Apostolic Succession

[Francis Drake]

Amen, and would you also agree that a person who claims to be an apostle actually places himself above others by then being beyond accountability with the best example would of course be the Pope of the Catholic church.

I agree with you, if you are taking the traditional interpretation of what an apostle is, which I don't.

People have added all sorts of erroneous appendages to the definition of apostle to justify various contradictory theologies. They have completely forgotten that "apostle" is not a special ecclesiastical word, but common Greek like the rest of the NT.

Major, I have read all your commentary on apostles, and have to disagree with your definition, ie. there being no more than the twelve or so named in the NT. To me that theology owes its origin to Rome and I don't buy it.

An apostle of God is someone who has been commissioned by God to represent him in a specific work. In itself just like the other ministries, apostleship gives no power over any other person.
If you eliminate today's Holy Spirit commissioned apostolic ministry just like that, why not also eliminate the rest of the Holy Spirit commissioned ministries.
Oh yes, that's just what they did isn't it?

 

[Grant Melville]

Grant, I agree but Euphemia was calling ME a denominational person as if that is a nasty thing which it is not. I was raised among Charismatic Pentecostals, educated in the Presbyterian faith and now at a late age have chosen to attend a Baptist church.

I would hesitate to call anyone a 'denominational person', just as I wouldn't call someone a 'Romanist' or a 'papist'. It's not my place to judge others, but I have to weigh actions and principles. Denominationalism is really a false principle.

I do believe that the Baptist faith is the closest to Bible teachings that I have personally found which is why I am one.
I am unaware of another Christian faith that operates a Cooperative missionary program as well as they do which drew me to them.
I try my very best to expound the Bible as it is without changes or additions.

Until very recently I had a dear friend, a person who I still love very much even though she no longer wants to have anything to do with me. She views herself as a Baptist, and she said exactly what you've said, that the Baptist faith is closest to Bible teachings. Over the years we knew each other, we had countless long conversations about that in which I tried to open up the truth of the one Body to her - I'm sorry to say that it appears I've failed to do that. What I said to her, and what I would say to every believer who's a member of a denomination, is this: do we really just want to settle for only being 'close' to the truth, or do we want to be fully in it? Are we satisfied with just a part, or do we want to be in line with the full thought of God as to the Church? Missionary work is a great and necessary thing, but it's only a part of the divine plan. The doctrine of Baptism is vital, but it isn't the full scope of the thoughts of God. We, as believers, simply can't settle for less than the full thought. We can't identify ourselves with a fragment of Christendom, with a church built on a doctrine, a nation, a person, and really be in line with the full thought of God. It has to be the full thought, it has to be Christ. "Is the Christ divided?" (1 Corinthians 1:13). We see the Church in this way in the body-coat of Christ: "The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his clothes, and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and the body-coat; but the body-coat was seamless, woven through the whole from the top. They said therefore to one another, Let us not rend it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be..." (John 19:23-24). The Church is seamless, undivided, woven the whole from the top: it's a heavenly thing. The casting of lots for it is really denominationalism - the Church cannot be divided, but there are elements in Christendom which cast their lots for it. Each has their own agenda and particular interest and would go about things the way they think is best - they think the body-coat would be best in their possession - but none are really in the light of the full thought of the Church.

The very sober side of this is that sectarianism is really a practical denial of the truth of the one Body. If a believer is a member of the denomination, they might say they believe in the one Body, but their membership of a sect is a practical denial of what they profess to believe. They might know the truth, but they aren't acting in accordance with it, which is even more serious.

 

[Francis Drake]

I would hesitate to call anyone a 'denominational person', just as I wouldn't call someone a 'Romanist' or a 'papist'. It's not my place to judge others, but I have to weigh actions and principles. Denominationalism is really a false principle.


Until very recently I had a dear friend, a person who I still love very much even though she no longer wants to have anything to do with me. She views herself as a Baptist, and she said exactly what you've said, that the Baptist faith is closest to Bible teachings. Over the years we knew each other, we had countless long conversations about that in which I tried to open up the truth of the one Body to her - I'm sorry to say that it appears I've failed to do that. What I said to her, and what I would say to every believer who's a member of a denomination, is this: do we really just want to settle for only being 'close' to the truth, or do we want to be fully in it? Are we satisfied with just a part, or do we want to be in line with the full thought of God as to the Church? Missionary work is a great and necessary thing, but it's only a part of the divine plan. The doctrine of Baptism is vital, but it isn't the full scope of the thoughts of God. We, as believers, simply can't settle for less than the full thought. We can't identify ourselves with a fragment of Christendom, with a church built on a doctrine, a nation, a person, and really be in line with the full thought of God. It has to be the full thought, it has to be Christ. "Is the Christ divided?" (1 Corinthians 1:13). We see the Church in this way in the body-coat of Christ: "The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his clothes, and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and the body-coat; but the body-coat was seamless, woven through the whole from the top. They said therefore to one another, Let us not rend it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be..." (John 19:23-24). The Church is seamless, undivided, woven the whole from the top: it's a heavenly thing. The casting of lots for it is really denominationalism - the Church cannot be divided, but there are elements in Christendom which cast their lots for it. Each has their own agenda and particular interest and would go about things the way they think is best - they think the body-coat would be best in their possession - but none are really in the light of the full thought of the Church.

The very sober side of this is that sectarianism is really a practical denial of the truth of the one Body. If a believer is a member of the denomination, they might say they believe in the one Body, but their membership of a sect is a practical denial of what they profess to believe. They might know the truth, but they aren't acting in accordance with it, which is even more serious.

Brilliant. Thank you Grant for such crisp clarity!

 

[Francis Drake]

Yes, I see much abuse of authority in today's modern church, across denominations, but, from what I have observed, today's pastors are being taught this, because I hear so many of them all saying the same things, and they are raising themselves above the people, but they need to see themselves as servants, not lords over the people. The reason they do this, I believe, is control over the people. They threaten and they shame the people into blind submission to their leadership, whether or not it is biblical. Well, I could go on and on about this. It breaks my heart that so many are being led astray.

For forty years, I have heard and experienced it.
There is a pernicious doctrine out there that directly equates obeying the leaders with obeying to God. ie. If you don't obey your leaders, you are actively in rebellion against God. It is reinforced with the likes of,-
…1Samuel15v22Samuel said, "Has the LORD as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams. 23"For rebellion is as the sin of divination, And insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He has also rejected you from being king."
The net result is a fear that crushes a person's spirit and completely binds them. It is demonic, and over the years I have frequently cast demons of control, manipulation and witchcraft out of victims of such pastoral abuse.

I know many churches that will only permit membership to those who sign an official agreement, to be completely subject and obedient to the pastor and his team. Faint echoes of Jonestown?

I find it rather strange when we never see Jesus acting like this! In fact Jesus acted in completely the opposite spirit, giving his disciples total freedom to walk away.-
John6v66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

If we are constrained by fear into any level of obedience to the hierarchy, then it is from another spirit that is not holy!

 

[SueJLove]

For forty years, I have heard and experienced it.
There is a pernicious doctrine out there that directly equates obeying the leaders with obeying to God. ie. If you don't obey your leaders, you are actively in rebellion against God. It is reinforced with the likes of,-
…1Samuel15v22Samuel said, "Has the LORD as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams. 23"For rebellion is as the sin of divination, And insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He has also rejected you from being king."
The net result is a fear that crushes a person's spirit and completely binds them. It is demonic, and over the years I have frequently cast demons of control, manipulation and witchcraft out of victims of such pastoral abuse.

I know many churches that will only permit membership to those who sign an official agreement, to be completely subject and obedient to the pastor and his team. Faint echoes of Jonestown?

I find it rather strange when we never see Jesus acting like this! In fact Jesus acted in completely the opposite spirit, giving his disciples total freedom to walk away.-
John6v66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

If we are constrained by fear into any level of obedience to the hierarchy, then it is from another spirit that is not holy!

Francis,

Thank you for sharing these thoughts with me. Although I do believe in the authority structure set out by Jesus and the apostles, and that we are commanded to obey our leaders, and to submit to their authority, we should never submit to man over God, which is what many of these leaders are getting people to do, and that is dangerous. They strong-arm their people into submission to what is sinful and what is against God's will, and what is clearly submission to humans and their teachings, while ignoring the teachings of Christ and those of the apostles (New Testament), in many cases. They threaten, and they shame their people into submission to human organizations, and to human visions and mission statements, and equate these as equal with scripture, or above scripture, in some cases. "Unity" is a buzz word in these human organizations which are called "church," but it is not unity with Christ and his word, but unity with man's business plans and marketing schemes.

I didn't really start noticing this in the church until around the year 2000, not that I did not see abuses of authority prior to that, I did. I just didn't see that this was a global effort to destroy the church, and to render the church useless for God's kingdom work until then. So much false teaching has come into the church. Middle Eastern mysticism is being taught as scripture in many of these churches. Much of this is subtle, and is completely missed by those who are not in the Word of God. So many lies being passed off as truth. So much deception. Consider this: https://cfservant.wordpress.com/2015/07/01/weighed-down-with-sins/

 

[SueJLove]

Yes, I think so too : )

In addition, I personally prefer some kinda of organized or hierarchical leadership : )

Key point: Accountability

There appears from time to time, more than false claims/predictions, more on practices that is not within the requirements of a leader as Paul describe: they go unscathed….

Unlike in an organized structure… they can be kicked out….

Accountability is a key point for sure. Too many pastors are not accountable to anyone. Too many of them are weighed down with sin because of it, too. Pornography addiction and extra-marital affairs are rampant in the pastoral ministry here in America. When they set themselves up as untouchable gods who are not to be questioned, the church becomes more like a cult rather than acting like the church, and that is where many of them have gone these days. If you see this in the church, and if you try to point it out to anyone, to warn them, many have been trained that they are to report it to the pastor who then makes an example of the one who dared to question him, even if it is obvious he is promoting even sexual sin within the church. Oh, how far we have gone.

 

[Steve Campbell]

The last time I checked through Catholic documents on this matter, I did notice that some of their official statements seem to accept (however begrudgingly) that the true church exists beyond their own organisation.

"Dominus Jesus, Oct. 2000," (Pope John Paul II) was creating quite a stir at the time of its release, as it ventured into the area of ecumenicalism. It conceded (if you will) that the Grace of God can be found in many places and in many people, outside the Catholic ranks. It was a big step for them to take that position that was likely believed, but never stated in such a definitive way by a Pope, previously.

In reality, and concept, of course he was correct. God can and does reach down and change willing and open lives, in all walks of society, all ethnic groups, and all religions. We find (I have personally found) many people from many diverse backgrounds and belief systems, who have a deep and functional love for Jesus Christ, and a desire to live for Him.

Billy Graham was big on this, in that he would come to an area after the background work was done by an advance team of Pastors from all faiths in that community, and preach a very non-denominational message of "Jesus."

My own Preacher Grandfather, would be quoted one day, as saying to my "Preacher" father, "Preach Jesus, Dwight; preach Jesus." There is a fundamental truth that needs telling.........it is that Jesus was who He said He was, and IS still, today!! That we have hope in Him, and Him alone.

Of course many different faith persuasions will distort that message in a variety of ways, adding their own particular bend on it............obviously God will sort that out when He is ready........and we have to walk thru those weeds to get down to the root of the message with those folks; but it IS do-able. It may take time, but it can be achieved.

-Soupy

 

[Steve Campbell]

We can see from the Greek words that Jesus is making a specific point.
"You are Peter", which simply means a pebble or rock.

The problem arises, when you and I remember that Jesus wasn't speaking in Greek; He was speaking in Aramaic; (the RCC would point out); and the meaning changes.

-Soupy

 

[Francis Drake]

The problem arises, when you and I remember that Jesus wasn't speaking in Greek; He was speaking in Aramaic; (the RCC would point out); and the meaning changes.

-Soupy

I am not sure what you mean Soupy.
We can only know what Jesus said anywhere and any time via the medium of the original manuscripts which were written in Greek. I doubt that the anointing of God on the gospel writers would permit them to change the meanings of what Jesus said, otherwise we would really be in trouble now.

 

[Major]

I would hesitate to call anyone a 'denominational person', just as I wouldn't call someone a 'Romanist' or a 'papist'. It's not my place to judge others, but I have to weigh actions and principles. Denominationalism is really a false principle.


Until very recently I had a dear friend, a person who I still love very much even though she no longer wants to have anything to do with me. She views herself as a Baptist, and she said exactly what you've said, that the Baptist faith is closest to Bible teachings. Over the years we knew each other, we had countless long conversations about that in which I tried to open up the truth of the one Body to her - I'm sorry to say that it appears I've failed to do that. What I said to her, and what I would say to every believer who's a member of a denomination, is this: do we really just want to settle for only being 'close' to the truth, or do we want to be fully in it? Are we satisfied with just a part, or do we want to be in line with the full thought of God as to the Church? Missionary work is a great and necessary thing, but it's only a part of the divine plan. The doctrine of Baptism is vital, but it isn't the full scope of the thoughts of God. We, as believers, simply can't settle for less than the full thought. We can't identify ourselves with a fragment of Christendom, with a church built on a doctrine, a nation, a person, and really be in line with the full thought of God. It has to be the full thought, it has to be Christ. "Is the Christ divided?" (1 Corinthians 1:13). We see the Church in this way in the body-coat of Christ: "The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his clothes, and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and the body-coat; but the body-coat was seamless, woven through the whole from the top. They said therefore to one another, Let us not rend it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be..." (John 19:23-24). The Church is seamless, undivided, woven the whole from the top: it's a heavenly thing. The casting of lots for it is really denominationalism - the Church cannot be divided, but there are elements in Christendom which cast their lots for it. Each has their own agenda and particular interest and would go about things the way they think is best - they think the body-coat would be best in their possession - but none are really in the light of the full thought of the Church.

The very sober side of this is that sectarianism is really a practical denial of the truth of the one Body. If a believer is a member of the denomination, they might say they believe in the one Body, but their membership of a sect is a practical denial of what they profess to believe. They might know the truth, but they aren't acting in accordance with it, which is even more serious.

I understand your thinking but in all honesty I have to say that you have missed the point.

I know that you will recall that it was Jesus Himself who said to Peter............."And upon this rock I will build my church".
Whatever name we apply to a particular fellowship there is only ONE church and it belongs to NO particular denomination.

Jesus came to seek and save the lost. Those who believed in Him became His church and took on the responsibility that comes with that belief, the commitment to continue the work Christ began.

The mission therefore of the church is to make disciples, to lead people into a growing relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

What I have seen personally is that the people who want to fellowship with us at our choice of church and location is that they are looking for Bible teaching that is both practical and applicable. They are looking for a place that offers opportunities and ministries that meet their needs for their families.

 

[Major]

I agree with you, if you are taking the traditional interpretation of what an apostle is, which I don't.

People have added all sorts of erroneous appendages to the definition of apostle to justify various contradictory theologies. They have completely forgotten that "apostle" is not a special ecclesiastical word, but common Greek like the rest of the NT.

Major, I have read all your commentary on apostles, and have to disagree with your definition, ie. there being no more than the twelve or so named in the NT. To me that theology owes its origin to Rome and I don't buy it.

An apostle of God is someone who has been commissioned by God to represent him in a specific work. In itself just like the other ministries, apostleship gives no power over any other person.
If you eliminate today's Holy Spirit commissioned apostolic ministry just like that, why not also eliminate the rest of the Holy Spirit commissioned ministries.
Oh yes, that's just what they did isn't it?

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me my brother. I am no authority whatsoever. I am once again nothing more than an old country boy conceived in the Promised Land and now dedicated to get out the Word of God as it is written and NOT what I want it to say.

Now having said that, will you please explain the meaning of the Bible verses I posted from Acts 1:21-22................
"Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us

Those verses list 3 qualification for one to be an apostle. IDID NOT HAVE ANY IMPUT ON THIS LIST.
It is however what the Holy Spirit moved upon Peter to say and Dr. Luke to put into print.

1. Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us.
2. beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us-----(Assention).
3. beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us-----(Resurrection).

Do YOU simply ignore these words or change them to suit your way of thinking???? I am not trying to be mean spirited or argumentative in any way. I just am trying to grasp how anyone can change, ignore or reject what is clearly right in front of you.

 

[Major]

A person genuinely anointed with the gift/calling of apostle is not one to trumpet it. One who has such a position is acclaimed by others, and not oneself.

I understand that as well as you but the reality of it is that it does not happen that way. I wish that it did but it simple does not happen.

 

[Major]

Yes one can, and there are no requirements laid down in the word of God for apostle, except that one is born again and is submitted to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

My sister....you have totally ignored post #54. where I posted the Word of God as saying.............

Acts 1:21-22.......
"Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

The Bible SAYS that the Holy Spirit impressed upon Peter to state 3 requirements of an Apostle.
I DID NOT make those comments and direction up!
I had NO imput in those verse being included in the Scriptures, however there they are.

1. "men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us".
2. "to the time when Jesus was taken up from us". (Witness of the Assention).
3. "For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”----(Witness of the Resurrection).

Now I am perplexed how you can continue to say.............
"there are no requirements laid down in the word of God for apostle, except that one is born again and is submitted to the baptism of the Holy Spirit."

How do you in your mind explain away or spiritualize them ----- the clear words spoken by Peter in the Bible verses in Acts 1?????

 

[Major]

This all began because I read a blog of someone's who is reputable in the Christian community, and it concerned me greatly that he was teaching "apostolic succession." Although this subject was new to me, I could tell from what he was writing that this doctrine was not good. He was not teaching the scriptures, but he was teaching a philosophy of human origin and he quoted much from men from the 3rd century, or around that period of time, in order to support his theology. I believed the Lord would have me investigate this further, because I saw how this has been influencing the protestant church here in America for at least 20 years, that I know of. So, I asked for your input. But, I don't believe God would be pleased with us arguing and fighting with each other over words, but for us to see what the scriptures teach concerning the life of the church today, how to avoid false teaching, and how to put on the truth. The post (above) is what the Lord taught me through all of this, and I believe, if you would read it, that it might help clear things up. I don't believe we should get caught up in titles, but we should just be humble servants of Christ.

Sue, you are absolutely correct. But you must know that when you involve people who are flawed (Me), some who are at different levels of understanding and also some who are entrenched in teachings that are different from the Scripture, you will always have disagreements.......ALWAYS!

You see, we are all effected by the sin that God hates the most.......PRIDE! Now of us are willing to admit that we may be wrong.
Even when the Scriptures are posted for all to see and read, we just can not bring ourselves to admit that WE WERE WRONG.

Instead of then growing and learning we dig in and become unmovable and un-teachable. That my sister is the reason why we have "denominations" in Christianity.

I wish it was not the case but honestly, it does not require a doctorate to see it happening day in and day out on EVERY web site.

 

[Major]

For forty years, I have heard and experienced it.
There is a pernicious doctrine out there that directly equates obeying the leaders with obeying to God. ie. If you don't obey your leaders, you are actively in rebellion against God. It is reinforced with the likes of,-
…1Samuel15v22Samuel said, "Has the LORD as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams. 23"For rebellion is as the sin of divination, And insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He has also rejected you from being king."
The net result is a fear that crushes a person's spirit and completely binds them. It is demonic, and over the years I have frequently cast demons of control, manipulation and witchcraft out of victims of such pastoral abuse.

I know many churches that will only permit membership to those who sign an official agreement, to be completely subject and obedient to the pastor and his team. Faint echoes of Jonestown?

I find it rather strange when we never see Jesus acting like this! In fact Jesus acted in completely the opposite spirit, giving his disciples total freedom to walk away.-
John6v66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

If we are constrained by fear into any level of obedience to the hierarchy, then it is from another spirit that is not holy!

I have been in the church business for a long time and what you just posted is why I belong to a Baptist church.

YOU said.........
"I know many churches that will only permit membership to those who sign an official agreement, to be completely subject and obedient to the pastor and his team. Faint echoes of Jonestown?"

As for me......Over the years I have been involved in leadership of SBC churches evangelism committees and I have been in and or affiliated with hundreds of Baptist churches and I have no knowledge of a single church that has that kind of membership agreement. NOT ONE! If it did, I would be the 1st to yell at the top of my lungs to RUN away as fast as possible.

I said that so that others will know that there is no membership qualification such as you stated that are listed in the
"Baptist Statement of Faith" which is available to anyone who has the need to read it, it can be found on line or in any Baptist church.

 

[Euphemia]

The problem arises, when you and I remember that Jesus wasn't speaking in Greek; He was speaking in Aramaic; (the RCC would point out); and the meaning changes.

-Soupy

Actually, the RCC changed it.

 

[SueJLove]

Sue, you are absolutely correct. But you must know that when you involve people who are flawed (Me), some who are at different levels of understanding and also some who are entrenched in teachings that are different from the Scripture, you will always have disagreements.......ALWAYS!

You see, we are all effected by the sin that God hates the most.......PRIDE! Now of us are willing to admit that we may be wrong.
Even when the Scriptures are posted for all to see and read, we just can not bring ourselves to admit that WE WERE WRONG.

Instead of then growing and learning we dig in and become unmovable and un-teachable. That my sister is the reason why we have "denominations" in Christianity.

I wish it was not the case but honestly, it does not require a doctorate to see it happening day in and day out on EVERY web site.

Major, I may have missed this in what you said in all these discussions, but according to what you have said concerning the qualifications for an apostle, according to what was instructed with regard to the replacement of Judas, how does that fit with Paul being an apostle? He was not with Jesus that whole time. He was against Jesus that whole time, I would think, since he was a Pharisee, and since he ended up persecuting Christ's followers. Now, he did live in the time of Jesus, and he most certainly was aware of him, and Jesus did appear to him on the road to Damascus, which I believe, if I remember correctly, Paul saw as an appearance of Christ after his resurrection, so that, in a sense, Paul was witness to Christ's resurrection. That was in reference to a list of appearances Christ made to his disciples after his resurrection, and Paul stated that he lastly appeared to him. But, how does Paul fit with the qualifications of an apostle, which he called himself, which he said he was called of God to do? If you have already answered this in another post, just point me to the post, and that will suffice.

But, let me propose something here. I wonder if you and others here maybe are saying the same thing but maybe just coming at it from different perspectives. If we all believe in the priesthood of the believer, and we look at what is taught scripturally about that, which is what I shared in post #30, and if we compare that to the definition of "apostle" - looking at the Greek word and what it literally means - we would have to come to the conclusion that we are all commissioned by Jesus Christ himself, sent on a mission, as his messengers, and to represent him. “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Pet 2:9).

The point is, all of Christ's followers are apostles of Christ, in a way, and we all have the same scriptural and Holy Spirit authority through faith in Jesus Christ, and we are all fellow-servants of Jesus Christ. We are not one above the other. There is no hierarchy in the Christian faith and practice. We just have different gifts and different areas of responsibility within the body of Christ (different roles), but not one of us is better than the other. We all have the same Holy Spirit and the same ability to hear God speaking his words to our hearts. Yet, we don't have people today who are speaking additional scripture to us. And, I think that is really the point, isn't it? Can we all agree on that? Yet, that does not discount those who are gifted in proclaiming the word of God in practical and applicable ways to our world and lives today. We just don't add to scripture with additional scripture.

 

[Major]

Major, I may have missed this in what you said in all these discussions, but according to what you have said concerning the qualifications for an apostle, according to what was instructed with regard to the replacement of Judas, how does that fit with Paul being an apostle? He was not with Jesus that whole time. He was against Jesus that whole time, I would think, since he was a Pharisee, and since he ended up persecuting Christ's followers. Now, he did live in the time of Jesus, and he most certainly was aware of him, and Jesus did appear to him on the road to Damascus, which I believe, if I remember correctly, Paul saw as an appearance of Christ after his resurrection, so that, in a sense, Paul was witness to Christ's resurrection. That was in reference to a list of appearances Christ made to his disciples after his resurrection, and Paul stated that he lastly appeared to him. But, how does Paul fit with the qualifications of an apostle, which he called himself, which he said he was called of God to do? If you have already answered this in another post, just point me to the post, and that will suffice.

But, let me propose something here. I wonder if you and others here maybe are saying the same thing but maybe just coming at it from different perspectives. If we all believe in the priesthood of the believer, and we look at what is taught scripturally about that, which is what I shared in post #30, and if we compare that to the definition of "apostle" - looking at the Greek word and what it literally means - we would have to come to the conclusion that we are all commissioned by Jesus Christ himself, sent on a mission, as his messengers, and to represent him. “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Pet 2:9).

The point is, all of Christ's followers are apostles of Christ, in a way, and we all have the same scriptural and Holy Spirit authority through faith in Jesus Christ, and we are all fellow-servants of Jesus Christ. We are not one above the other. There is no hierarchy in the Christian faith and practice. We just have different gifts and different areas of responsibility within the body of Christ (different roles), but not one of us is better than the other. We all have the same Holy Spirit and the same ability to hear God speaking his words to our hearts. Yet, we don't have people today who are speaking additional scripture to us. And, I think that is really the point, isn't it? Can we all agree on that? Yet, that does not discount those who are gifted in proclaiming the word of God in practical and applicable ways to our world and lives today. We just don't add to scripture with additional scripture.

Excellent question sister. In the sense that we are all sent out to spread the gospel, YES we are apostles. But that is not the classic idea of what I personally was talking about. I from the beginning was referring to the original apostles who saw Jesus, witnessed His resurrection and assention and were commissioned by Jesus in Mark 16.

Those 12 were given the "Sign Gifts" and were a bridge of authority until the New Test. was written. Many today WANT to believe that they have the SIGN GIFTS as did the original 12 and that is really where the rub is and the arguments come from.

May I say to you that The first qualification of an apostle is that he had to have seen the resurrected Jesus with his own eyes. He had to have been an "eyewitness." That is what Peter says to us in
Acts 1:21-22......
"Therefore, one of the men who have associated with us all the time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning with the baptism of John until the day he was taken up from us, must become a witness with us to his resurrection."

Then to confirm that we see in Acts 1:3.............
"Again, after "he had suffered, he had shown himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them through a period of forty days and telling them about the kingdom of God."

Now Sue, that is what the Scriptures actually say. No addition and no subtraction. Now what do we do with the actual words????
We have TWO CHOICES. Accept them as they are or try to change their meaning to allow them to fit into our theology.

In Paul's writings, he is adamant that he indeed did meet this qualification, even though it was in a very unusual way.

In 1st Corth. 9:1...... Paul, in defense of his apostleship wrote,
"Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?"

Now, doesn't that phrase itself tell us that Paul was an apostle BECAUSE HE HAD SEEN JESUS?

1 Corth. 15:7-9.............
He also said "then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. For I am the least of the apostles".

The second qualification of an apostle is that he received specific appointment by Christ Himself. The term "apostle" is not common in the gospels, yet the disciples are called "apostles" in a context where Jesus commissioned them by "sending" them:

Matthew 10:1-7...............
"JESUS summoned His twelve disciples ... Now the names of the twelve apostles ... These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them...".

Jesus reminds them that they will be His witnesses in Ac. 1:8. When the need arose to replace Judas Iscariot, the eleven apostles went straight to the Lord to reveal His choice of replacement: Acts 1:24..............
"And they prayed and said, You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place. And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles" .

Even Paul insists that his appointment as apostle was by Jesus Himself on the Damascus road in Acts 26:16..........
"But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you;".

 

[Francis Drake]

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me my brother. I am no authority whatsoever. I am once again nothing more than an old country boy conceived in the Promised Land and now dedicated to get out the Word of God as it is written and NOT what I want it to say.

Now having said that, will you please explain the meaning of the Bible verses I posted from Acts 1:21-22................
"Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us

Those verses list 3 qualification for one to be an apostle. IDID NOT HAVE ANY IMPUT ON THIS LIST.
It is however what the Holy Spirit moved upon Peter to say and Dr. Luke to put into print.

1. Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us.
2. beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us-----(Assention).
3. beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us-----(Resurrection).

Do YOU simply ignore these words or change them to suit your way of thinking???? I am not trying to be mean spirited or argumentative in any way. I just am trying to grasp how anyone can change, ignore or reject what is clearly right in front of you.

Hehe, Major, I have watched you repeat these verses again and again and again, and you obviously set great store by them.
Unfortunately you have stretched and stretched and stretched the verses well beyond their proper bounds, and that is your real problem!

Your mistake Major, is in presuming that such a list is the terminal limit, applicable for all apostles, for all time, for all occasions, when in fact Peter was simply addressing their situation at that time, and no more. The eleven were simply looking for a replacement for one of their number. Taking the meaning of "apostle" beyond that situation is following tradition not truth.

So yes, I completely believe those scriptures, but only as the context allows and with no added meanings. I refuse stretch them beyond their legitimate boundary.

Other than tradition, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for your interpretation of those verses. You are slotting your own meaning into the void between Peter's words, because in truth, the verses say absolutely zilch about future apostles or apostles elsewhere in the world.
The verses say what they say, and no more........absolutely no more!

Apostleship is a Greek word that existed before the twelve ever existed.

"Apostle," from Classical Greek ἀπόστολος (apóstolos), meaning "one who is sent away", is a messenger and ambassador. The purpose of such "sending away" is to convey messages, and thus "messenger" is a common alternative translation.

Any additions to this original meaning can only be found by looking at the context of use, such as you have rightly done Acts1.
But once you export the word from that particular context, the added meanings must be left behind in that context. Thus the replacement one of the twelve apostles required those certain qualifications. Whereas the calling of other apostles, for other situations did not demand those limitations, and to insist it does is just plain wrong.

In answer to your final question.
Do YOU simply ignore these words or change them to suit your way of thinking????
As demonstrated, I have neither ignored these words, nor changed their meanings.

I am not trying to be mean spirited or argumentative in any way.
No Major, I don't take that from your posts, which I always enjoy.

I just am trying to grasp how anyone can change, ignore or reject what is clearly right in front of you.
Hehe, I perceive my brother that I have the right to ask this question of you!

 

[Major]

Hehe, Major, I have watched you repeat these verses again and again and again, and you obviously set great store by them.
Unfortunately you have stretched and stretched and stretched the verses well beyond their proper bounds, and that is your real problem!

Your mistake Major, is in presuming that such a list is the terminal limit, applicable for all apostles, for all time, for all occasions, when in fact Peter was simply addressing their situation at that time, and no more. The eleven were simply looking for a replacement for one of their number. Taking the meaning of "apostle" beyond that situation is following tradition not truth.

So yes, I completely believe those scriptures, but only as the context allows and with no added meanings. I refuse stretch them beyond their legitimate boundary.

Other than tradition, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for your interpretation of those verses. You are slotting your own meaning into the void between Peter's words, because in truth, the verses say absolutely zilch about future apostles or apostles elsewhere in the world.
The verses say what they say, and no more........absolutely no more!

Apostleship is a Greek word that existed before the twelve ever existed.

"Apostle," from Classical Greek ἀπόστολος (apóstolos), meaning "one who is sent away", is a messenger and ambassador. The purpose of such "sending away" is to convey messages, and thus "messenger" is a common alternative translation.

Any additions to this original meaning can only be found by looking at the context of use, such as you have rightly done Acts1.
But once you export the word from that particular context, the added meanings must be left behind in that context. Thus the replacement one of the twelve apostles required those certain qualifications. Whereas the calling of other apostles, for other situations did not demand those limitations, and to insist it does is just plain wrong.

In answer to your final question.
Do YOU simply ignore these words or change them to suit your way of thinking????
As demonstrated, I have neither ignored these words, nor changed their meanings.

I am not trying to be mean spirited or argumentative in any way.
No Major, I don't take that from your posts, which I always enjoy.

I just am trying to grasp how anyone can change, ignore or reject what is clearly right in front of you.
Hehe, I perceive my brother that I have the right to ask this question of you!

I have purposefully repeated them not because I like them or hold any great store in them although I do, my point in doing so is because NO ONE will answer them my brother. So far not one single person has answered them including this post I am now responding to.

The question is NOT the meaning of the word APOSTLE as we all agree that it means "sent one". My contention is that the original 11 led by Peter in Acts listed 3 requirements for the next Apostle to be chosen had to meet. It is just that simple.

What I am saying can not be a mistake as all I am doing is posting what Peter said. If I am making a mistake then what you are saying is Peter made the mistake having been led by the Holy Spirit. Personally I would not be comfortable with that but that is just me. I am not extending the meaning at all, just posting what was actually said. I have added absolutely nothing to the meaning at all.

If the requirements were valid THEN why are they all of a sudden NOT valid today????? That is my question. When did the requirements disappear? What Book, chapter and verse???

Paul also lists the requirements for a deacon and a pastor in Timothy. Are they valid today???

And YES, you are welcome to ask me anything. I enjoy the conversation!!! If I wasn't doing this I would have to be washing the dog.