Are there modern day Apostles?

[Freak]

God's Word tells us:

"It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up."

God still calls pastors, evangelists (for I am one), and teachers but about "apostles"....are there modern day apostles in our day? I believe so.

Any thoughts?

[yxboom]

Actually an apostle by definition was a person who had personal contact with the Lord Jesus in his earthly ministry. Which is why Paul who had witnessed the resurrected Christ considered himself an apostle born out of "due time" in his call.
1 Corinthians 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
I would say there are no living apostles.

[Freak]

Originally posted by yxboom
Actually an apostle by definition was a person who had personal contact with the Lord Jesus in his earthly ministry. Which is why Paul who had witnessed the resurrected Christ considered himself an apostle born out of "due time" in his call.

I would say there are no living apostles.

You raised a good point. Paul did not have personal contact with Jesus in His earthly ministry but he is considered an apostle. Paul's contact with Christ came after Christ' ascension.

I believe for example my good friend Pastor Arnold of Trinidad is an apostle. He has had personal contact (semi-vision) with the risen Christ. This great man of God has suffered greatly for Christ and oversees numerous churches throughout his country. He is considered a spiritual leader of an nation.

[Gavin]

Freak this is a really interesting question. I am going to post some stuff a little later when I have some time.

[spl_cadet]

While there are no apostles left anymore (they all being rather dead at the moment unfortunately) there are the sucessors to the apostles around. These are the bishops. They are similar to the apostles in that they have the same authority over the flock, but they have not had personal contact with Christ here on Earth.

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Freak
You raised a good point. Paul did not have personal contact with Jesus in His earthly ministry but he is considered an apostle. Paul's contact with Christ came after Christ' ascension.

I believe for example my good friend Pastor Arnold of Trinidad is an apostle. He has had personal contact (semi-vision) with the risen Christ. This great man of God has suffered greatly for Christ and oversees numerous churches throughout his country. He is considered a spiritual leader of an nation.

"See to it that you be not misled; for many will come in My name, saying, 'I am He"

There are no more Apostles!

The DARK KNIGHT has spoken!

[Gavin]

The question is tricky because what exactly is meant by the term "apostle" in the New Testament is itself a point of dispute. I believe a strong case can be made that more than the original 12 disciples of Jesus and Paul were aposltes. In other words, aposteship was not a closed circle.

What evidence for this is there? I Corinthians 15:5-8 teaches that Christ appeared to "the Twelve . . . then to all the apostles", which implies that there were other aposltes besides these twelve.

Furthermore, Paul actually calls many of helpers "apostles" in the New Testament - Barnabbus (Acts 14:14, I Corinthains 9:6) and possibly Apollos (I Corinthians 4:1, 6, 9).

Further still, the circle of apostleship could not have been closed if there were false apostles (II Corinthians 11:13). One could not pretend to be an apostle if everyone knew who the only apostles were!

This in turn implies that while the 12 original disciples held a unique place of honor in God's sight ("the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb", Revelation 21:14), other apostles could still be added to the church to help lead it and make authoratative decisions.

So any discussion of this question must not simply say, "those 13 have died out, ergo no more apostles".

The question is much larger than that in its scope.

I will open a new thread sometime soon for a broader discussion on the apostles.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Gavin
The question is tricky because what exactly is meant by the term "apostle" in the New Testament is itself a point of dispute. I believe a strong case can be made that more than the original 12 disciples of Jesus and Paul were aposltes. In other words, aposteship was not a closed circle.

What evidence for this is there? I Corinthians 15:5-8 teaches that Christ appeared to "the Twelve . . . then to all the apostles", which implies that there were other aposltes besides these twelve.

Furthermore, Paul actually calls many of helpers "apostles" in the New Testament - Barnabbus (Acts 14:14, I Corinthains 9:6) and possibly Apollos (I Corinthians 4:1, 6, 9).

Further still, the circle of apostleship could not have been closed if there were false apostles (II Corinthians 11:13). One could not pretend to be an apostle if everyone knew who the only apostles were!

This in turn implies that while the 12 original disciples held a unique place of honor in God's sight ("the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb", Revelation 21:14), other apostles could still be added to the church to help lead it and make authoratative decisions.

So any discussion of this question must not simply say, "those 13 have died out, ergo no more apostles".

The question is much larger than that in its scope.

I will open a new thread sometime soon for a broader discussion on the apostles.

Gavin, excellent points.

You said: Further still, the circle of apostleship could not have been closed if there were false apostles (II Corinthians 11:13). One could not pretend to be an apostle if everyone knew who the only apostles were!

Right on!

[Gavin]

Another related question is whether or not apostleship is a spiritual gift, or an office.

Deere and Storms, two third-wavers, want to argue that it is an office, or in Storm's words, an "ecclesiastical position", rather than a charisma.

They argue that apostleship is never specificially identified as a spritual gift in the New Testament, the term charisma is never applied to it. Of course, the rejoinder is that apostleship must be a spiritual gift because it is implied by the parallelism of I Corinthians 12:28-29, Ephesians 4:11, etc., where apostleship is listed along with other abilities that are clearly spiritual gifts.

Whether or not apostleship is a spiritual gift, I think it clear that is was rather different and set apart from other spiritual gifts. As Deere points out, prophets prophecy, teachers teach, encouragers encourage, etc. but what does an apostle do? Apostlize? An apostle may perform any one of these other spiritual gifts, but there role cannot be reduced to one of these functions.

Moreover, everyone can conceive of the other spiritual gifts being performed by people who did not possess them. For example, non-teachers could occasionally teach, non-encouragers could occasionally say encouraging words, nonprophets could occasionally receive some revelation. But could a non-apostle perform any of the functions of the apostle.

Finally, if apostleship were a spiritual gift, when Paul says to "eagerly desire the greater gifts" in I Corinthians 12:31 he would be in the akquard situation of encouraging the Corinthians to seek to be apostles, the very kind of elitistic kind of action that Paul was trying to steer the Corinthians away from.

Therefore apostleship is very different from the other more common spiritual gifts which are distributed widely throughout the lay people of New Testament churches.

[continued]

[Gavin]

Apostles seem to have a very broad role in the early church as missionary pioneers, leaders, church planters, organizers, equipped with a degree of divine authority to help establish the church (Acts 6:1-7, 15:1-35).

Apostles did have divine authority from God (I Corinthians 4:14-21, II Corinthians 10:8, Galatians 2:9), but this does not mean that they were infallible. Even Peter, one of the pillars of the early church (Galatians 2:9), needed to be rebuked by Paul when he slipped into self-righteousness (Galatians 2:11). Still less did all the apostles get along together - Paul and Barnabbus could not agree and split company in Acts 15:39.

Apparently apostles need to be personally called and commisioned by Christ (Acts 1:21-26, 26:16, I Corinthians 9:1, 15:7). However, this does not mean that this could happen only before Christ ascended, because the risen Christ can still personally call people to certain callings, as he did the apostle Paul.

I am still thinking through Ephesians 2:20 and whether apostles can exist in the church today, or were for the beginning foundational period only. Let me know if you guys have any more thoughts on this.

[Freak]

Excellent points Gavin. I would only add this. Where does it imply in the Scriptures that God doesn't call apostles? In light of Ephesians 4, it appears God still calls people to apostleship-to oversee a group of churches.

[Gavin]

Freak:

Thanks for your response. It is frustrating to take a long time to write a post, and then no one reads it, so I appreciate your response.

I am not sure whether God calls apostles in the church today or not. Maybe he doesn't and maybe he does. I need to get more experience with people who claim to be apostles today, and more knowledge of the Bible on this matter before I am willing to state an opinion one way or the other on the matter.

I will say this though: I am not willing to say that God could not call apostles today. God is in heaven and does whatever he pleases.

I am just saying that I don't know if in fact he does. I certainly do not know of anyone that I would be willing to call an apostle today. But then again my experience is very limited.

Again, I certainly do believe that God gives miraculous gifts like prophecy to the church today, so the issue is not cessationism.

Thoughts?

[Freak]

Gavin:
Freak:

Thanks for your response. It is frustrating to take a long time to write a post, and then no one reads it, so I appreciate your response.

I am not sure whether God calls apostles in the church today or not. Maybe he doesn't and maybe he does. I need to get more experience with people who claim to be apostles today, and more knowledge of the Bible on this matter before I am willing to state an opinion one way or the other on the matter.

I will say this though: I am not willing to say that God could not call apostles today. God is in heaven and does whatever he pleases.

I am just saying that I don't know if in fact he does. I certainly do not know of anyone that I would be willing to call an apostle today. But then again my experience is very limited.

Again, I certainly do believe that God gives miraculous gifts like prophecy to the church today, so the issue is not cessationism.

Thoughts?

What is your thoughts on Ephesians 4:11: It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers.

[Freak]

I think one reason why many are hestiant to delve into these topics (the issue of spiritual gifts and the like) is due to the abuses of these gifts and callings. I also believe there is a lack of some strong scholarship (though there is some exceptions but generally speaking) on these subjects.

This needs to change for as we see God speaks of these gifts and callings throughout His Word.

[Gavin]

Freak: I accept that Ephesians 4, verses 13 in particular, teaches that God may give apostles to help the church all the way to the parousia. However, keep in mind that apostleship is a very broad term, as previously discussed.

Now, Freak, what are your thoughts on Ephesians 2:20, which tells us that the church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone."

(I am not saying anything one way or the other on this passage, I will wait for your thoughts.)

[Gavin]

I think one reason why many are hestiant to delve into these topics (the issue of spiritual gifts and the like) is due to the abuses of these gifts and callings. I also believe there is a lack of some strong scholarship (though there is some exceptions but generally speaking) on these subjects.

This needs to change for as we see God speaks of these gifts and callings throughout His Word.


:thumb:

I agree, and that is why I am so interested in studying about this topic. I find it very relevant and important.

[Freak]

Gavin:
Freak: I accept that Ephesians 4, verses 13 in particular, teaches that God may give apostles to help the church all the way to the parousia. However, keep in mind that apostleship is a very broad term, as previously discussed.

Now, Freak, what are your thoughts on Ephesians 2:20, which tells us that the church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone."

(I am not saying anything one way or the other on this passage, I will wait for your thoughts.)

Ephesians 2:20 speaks of the reality that Christ choose to build His body upon their ministries. But, I do not see this verse implying that somehow these ministries (the apostleship, etc) have played out their function.

[Gavin]

Ephesians 2:20 speaks of the reality that Christ choose to build His body upon their ministries. But, I do not see this verse implying that somehow these ministries (the apostleship, etc) have played out their function.
The cessationist argument would be that a foundation comes only once and does not need to be repeated throughout the building of the rest of the building.

I don't agree, but I think it is a point to consider.

[AcousticJS]

Hi everyone

Just joined the forums. I'm part of a family of churches that believe in apostolic ministry for today (Salt & Light - http://www.saltandlightministries.org/).

There are a couple of different interpretations of what Ephesians 2:20 and surrounding verses mean. The view I would probably subscribe to is that Paul is saying YOU (i.e. the Ephesians) have been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (that is on the ministry of apostles and prophets). As such, each local church should be built upon an apostolic and prophetic foundation.

However, even if you take the view that this describes the overall church and refers to first century apostles and prophets, that doesn't mean they wouldn't be around today. Jack Deere points this out in "Surprised by the Power of the Spirit". The analogy he uses is that of a company. There may well be a foundind Director of the company, but that doesn't mean there will be no more directors for the history of the company.

I'm not thinking too clearly right now, so this is about the best I can express myself on this. Ask any more questions, and I'll try my best to answer.

Global Harvest Ministries (http://www.globalharvestministries.org/) has some fairly good articles about apostleship though I don't know if i'd agree with everything they say, and I'd recommend 'Apostles Today' by Barney Coombs as a good introduction to looking at what apostles do.

God bless
Jon

[Gavin]

Jack Deere points this out in "Surprised by the Power of the Spirit". The analogy he uses is that of a company. There may well be a foundind Director of the company, but that doesn't mean there will be no more directors for the history of the company.

Jack Deere's _Surprised by the Power of the Spirit_ is an incredible and honest book. I appreciate him.

Another thing to remember about Ephesians 2:20 is that, whether apostles can exist today or not, surely "prophecy" can, because of ways that it used elsewhere in the New Testament.

Four example, take just two verses in Acts.

Acts 21:9
He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.

Acts 19
6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

How are these instances of prophecy tied down to the exclusive, once-for-all, unique foundation of the church? The same could be said of the gift of prophecy among the Corinthians in I Corinthians 14. Clearly there are different levels and kinds of prophetic activitity in the New Testament, and it is reductionistic to make Ephesians 2:20, which mentions a certain type of prophecy, into a blanket statement that covers it all. It must be acknowledge that whether Ephesians 2:20 is a hendiadys (as Grudem argues) or not, the prophets in view here are in some way associated with the apostles.

NEsay, ask me more and I will write more about this interesting subject.

[Gavin]

Another problem with this cessationist argument from Ephesians 2:20 is that it assumes without warrant that the word "foundation" is denoting sequence, not merely importance. If I said, "American political structure is built on the foundation of congressmen and presidents", I would be in no way arguing that congressmen and presidents were only for an initial, foundational part in American history and then ceased to play their roles. I would be merely stating the importance of these offices in the over-all structure of American politics.

The same here. Paul is arguing that apostles and prophets play a foundational role in the life and structure of the church. Just as Christ Jesus, the chief cornerstone of the structure, does not cease into inactivity after the apostolic age, but remains with the church "to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20), so the apostles and prophets continue to "found" the church till this time. In Christ the whole building rises (present tense) to become a building pleasing to God (verse 21).

[AcousticJS]

Couldn't have said it better myself, Gavin. Cessationists do rather beg the question about whether it is sequence or significance.

Blessings in Christ
Jon

[Sinapis nigra]

01-28-2003 @ 03:10 AM
Freak:

God's Word tells us:

"It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up."

God still calls pastors, evangelists (for I am one), and teachers but about "apostles"....are there modern day apostles in our day? I believe so.

Any thoughts?

Fascinating post! Here is a current proclamation to the world by the current Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan.

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

This proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City, Utah.

[Gavin]

Sinapis Nigra, that proclamation is from Mormons. They are a cult and are nottrue apostles for the church today.

Not just anybody who claims to be an apostle really is.

I suspect Freak would agree.

[Freak]

02-28-2003 @ 12:52 AM
Gavin:

Sinapis Nigra, that proclamation is from Mormons. They are a cult and are nottrue apostles for the church today.

Not just anybody who claims to be an apostle really is.

I suspect Freak would agree.

That is correct.

[Sinapis nigra]

Of course he'd agree. He has everything to lose if they (the Apostles) are who they claim to be. By labeling someone as a "cult" or a "heretic" you hope to successfully calm the minds of all those who depend on you to recieve "God's word". You try to make it as easy as possible for the "faithfull" to reject out of hand the idea that anyone beside you has the truth. This is the same mentality that fueled the inquisition and the witch trials. You throw a label on someone then level the burden of proof on that person to "prove" that they aren't what you claim they are. They are made guilty until proven innocent. That way you or your followers don't have to exert any real effort to investigate the matter you simply go to an anti-mormon site suck everything in that apostates who have dedicated their lives to fighting against the church then sit back and expect that "if the the Mormons really have the truth they should be able to answer every doubt we can fire at them." Regardless of this scruteny you level on us you then turn around and label anyone who does the same to "christianity" as "Godless" "heathen" "un-believer" etc. etc.. Hypocrites! You do to us what the Pharasise did to Christ and his original followers. So often you simply level names and labels on people then to "support" them you take something from there beliefs and take it completely out of context and try your hardest to place it in the worst possible light and conotation you can summon up. You expect your word to be taken as God's infallible truth and anyone anyone doubts you you take it as a personal attack on your character yet you have no qualms insinuating or making disparaging remarks about Joseph Smith or anyone else you really have no real knowledge about. If your going to label me as a cult member fine, but give me a solid definition of a "cult" and why it is that Mormonism is a "cult". You may find that you too belong to one. Not just anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ really is applies to you as much as anyone else.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

To get it back to the topic here is a list I found:

Apostle Name and Scripture reference
Simon, called Peter. Also known as Cephas. Matthew 10:2, John 1:42
Andrew (Peter's brother) Matthew 10:2
James the Son of Zebedee Matthew 10:2
John (brother of James above) Matthew 10:2
Philip Matthew 10:3
Bartholomew Matthew 10:3
Thomas Matthew 10:3
Matthew Matthew 10:3
James the son of Alphaeus Matthew 10:3
Thaddaeus (also known as Judas [not Iscariout]) Matthew 10:3
Simon the Zealot Matthew 10:4
Judas Iscariot Matthew 10:4
Matthias ? Acts 1:26
Paul (originally named Saul) Romans 1:1
Barnabas (also called Joseph) ? Acts 14:14, 4:36
James the Lord's Brother ? Galatians 1:19
Andronicus ? Romans 16:7
Junias ? Romans 16:7
Silvanus ? 1 Thes. 1:1, 2:1-6
Timothy ? 1 Thes. 1:1, 2:1-6
Epaphroditus ? Philippians 2:25
Titus ? 2 Cor. 8:23
Unnamed Apostles ? 1 Cor. 15:7; 2 Cor. 8:23
A total of 22+ possible named apostles in scripture

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

03-04-2003 @ 05:45 PM
Sinapis nigra:

If your going to label me as a cult member fine, but give me a solid definition of a "cult" and why it is that Mormonism is a "cult". You may find that you too belong to one. Not just anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ really is applies to you as much as anyone else.

Universal definition - Any group, which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top. The group will claim to be the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members. This definition covers cults within all major world religions, along with those cults, which have no OBVIOUS religious base such as commercial, educational and psychological cults. Others may define these a little differently, but this is the simplest to work from.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

http://calvarychapel.com/spokane/WhatWeBelieve/IdentifyingCults.htm

A good, informative article that is not leveled at any one particular group.

Sorry for missing the link on the post above

[Sinapis nigra]

03-05-2003 @ 09:50 PM
Bill the Cat:



Universal definition - Any group, which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top. The group will claim to be the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members. This definition covers cults within all major world religions, along with those cults, which have no OBVIOUS religious base such as commercial, educational and psychological cults. Others may define these a little differently, but this is the simplest to work from.

Not the definition I've found in the dictionary but I think that the above definition covers any group that believes God is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. That would make it a pyramid with God on top wouldn't it? As far as "thought reform" and "mind control" those have pretty broad possible definitions. Propaganda of any form is an atempt at thought reform. As far as "mind control" I don't buy the fact that a human has no control of what they think or do. Yes they can to a degree "give up" their self control to something or someone else but even that is the product of an initial decision on their part. Culture and cultivate have the same root words. To till or refine. I believe that has been the claimed aim of almost every group that has been formed, since they all have some form of governance (person, ideal, god etc.) do we not all then belong to one "cult" or another?

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

No not really, because it says a person/persons at the top. It was a good definition, but read the article, it is much more explanatory.

[Sinapis nigra]

"Christian definition - Any group which deviates from Biblical, orthodox, historical Christianity. e.i. They deny the Deity of Christ; His physical resurrection; His personal and physical return to earth and salvation by FAITH alone. This definition only covers those groups that are cults within the Christian religion. It does not cover cults within other world religions such as Islam and Hinduism. Nor does it cover Psychological, Commercial or Educational cults which do not recognize the Bible as a source of reality."

What a convinient definition. One problem however. Who defines "orthodox"? I believe that Jesus is God. I believe in his physical resurection. I believe in his personal and physical return to the earth. I believe it is imposible for a man to be saved without faith in Jesus Christ. Now as far as faith being the only determining factor I believe MANY Christians of many sects and denominations would disagree. Faith without charity or grace is insufficient. Did the person who conjered up this definition consider all those who dissented from the extra-biblical Nicean Creed? What of all those who lived between the time of Christ and the council that didn't believe what the council several centuries after Christ would decide is orthodox? Were they not Christians? Were they members of a cult?

Again if I belong to a cult so does every other person who claims to be a Christian. I do not say this to deride but to simply point out that short of making a list within the "definition" of a cult of specific denominations or congregations or even specific people to try and label anyone apart from anyone else in christianity as being a cult is impossible for these definitions either include all of christianity or are created by a group in christianity to exclude others hence proclaiming at the very least that they know the way to damnation and by implication must also know the way to salvation and this being one of the requisits for a cult would effectively place any group or person that distinguishes between cults and non-cults as a cult themself.

[Sinapis nigra]

03-05-2003 @ 11:03 PM
Bill the Cat:

No not really, because it says a person/persons at the top. It was a good definition, but read the article, it is much more explanatory.

God is a person/persons. Hence anyone who believes God is the ultimate authority would fall under this catagory.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

For the quick reply, No God is not a person the way it was intended. It's talking about a human being SINCE Christ who claims to be the only one to receive revelations from God/Deity and the only one qualified to interpret them.

[Sinapis nigra]

03-06-2003 @ 08:03 PM
Bill the Cat:

For the quick reply, No God is not a person the way it was intended. It's talking about a human being SINCE Christ who claims to be the only one to receive revelations from God/Deity and the only one qualified to interpret them.

All right if you don't see Christ or God as human.

What about Peter or the Apostles? Can one believe in Christ and not believe in them? Would that then not make "Christianity" a cult?

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Now for the BIG response:

What a convinient definition. One problem however. Who defines "orthodox"?

## The Bible. Also see this article for the formation of orthodoxy in the second century. http://www.engl.niu.edu/wac/irenaeus.html

I believe that Jesus is God.

## But your church believes that Jesus is A God, subordinate to Eloheim, not eternal in relation to the past, Not always God, brother to Lucifer, married to Mary and Martha, etc... If you deviate from this belief, you do not practice Mormon dogma.

I believe in his physical resurection.

## But not that Jesus is the first to be resurrected. ( Michael the Archangel of Daniel {Before Christ} is Adam resurrected)

I believe in his personal and physical return to the earth.

## LDS teaching says it will be in Missouri, USA, not Jerusalem or the Mount of Olives

I believe it is imposible for a man to be saved without faith in Jesus Christ.

## But exaltation is an entirely different matter

Now as far as faith being the only determining factor I believe MANY Christians of many sects and denominations would disagree.

## True

Faith without charity or grace is insufficient.

## as if you could separate them. See JPHolding's Semitic Totality concept article

Did the person who conjered up this definition consider all those who dissented from the extra-biblical Nicean Creed?

## You mean like the Gnostics, the Montanists, the Arians, etc... probably

What of all those who lived between the time of Christ and the council that didn't believe what the council several centuries after Christ would decide is orthodox?

## That's why people like Iraneas wrote "Against Heresies" which, ironically, actually describe some LDS doctrines.

Were they not Christians? Were they members of a cult?

## They were labeled heretics and disfellowshipped.

Again if I belong to a cult so does every other person who claims to be a Christian.

## assuming that you define cult in a literalistic fashion. When an orthodox Christian uses the term cult, it is understood in that circle to refer to those the ancient church labeled heretics.

I do not say this to deride but to simply point out that short of making a list within the "definition" of a cult of specific denominations or congregations or even specific people to try and label anyone apart from anyone else in christianity as being a cult is impossible for these definitions either include all of christianity or are created by a group in christianity to exclude others hence proclaiming at the very least that they know the way to damnation and by implication must also know the way to salvation and this being one of the requisits for a cult would effectively place any group or person that distinguishes between cults and non-cults as a cult themself.

## Begging the question. Once again, it is used inside orthodox circles to mean a heretical practice or group.

[Sinapis nigra]

03-06-2003 @ 08:27 PM
Bill the Cat:

Now for the BIG response:

What a convinient definition. One problem however. Who defines "orthodox"?

## The Bible. Also see this article for the formation of orthodoxy in the second century. http://www.engl.niu.edu/wac/irenaeus.html

NOT the Bible but rather your interpretation of what the Bible says.

I believe that Jesus is God.

## But your church believes that Jesus is A God, subordinate to Eloheim, not eternal in relation to the past, Not always God, brother to Lucifer, married to Mary and Martha, etc... If you deviate from this belief, you do not practice Mormon dogma.

You do not know what you are talking about. We believe Jesus has ALWAYS BEEN GOD. He was the Jehovah of the Old testament. His role as redeemer was in place before the foundations of this world were laid. The simple fact that he progresses from one stage to another does NOT detract from the fact that he has always been and always will be God.

As far as being subordinate to his father we believe no different than what is clearly stated in the Bible, that is, Christ submited to the will of his Father. It was a willing submission. He was in no way forced or coerced into it by his Father. Just because someone does the will of someone else does not automaticaly make them subordinate to the other. It is, according to Christ, just the opposite. The greatest is to be the servant of ALL. Christ and his Father are ONE. They have the same purpose and the same work and one is not subjected to the other. They work together to obtain the same goal. Yes Christ submited to his Fathers will but it states this in THE BIBLE. Do you believe this? Does this make him subordinate in your eyes? How do you "interpret" this part of the Bible?

The bible itself states that Christ is our brother. The bible also refers to Lucifer as having fallen from heaven.

As far as Christ and who he was married to there is NOTHING in our official cannon and no official church doctrine that states to whom Christ was married to. The only direct link to him and a future bride is a parallel between him and his church.

I believe in his physical resurection.

## But not that Jesus is the first to be resurrected. ( Michael the Archangel of Daniel {Before Christ} is Adam resurrected)

I have no idea where your getting your information but that is a lie! Christ was "the first fruits of them that slept" I have NEVER in my 22+ years ever heard ANYTHING that even HINTED at what you say we believe. Now Just because he is an angel does NOT mean that he is resurected!

I believe in his personal and physical return to the earth.

## LDS teaching says it will be in Missouri, USA, not Jerusalem or the Mount of Olives

Again you are displaying a half truth which is fabricated to distort what we really believe. Yes he will come to Missouri but his feet will not touch the earth again untill it touches the Mount of Olives and causes it to divide in to and begin the transformation of the earth. That will be his Second Comming.

I believe it is imposible for a man to be saved without faith in Jesus Christ.

## But exaltation is an entirely different matter

It is impossible to recieve salvation or exaltation without faith in Christ. A man cannot be saved in ignorance. You must realise the difference between faith and belief. Faith without works is dead. It is not possible to have faith if you do not have works. The devils believe in God but that does not change their state. If you have faith, real faith, you will act on what you believe in. God has said if ye love me keep my commandments. Charity the purest form of love cannot be seperated from faith and hope. While works alone will get you no where you cannot seperate works and faith without killing faith and turning it into just a belief.

Now as far as faith being the only determining factor I believe MANY Christians of many sects and denominations would disagree.

## True

This goes back to the old faith vs. works argument. We need both. Does any Christian who believes we need both also part of a cult?

Faith without charity or grace is insufficient.

## as if you could separate them. See JPHolding's Semitic Totality concept article

exactly.

Did the person who conjered up this definition consider all those who dissented from the extra-biblical Nicean Creed?

## You mean like the Gnostics, the Montanists, the Arians, etc... probably

What of all those who lived between the time of Christ and the council that didn't believe what the council several centuries after Christ would decide is orthodox?

## That's why people like Iraneas wrote "Against Heresies" which, ironically, actually describe some LDS doctrines.

Who decides who has the authority to lable something as a Heresy? Would not any group so doing by your definition be a cult as they would rely on a person/persons to define the "Heresies"???

ey not Christians? Were they members of a cult?

## They were labeled heretics and disfellowshipped.

Labeled such by a cult.

Again if I belong to a cult so does every other person who claims to be a Christian.

## assuming that you define cult in a literalistic fashion. When an orthodox Christian uses the term cult, it is understood in that circle to refer to those the ancient church labeled heretics.

The "orthodox Christian" obviously has the advantage with this deffinition as they can basicly set the definition to magicly exclude themselves due to their supposed "divine authority"

I do not say this to deride but to simply point out that short of making a list within the "definition" of a cult of specific denominations or congregations or even specific people to try and label anyone apart from anyone else in christianity as being a cult is impossible for these definitions either include all of christianity or are created by a group in christianity to exclude others hence proclaiming at the very least that they know the way to damnation and by implication must also know the way to salvation and this being one of the requisits for a cult would effectively place any group or person that distinguishes between cults and non-cults as a cult themself.

## Begging the question. Once again, it is used inside orthodox circles to mean a heretical practice or group.

Proving the point that when you're "in charge" of the definition you cannot be the one wrong.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

03-07-2003 @ 02:40 PM
Sinapis nigra:



NOT the Bible but rather your interpretation of what the Bible says.

## And countless others throughout history.

____________________________________________________
You do not know what you are talking about. We believe Jesus has ALWAYS BEEN GOD. He was the Jehovah of the Old testament. His role as redeemer was in place before the foundations of this world were laid. The simple fact that he progresses from one stage to another does NOT detract from the fact that he has always been and always will be God.
____________________________________________________

## Well well, think I don't know what I'm talking about?? Well I ask you, was Jesus born to Heavenly Father and Mother? Before He was born to them, He was not God, so hasn't always been God. Plus You stated Jesus "progressed" and I will refer you to a statement made by Bruce McKonkie:

"He is the Firstborn of the Father. By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state" (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pg. 129).

So He had to start at something other than God before he attained it.
___________________________________________________

As far as being subordinate to his father we believe no different than what is clearly stated in the Bible, that is, Christ submited to the will of his Father. It was a willing submission. He was in no way forced or coerced into it by his Father. Just because someone does the will of someone else does not automaticaly make them subordinate to the other. It is, according to Christ, just the opposite. The greatest is to be the servant of ALL. Christ and his Father are ONE. They have the same purpose and the same work and one is not subjected to the other. They work together to obtain the same goal. Yes Christ submited to his Fathers will but it states this in THE BIBLE. Do you believe this? Does this make him subordinate in your eyes? How do you "interpret" this part of the Bible?
____________________________________________________

With Scripture, what else. He was equal to God by being God (John 1:1) but thought it not comprehensible to be equal to God (Phil 2:6-8) laid aside His power to dwel with us.

____________________________________________________
The bible itself states that Christ is our brother. The bible also refers to Lucifer as having fallen from heaven.
____________________________________________________

Christ is our brother only when we are ADOPTED into His family (Gal 4:5)

____________________________________________________
As far as Christ and who he was married to there is NOTHING in our official cannon and no official church doctrine that states to whom Christ was married to. The only direct link to him and a future bride is a parallel between him and his church.
____________________________________________________

Yeah, the old fallback. But Joseph Smith plainly stated:

Wilford Woodruff's Journal 8:187, July 22, 1883

"Evening Meeting. Prayer By E Stephenson. Joseph F Smith spoke One hour & 25 M. He spoke upon the Marriage in Cana at Galilee. He thought Jesus was the Bridgegroom and Mary & Martha the brides. He also refered to Luke 10 ch. 38 to 42 verse, Also John 11 ch. 2 & 5 vers John 12 Ch 3d vers, John 20 8 to 18. Joseph Smith spoke upon these passages to show that Mary & Martha manifested much Closer relationship than Merely A Believer which looks Consistet. He did not think that Jesus who decended throug Poligamous families from Abraham down & who fulfilled all the Law even baptism by immersion would have lived and died without being married."


____________________________________________________
I have no idea where your getting your information but that is a lie! Christ was "the first fruits of them that slept" I have NEVER in my 22+ years ever heard ANYTHING that even HINTED at what you say we believe. Now Just because he is an angel does NOT mean that he is resurected!
____________________________________________________

2=2=4. Easy as that. Adam died. You believe he was Michael the Archangel. B.H. Roberts wrote:

They are intelligences of the human species. Many of them are offsprings of Adam and Eve. That is they are men, who have, like Enoch or Elijah, been translated; or, like Jesus Christ, been raised from the dead; consequently they possess a material body of flesh and bones, can eat, drink, walk, converse, reason, love, fight, wrestle, sing, or play on musical instruments" (The Mormon Doctrine of Deity, pg. 256).

Adam was not translated, the Bible said he died. He has to be resurrected, and for him to appear in Daniel it had to be before Jesus. Simple as 2=+2


____________________________________________________
Again you are displaying a half truth which is fabricated to distort what we really believe. Yes he will come to Missouri but his feet will not touch the earth again untill it touches the Mount of Olives and causes it to divide in to and begin the transformation of the earth. That will be his Second Comming.
____________________________________________________

But in reality you believe it will be his third. McKonkie wrote:

Before the Lord Jesus descends openly and publicly in the clouds of glory, attended by all the hosts of heaven; before the great and dreadful day of the Lord sends terror and destruction from one end of the earth to the other; before he stands on Mount Zion, or sets his feet on Olivet, or utters his voice from an American Zion or a Jewish Jerusalem; before all flesh shall see him together; before any of his appearances, which taken together comprise the second coming of the Son of God -- before all these, there is to be a secret appearance to selected members of his Church. He will come in private to his prophet and to the apostles then living. Bruce R. McConkie, The Millennial Messiah, pp. 578-579

He will come to earth and hold a council with the living apostles.

____________________________________________________
It is impossible to recieve salvation or exaltation without faith in Christ. A man cannot be saved in ignorance. You must realise the difference between faith and belief. Faith without works is dead. It is not possible to have faith if you do not have works. The devils believe in God but that does not change their state. If you have faith, real faith, you will act on what you believe in. God has said if ye love me keep my commandments. Charity the purest form of love cannot be seperated from faith and hope. While works alone will get you no where you cannot seperate works and faith without killing faith and turning it into just a belief.
____________________________________________________

But faith in Christ is what saves.

____________________________________________________
This goes back to the old faith vs. works argument. We need both. Does any Christian who believes we need both also part of a cult?
____________________________________________________

Paul rebuked many for teaching this view that obedience to the law was mandated.


____________________________________________________
Who decides who has the authority to lable something as a Heresy? Would not any group so doing by your definition be a cult as they would rely on a person/persons to define the "Heresies"???
____________________________________________________


When you deviate from the Bible as I have shown above, it is heresy. Plain and simple.

____________________________________________________
The "orthodox Christian" obviously has the advantage with this deffinition as they can basicly set the definition to magicly exclude themselves due to their supposed "divine authority"
____________________________________________________

Regardless of the "restoration" nonsense, you guys are the "johnny come latelys" trying to mold heresy into something else

____________________________________________________
Proving the point that when you're "in charge" of the definition you cannot be the one wrong.
____________________________________________________


The definition is not at issue, heresy is. You claimed to have current 12 apostles. I simply showed that you do not and that they are in a heretical belief system.

[Sinapis nigra]

The definition IS the issue. If you claim to have the ability to state the definition you imply to have that authority from somewhere. By what authority can you label someone as a heretic? Are you an Apostle?

[Gavin]

Dear Sinapis Nigra,

thank you for your post.

you said:
By what authority can you label someone as a heretic? Are you an Apostle?
I reply:

One does not need to be an apostle before one can know whether or not to accept an apostle as genuine. If one did, then lay Christians would necessarily have to blindly accept all those who claim to be apostles today - a most undesirable scenario!

I labal Mormon apostles heretics by their deviation from sound doctrine in accordance with the word of God.

John was clearly writing to lay Christians, not apostles, when he said in I John 4:
1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.


Similarly, see:
1 Corinthians 12
3Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

03-10-2003 @ 02:57 PM
Sinapis nigra:

The definition IS the issue. If you claim to have the ability to state the definition you imply to have that authority from somewhere. By what authority can you label someone as a heretic? Are you an Apostle?


Funny how everything with Mormons is about authority. Actually, my gifting is pastoral, not apostolic. Sorry. I need no "authority" to determine if something doesn't line up with the words of the Bible. Just a bit of common sense and no reliance on heartburn.
:rofl: I understand that you think you are not a cult, but neither do Jehova Witnesses, Ba'hai and others who deviate from Biblical principles. Mormons have rewritten every definition in Christianity to meet Joseph Smith's idea. Trust me, you don't want to have me prove it. I have already provided a sample of Mormon doctrine stated by LDS Apostles and First Presidencies as well as "prophets." I am a rookie too, compared to some people on this board who have access to far greater resoures than me.

[Sinapis nigra]

03-10-2003 @ 10:33 PM
Gavin:

Dear Sinapis Nigra,

thank you for your post.

you said:

I reply:

One does not need to be an apostle before one can know whether or not to accept an apostle as genuine. If one did, then lay Christians would necessarily have to blindly accept all those who claim to be apostles today - a most undesirable scenario!

True that one need not be an apostle to accept an apostle but one needs to claim some authority or to have seen some "fruit" of a methodology to claim to know the truth. To simply state that the bible says so is to place yourself or the person you rely on for an interpretation of it as an authority. You basicly must accept that due to some fruit you have seen that justifies your belief in that translation.

I labal Mormon apostles heretics by their deviation from sound doctrine in accordance with the word of God.

Again you are "professing" to know what "sound doctrine" is and what "the Word of God" is and means. You are claiming to have the ability to know what a man must, in this case, not do in order to be saved and hence to at least some degree are placing yourself as a prophet---one who professes a belief. You need not claim to have seen God or to know the future to be a prophet or a false prophet.

John was clearly writing to lay Christians, not apostles, when he said in I John 4:
1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

By this scripture the Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have a "spirit from God" Because they acknowledge that "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh". That is the test that is stated here and our precepts pass this test.


Similarly, see:
1 Corinthians 12
3Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

Have you read the proclamation by the Apostles "Jesus the Christ". It states with great boldness that Jesus is the Lord. I see no where in these scriptures that anything that has been taught by the Churches Apostles in these days conflicts with any of these. We believe those spirits that testify that Jesus is the Lord and that he was sent by his father. Why then do you label us as heretics?

[Gavin]

Dear Sinapis Nigra,

Yes I am claiming to "know" what the bible says in a sense. We mustn't doubt our own ability to interpret Scripture to the extent that we are never able to make judgements about various belief systems, etc. Of course, if you can prove my interpretation of Scripture incorrect and yours correct, then it is I who am the heretic, not you.

On those Scriptures - I was merely making the general point that what people or religious groups say about Jesus reflects whether we should trust them or not (contra what I understood your point to be, that you have to have some kind of "authority" from God to make such judgements).

My point is still the same and very simple: Mormons deny the deity of Christ. I cannot reconcile this (inter alia) with what I see in the New Testament, so I reject mormanism.

Thoughts?

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

03-12-2003 @ 02:34 PM
Sinapis nigra:

Have you read the proclamation by the Apostles "Jesus the Christ". It states with great boldness that Jesus is the Lord.

But We believe that the Lord is God the Father as well, and you don't. That's the base point. That's why you deviate from sound doctrine. Sound doctrine is labeled such as to agree with the basic meaning of the texts.

A point being:

You believe that Jehovah of the OT is Jesus only and not God the Father. To prove you wrong on terms you will understand, I will assume a separation of the Godhead. In Isaiah, Jehovah (translated LORD) will send the suffering servant (Understood to be prophetic of the Messiah). He says "I will send my servant." So Jehovah will send His SERVANT Christ Jesus. So looking at the Godhead the way you do, Jesus can not be Jehovah. Point very simple.

[Sinapis nigra]

03-13-2003 @ 04:41 AM
Gavin:

Dear Sinapis Nigra,

Yes I am claiming to "know" what the bible says in a sense. We mustn't doubt our own ability to interpret Scripture to the extent that we are never able to make judgements about various belief systems, etc. Of course, if you can prove my interpretation of Scripture incorrect and yours correct, then it is I who am the heretic, not you.

I would love to if I could but I cannot prove anything to anyone really."A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". If one desires to discover the truth of something and is sincere about it they will take it to God and through meditation and prayer they will recieve an answer of him if they ask with real intent to follow the truth once they have recieved it. The closest I can come to proving is to refer you to the Book of Mormon. If you will truely read it with the desire to follow what it says, if it is shown to you by God to be his word, then as you read, study and pray about it you will see Christ in it. You will see your knowledge and relationship with Christ improve. You will see that it truely does testify of Christ, His Eternal Father and the Holy Spirit.

On those Scriptures - I was merely making the general point that what people or religious groups say about Jesus reflects whether we should trust them or not (contra what I understood your point to be, that you have to have some kind of "authority" from God to make such judgements).

Which is exactly what the Book of Mormon states. If something leads men to pray and to do God's will it is of God. If it teaches against prayer or against those things of God then it is of the devil.

My point is still the same and very simple: Mormons deny the deity of Christ. I cannot reconcile this (inter alia) with what I see in the New Testament, so I reject mormanism.

Thoughts?

As is mine. I refute that we deny the diety of Christ. There is nothing in the New Testament or among anything else that is of God that conflicts with what we teach. Try to reconcile this directly between you and God. Judge it in the like fashion you wish to be judged of God. Don't rely on intermediary things but go directly to God.

[Sinapis nigra]

03-13-2003 @ 04:50 AM
Bill the Cat:



But We believe that the Lord is God the Father as well, and you don't. That's the base point. That's why you deviate from sound doctrine. Sound doctrine is labeled such as to agree with the basic meaning of the texts.

That's not true. We believe Christ to be our Father in many ways. He is the creator of the Earth and hence is the Father of all living and infact all creation. He is the father of all who are born again in him. He is the Father because he acts in the name of his Father

A point being:

You believe that Jehovah of the OT is Jesus only and not God the Father. To prove you wrong on terms you will understand, I will assume a separation of the Godhead. In Isaiah, Jehovah (translated LORD) will send the suffering servant (Understood to be prophetic of the Messiah). He says "I will send my servant." So Jehovah will send His SERVANT Christ Jesus. So looking at the Godhead the way you do, Jesus can not be Jehovah. Point very simple.

Not a simple as you put it. As I stated above. Christ also has the title of Father. Why wouldn't he? Just because his Father is a Father does not limit him to be the only one with that title. They are one in purpose so of course they are going to have interchangable names. The one is in the likeness of the other. Just because one is a son dosen't keep him from being a father!

We believe Christ is the Father as is his Father. We are Christians. We do believe in Christ as he is described in the Bible. Just because you interpret it differently dosen't mean you can rightfully place others in a group of "non-believers". This is exactly why interpretation is key and true definitions. The only way to that is through God's Spirit.

[Gavin]

I refute that we deny the diety of Christ. There is nothing in the New Testament or among anything else that is of God that conflicts with what we teach.
This is an interesting belief. Why don't you post that very same thing in the gym section, I am sure it would make an interesting debate - "is Mormonism in perfect congruence with the Old and New Testaments?"

[Sinapis nigra]

03-13-2003 @ 08:46 PM
Gavin:


This is an interesting belief. Why don't you post that very same thing in the gym section, I am sure it would make an interesting debate - "is Mormonism in perfect congruence with the Old and New Testaments?"

A book that makes that assertion and goes through and systematicaly backs it up is a book called "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder" by LeGrand Richards (I believe he has a talk by the same name.) It's quite an interesting book.

[Gavin]

mmm sounds interesting thanks sinapis nigra

sincerely,
Gavin

[Sinapis nigra]

No problem Gavin.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

03-13-2003 @ 01:44 PM
Sinapis nigra:



That's not true. We believe Christ to be our Father in many ways. He is the creator of the Earth and hence is the Father of all living and infact all creation. He is the father of all who are born again in him. He is the Father because he acts in the name of his Father

I never said you don't believe Jesus is our "father" in some respect. In fact, I think it mentions it in Ether. What I was saying is you don't believe the Lord is THE Father, the same one Jesus mentions.

03-13-2003 @ 01:44 PM
Sinapis nigra:
Not a simple as you put it. As I stated above. Christ also has the title of Father. Why wouldn't he? Just because his Father is a Father does not limit him to be the only one with that title. They are one in purpose so of course they are going to have interchangable names. The one is in the likeness of the other. Just because one is a son dosen't keep him from being a father!

We believe Christ is the Father as is his Father. We are Christians. We do believe in Christ as he is described in the Bible. Just because you interpret it differently dosen't mean you can rightfully place others in a group of "non-believers". This is exactly why interpretation is key and true definitions. The only way to that is through God's Spirit.


You avoid the suffering servant text entirely. Jehovah (The LORD) sent the Suffering Servant. It says I will send My Servant. Jehovah didn't say I will send myself. I am speaking from your polytheistic frame of reference. Elohim is H.F. and Jehovah is Jesus. I have shown conclusively that your religion's idea of Jesus being Jehovah is not in line with the Bible. You may try all of the literary gymnastics you like, but it is simple. Jehovah sent Jesus (his Servant). Jehovah is not Jesus.

Now, from a monotheistic, trinitarian understanding, Jehovah is Jesus and the Heavenly Father, as well as the H.S. so he could say He would send his servant. Jesus in the flesh is the servant.

[zonetscape]

I know and believe by the unction of the holyspirit that God still calls Apostles and Prophets in modern day times. He says plainly in Eohesians 4:11 that these are the offices that he called-Apostles, Prophets, Evangelist, Pastor and Teachers for the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry. He also states in the rebuke of the lawers during a teaching session this phrase in Luke 11:49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: so see the lord clearly speaks what he will do and whom he has calle. I do not know why it is so hard for people to take the scales off of their spiritual eyes to see. This is why it is so imperative that we read the Bible under the uncton of the holyspirit instead of our own conscience. Our worldly knowledge is enmity against God's knowledge. People put things out there to try to puff themselves up to be Bible Scholars then to tell the truth and glorify God. If you really understood the office of an Apostle, no one in their right mind would want to be one. Listen at the things the Apostle Paul rights concerninig his Apostleship:
Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. 24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. 25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; 26 In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; 27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. 28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? 30 If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities. He also writes this:
8 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; [2] 9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; 10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. 11 For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. 12 So then death worketh in us, but life in you. 13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; 14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. 15 For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. 16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. 17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

So see an Apostle has the great ability to suffer and still hold the faith and love for the church more then anyone except for Jesus himself. The Apsotle is constanly being persecuted for the churches sake. This is not an office of fame and fortune to be held. Listen to this last quote and I am ending. You may email me at zonetscape@hotmail.com if you want to know more. Here is the quote:

For I think that God hath set forth us [4] the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised. 11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace; 12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: 13 Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.

[James Peter]

Necroing a three year old thread on your first post? I guess you must lurk a lot to have dug that far back through the archives...

Anyway, yes there are apostles (an apostle is 'one who is sent', either by God or more usually by God through the Church) but then again there are also Messiahs ('anointed ones', who have been anointed by God for a particular purpose)...

[zonetscape]

Another related question is whether or not apostleship is a spiritual gift, or an office.

Deere and Storms, two third-wavers, want to argue that it is an office, or in Storm's words, an "ecclesiastical position", rather than a charisma.

They argue that apostleship is never specificially identified as a spritual gift in the New Testament, the term charisma is never applied to it. Of course, the rejoinder is that apostleship must be a spiritual gift because it is implied by the parallelism of I Corinthians 12:28-29, Ephesians 4:11, etc., where apostleship is listed along with other abilities that are clearly spiritual gifts.

Whether or not apostleship is a spiritual gift, I think it clear that is was rather different and set apart from other spiritual gifts. As Deere points out, prophets prophecy, teachers teach, encouragers encourage, etc. but what does an apostle do? Apostlize? An apostle may perform any one of these other spiritual gifts, but there role cannot be reduced to one of these functions.

Moreover, everyone can conceive of the other spiritual gifts being performed by people who did not possess them. For example, non-teachers could occasionally teach, non-encouragers could occasionally say encouraging words, nonprophets could occasionally receive some revelation. But could a non-apostle perform any of the functions of the apostle.

Finally, if apostleship were a spiritual gift, when Paul says to "eagerly desire the greater gifts" in I Corinthians 12:31 he would be in the akquard situation of encouraging the Corinthians to seek to be apostles, the very kind of elitistic kind of action that Paul was trying to steer the Corinthians away from.

Therefore apostleship is very different from the other more common spiritual gifts which are distributed widely throughout the lay people of New Testament churches.

[continued]

Apostleship is both an ofice and a spiritual gift. If you understand the role of each office given in Ephesians 4:11 then you will know that those office were annointed or have a special spiritual covering to be more effective operating in the office. Have you ever notice the difference in an evangelistic persons ministry conpared to a Pastor. The Pastors mannerisms are a little more reserved than the evangelist. The evangelist is a little more carismatic and has the uncanny ability to fit into any circle. This is because of the special spiritual gift that falls on that office; where as a pastor's spiritual gift is to manage and lead. Henceforth, these are both offices and are spiritually anointed to perform these offices which are given as a gift from God (Lord Jesus) to the body of christ!!

[ForHimAlone]

God's Word tells us:

"It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up."

God still calls pastors, evangelists (for I am one), and teachers but about "apostles"....are there modern day apostles in our day? I believe so.

Any thoughts?

I'll weigh in here. Pastors and Teachers, yes. Evangelists, yes. "Prophets" in the sense of the OT, no; Apostles in the sense of the NT, no.

The church has received "apostleship" - 'sent-oneship' as ambassadors for Christ, but the office of an apostle was specific to the twelve and Paul. Peter suggested they draw lots and choose a replacement for Judas. Mathias was chosen by lot. He may have been one of the 120 upon whom the Spirit fell at Pentecost; he may also have been one of the "over 500" who witnessed the resurrected Christ personally at the ascension. Whether or not his being chosen was "of God" or "of man" is speculatory. All we do know for certain is that he was picked by the apostles to replace Judas.

I am one who has particular difficulties with people who enjoy wearing the title of "Apostle" or "Prophet" in the church. Most individuals I've met who flaunt this title enjoy lording it over pastors and teachers, and presuppose superiority over them, say they, by virtue of their office.

Thanks for reading,
FHA

[zonetscape]

I'll weigh in here. Pastors and Teachers, yes. Evangelists, yes. "Prophets" in the sense of the OT, no; Apostles in the sense of the NT, no.

The church has received "apostleship" - 'sent-oneship' as ambassadors for Christ, but the office of an apostle was specific to the twelve and Paul. Peter suggested they draw lots and choose a replacement for Judas. Mathias was chosen by lot. He may have been one of the 120 upon whom the Spirit fell at Pentecost; he may also have been one of the "over 500" who witnessed the resurrected Christ personally at the ascension. Whether or not his being chosen was "of God" or "of man" is speculatory. All we do know for certain is that he was picked by the apostles to replace Judas.

I am one who has particular difficulties with people who enjoy wearing the title of "Apostle" or "Prophet" in the church. Most individuals I've met who flaunt this title enjoy lording it over pastors and teachers, and presuppose superiority over them, say they, by virtue of their office.

Thanks for reading,
FHA

It is amazing to me that you sound as though you have a personal vendetta on the subject of Apostleship and modern day Prophets. When it comes to life in the spirit of Jesus Christ you must dop this stuff you harbor in your heart and let forgiveness reign. He says I give you to commandments. Love thy God with all thy heart , thy mind, thy soul and thy strength and then he says that the second one is liken unto it; love thy neighbor as you love thy self. I you really want to know the truth instead of judging those you have come in contact with, talk with them about their call and then you will know. Do not judge what you do not understand. You have to know the function of each, just like a secular job, in order to get the job done properly. Jesus says that he call all five for the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry. Do we still have saints, and babes in Christ? Is there still work that needs to be done in the ministry? If the question is yes, then we still have these offices to accomplish what is in Ephesians chapter four. Do not be decieved by your own conceit or the tricks of the enemy. I am reaching now, but I want to make a point.So what if they are using the title Apostle or Prophet; are they perfecting and teacing the saints? If they are, then what Jesus said isbeing accomplished. I remember when the disciples saw others tjhat were casting out demons that was not apart of the twelve, and they went and complained to Jesus and Jesus says that if they are not against us then they are for us (Luke 9:49-50)49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
Educate yourself before you put information out there that would cause a shism among the bretheren. If we are going to have something to say, let us first search the scriptures under the guidance of the holyspirit, holyghost which ever term you choose to use. It id not our knowledge, it is his. If we get away form our pride and self, then we can learn truth. Jesus says take my yoke and learn of me, meaning you must submit yourself to him and his spirit then you can be taught. A yoke is a tool to lead and to guide animals and livestock, but someone other than the animal puts the yoke upon him, but Jesus telss us to put his yoke upon ourselves so that we can learn of him. Not trying to make ones self look good, but to glorify and represent him. When we do not do that, we are more destructive than instructive. Here is a helpful nugget to all that read this (Proverbs 6:16) These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: 17 A proud [2] look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Please be careful what you put out there. Everyone has an opinion, but this life does not leave room for opinions. We must worship him in SPIRIT and DEFINITELY TRUTH!!!! I love all that read this in the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ!!

[mistercee220]

Apologetics Press - Are There Modern-day Apostles? http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2279


Okay, I'm new to this, but this might help clear a few things up...hope this helps!