have at it. Knock yourself out. I moved these posts to this thread primarily to clean up the mia thread, not to promote this thread. And while I would love to write out all my thoughts on this (I love to write, generally), the message I'm getting loud and clear has to do with other priorities and the tar baby nature of some of these online discussions.

Chris, I will be happy (may even insist on it... ) to continue this conversation over a coupla cold ones sitting by or in your pool or mine either this month or next; I think we would both enjoy that conversation with a change of venue. But not here, not now, maybe not here ever. If I ever circle back to this topic on this board, it will be because I have literally nothing better to do in meatspace. And right now I have quite a list I need to tend to, so it may be awhile....