Here are some quotes I found re-reading the Authority, submission and chain of command thread:
Andrew: More specifically, we're not commanded not to fight, we're commanded not to judge each other's beliefs and actions, which is a much higher standard and keeps you from even getting to fighting.
Then why do you judge my beliefs... and even before you have heard them?
Vv76: Who gives the elder(s) this authority? The husbands!
This is a complete misunderstanding of the Kingdom. In the Kingdom all authority comes from God from the top down... not the bottom up... that is ‘democracy’ not ‘kingdom’ thinking.
Following him: Elders clearly have authority over matters directly relating to the function of the assembly - what doctrine is taught as valid,
Yet, you proclaim that an Apostle would not have any jurisdiction over doctrine?
Mark C: They were in fact proponents of "Scripture as Written", until it came to practice.
Without Scripture to show a change, Samuel would change the jurisdiction and work of an Apostle to fit his understanding.
Vv76: Perhaps a better way to determine authority is to define their responsibility first. What are they accountable for? Responsibility follows accountability and authority is derived from how one fulfills responsibility.
Authority comes from God! Responsibility always comes with it. I cannot have responsibility for something if I have no authority in the matter. That being said, it can be abused. The gift of a calling does not guarantee there will be no abuse of that calling. (King Saul)
Andrew: It's always been about responsibility—"authority" and power grabs are a red herring (except maybe in the case of husbands...). What are elders responsible to God for, and what are husbands responsible to God for? How are they the same (given that the same word is used to describe both)? How are they different (given that the groups of souls 'managed' is different)?
Again, with Authority, automatically comes responsibility. Both are in play at all times. Which comes first... the chicken or the egg... Authority!!
Samuel: But there is much more shaky support for the idea that there are modern apostles who are a source of doctrinal truth, we could debate that forever, and that understanding of apostleship is far more likely to result in conflict.
What Bible do you read that indicates any change in Apostolic function for future Apostles? You are guilty of cultural bias that you fight so hard against when it comes to PM; but, you will stand for the status quo regarding church authority; and I guarantee you, I have much more New Testament Scripture concerning church government and the role of Apostles than you have for PM. (I believe in PM... I have 2 wives)
1Cor. 9:16-17 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! 17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
This dispensation is a “dispensing of.” It includes an administration, a jurisdiction, and a revelation! The dispensation is not the whole, but a part. Paul did not claim that Peter had no gospel or that he (Paul) was the only Apostle with truth. Paul just declared that he had declared the whole counsel of God. That could only refer to the amount that he had been given. Paul also said:
1 Cor. 3:10
According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
Paul did not give the total understanding of all things. He just laid the foundation! Future Apostles were to follow and finish the work! Biblical Apostles went out of fashion and the church, and the world, went into the ‘dark ages.’ With Luther and Wycliff and others, the path out was begun; but, the task is not finished yet. More work is needed to just return to where the Church “went wrong” on so many things... let alone finishing the work that Paul only started!
Any proper “new” revelation will probably come from an Apostle. Sometimes, it might come by a Prophet; but will probably need Apostolic clarification; and from any source it comes (even from a child) it should have Apostolic verification! The establishment of doctrine is the exclusive domain of the apostles!
Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
They did not follow Momma's, Daddy's, Pastor’s, Elder’s, or even the Prophet's doctrine! It was the Apostle's doctrine that the church relied upon!
If this was so important, why did not Paul see to it that the proper structure was defined and the role of Apostles was carefully laid out? It was so normal at that time for the Apostles to be recognized and accepted; and with the power of God so manifest, I believe they did not consider that the next generation would lose sight and practice of following Apostolic men in the ultimate leadership of the church. Remember, Paul also said, “we which are alive and remain...” This indicates that at that time, Paul expected to see the coming of the Lord “in the flesh.” Paul did not dream that his letters would be preserved as Scripture for 2000 + years. He expected the New Testament Church to be led by Spirit filled men according to their gifts and callings.
He told Timothy:
2 Tim. 2:2
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
He did not tell Tim to write everything down for future generations. We now (especially on this website) debate even the New Testament Scriptures on a level that rivals the rabbis. Do not misunderstand me... I love the Scripture!! I have a tremendous advantage because it was preserved for you and me to the degree it was. (We do not know if we have an accurate book of Enoch, Nathan, or Jasher. We are missing writings from the Prophets Iddo, and Shemaiah. However, we need less debate and more men of revelation.
As many as are led by the Scripture... No... I agree the Scripture has its place... but the Scripture says:
Romans 8:14
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
If you leave the Spirit out of the equation, you end up with dead letter. Even the letter of the New Testament becomes rhetoric and law... if the Spirit is left out.
Romans 7:6
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
2 Cor. 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
God never intended for the New Testament to become “letter,” (i.e. just a book without living spiritual men to oversee the church and its doctrine.)
Andrew: I think that if we ever start to put together a coherent picture of leadership in the body of Christ it will address the issue you wanted to discuss.
Look at the post that started this thread. That is exactly what I began to do! The conversation quickly ignored the concepts and became personal. The search for the Kingdom was abandoned in favor of finding any reason to discredit the messenger, and the message was ignored.
There was not one question as to why I chose this order. No attempt to see if there could be any reason to accept me. The focus, from the start, was rather to find any reason to reject me.
Samuel comes riding in on his “white horse” and proclaims,
”The apostolic ministry is to be sent forth by one assembly, and plant a new assembly somewhere else, appoint an initial set of elders to run the assembly, then move on to plant a new one. That's what Paul and Barnabas did as apostles,”
I proceeded to show his error, and Samuel’s error goes unchecked by anyone else, and he gets off ‘Scott free!’ Apostles, especially Paul and Barnabas, returned to the churches they planted; they did not just move on. He also said Apostles are not needed for doctrine. I have clearly refuted that as well.
Another error I did not address previously, although the local church recognized their call, it was God who called and actually sent them. Again the Kingdom works from the “top down.”
So Samuel comes with his errors, and his “mystery calling,” and his authority is not questioned... in spite of his glaring errors. If we do not know what Samuel’s calling is, how can we give proper weight to his words? All voices are not equal. I, on the other hand, declare my calling, declare his errors, and it suddenly is his definition of a Apostle which is accepted in the face of refuting Scriptures... without debate! The guy who has claimed and demonstrated an Apostolic call in his life from his teens, is suspect. The Apostle surely just does not have the revelation of what an Apostle is... compared to Samuel. Andrew joins in, and the majority opinion is settled. Your majority opinion does not change the Scripture... or the truth!!
Your retreat into the ‘comfort zone’ of ‘the majority’ does not establish truth! It does nothing to establish Kingdom.
MOJO: ...If any people claiming titles of prophets, apostles, plumbers, carpenters, or Indian Chiefs claim that scripture is not reliable or sufficient enough for us to know God personally, freely receive Christs's salvation, and live sanctified lives...
I completely agree!! But it is not enough for your 'perfection.' (Eph. 4:11-14)
...but that their personal revelations are superior to scripture and time tested orthodoxy, then I can only fellowship as a fellow man, not a brother
It is a good thing you did not encounter Paul in his day, you would have rejected him.
Jim: If I were actually recognized in this ministry as an Apostle, nothing would really change. I would continue as I always do, endeavoring to bring unity among the brethren.
Samuel: One further question: How do you wish to function as an apostle in the context of this ministry? In other words, why do you want us to recognise you as an apostle, and what would you do then?
Andrew, I think you are being a little unfair with the context of the question. You asked me to answer Samuel’s question. I thought I did. But I see that your question seems to really be different than that of Samuel’s.
It seemed to me that Samuel’s question was about what would I do differently if accepted as an Apostle. My answer was that nothing would change... I would simply continue to post as I have, and present my understandings with appropriate Scripture as I have been doing. If there would be any change, it would be on the part of those who accepted my ministry as valid. I would not change unless invited to take a greater role beyond teaching truth. I agree there can be multiple callings and giftings, although Paul taught that we do not all have all of the gifts; therefore we need one another to make up a complete body.
Steve: ...by people allowing all of the gifts to flow through each of them?
(That is Steve’s error, if he really believes this.)
Andrew: You post at length about the "office" of apostle, but then say that even if we accepted your claim and your teaching, "nothing would really change". So until "something changes", I'm not worried about any charge that I've rejected legitimate apostolic authority.
. . . Jim, there's a curious dance going on here. You say that if we accept your claim, "nothing will really change", but if we reject your claim it is "serious business". How can rejecting your claim be serious business if accepting it has no practical consequences?
You're either claiming to be an apostle of Christ or you're not, and if you are and you're not who you claim to be, that's a bit of a problem.
Yes! I do make that claim. However, because I also recognize that all of the offices work by submission, such a claim only creates a relationship with those who will receive it.
Would there be change? Yes... but not on my part so much as on the part of those who would accept that my voice, like Paul’s, would have a presumption of revelation attached to it, when speaking directly of Doctrine.
Unless invited, I have no interest in intervening in the affairs of this ministry. I have seen nothing out of line with your handling of this forum or the retreats. I think your insights and experience regarding PM are most helpful.
So, would there be change and consequences? Most things have consequences. Will your rejection affect me? Yes! Will your rejection or acceptance affect you? Yes! You will receive, or miss out, on the benefits of my gifts. I also would like to receive the benefits of your gifts. They could be a blessing to me. If I rejected you outright, or you reject me, we each may never receive what God has given the other.
It was “strongly” suggested that I change my screen name to accommodate Samuel’s understanding of Apostleship, and to accommodate the sensibilities of the readers of this forum, to avoid “conflict” (conflict, Samuel’s word).
Galatians 1:10
For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Thanks for your time. I commend you for finding the truth about PM.
I commend your attempt to protect your “domain.” However, if you “err on the side of caution...” you still err.
If you are willing to give me some time and watch my postings on other subjects, and with the possibility of getting to meet face-to-face again at some future retreat, perhaps we can drop this discussion for now and see what the future brings.
)