The New Apostolic Reformation

[Hitch]

We are by no means the first century church. We are set in our own portion of history by God's sovereign act, to live and die bearing the fruit of the kingdom in the present.

 

[presidente]

We are by no means the first century church. We are set in our own portion of history by God's sovereign act, to live and die bearing the fruit of the kingdom in the present.

Where does the Bible teach us what the non-first-century church is going to be like and which parts of the Bible written in the time of the first-century church are not supposed to apply?

 

[Hitch]

Where does the Bible teach us what the non-first-century church is going to be like and which parts of the Bible written in the time of the first-century church are not supposed to apply?

Where does the Bible teach us what the non-first-century church is going to be like and which parts of the Bible written in the time of the first-century church are not supposed to apply?

Jesus taught that the kingdom would grow in history. This means more than just numbers. We are called to maturity, not to dance around old camp grounds forever.
To the second part. Jesus sent the disciples out to raise the dead, how many have you raised this week ?

 

[presidente]

Jesus taught that the kingdom would grow in history. This means more than just numbers. We are called to maturity, not to dance around old camp grounds forever.
To the second part. Jesus sent the disciples out to raise the dead, how many have you raised this week ?

I suspect the apostles did not raise the dead every week. We see two resurrections Jesus did. It is not clear if Eutychus was dead in Acts. The apostles had the power to raise the dead when they went out on that first journey.

But why would you think the apostles were less mature than we are? That's a strange way of thinking, IMO. Do you ever experience, after already having been a believer for a while, you see something in scripture you had read before, but it finally clicks and you get it? Maybe you see a link between Paul's epistles or the Old Testament and you get something Paul knew but you just realized? If that ever happens to you, then it does not make sense to think the apostles were children in their understanding and that we are like adults.

 

[Hitch]

I suspect the apostles did not raise the dead every week. We see two resurrections Jesus did. It is not clear if Eutychus was dead in Acts. The apostles had the power to raise the dead when they went out on that first journey.

But why would you think the apostles were less mature than we are? That's a strange way of thinking, IMO. Do you ever experience, after already having been a believer for a while, you see something in scripture you had read before, but it finally clicks and you get it? Maybe you see a link between Paul's epistles or the Old Testament and you get something Paul knew but you just realized? If that ever happens to you, then it does not make sense to think the apostles were children in their understanding and that we are like adults.

Yawn, you can probably get away with putting words in peoples mouths , but not with me, Im used that nonsense.

 

[presidente]

Yawn, you can probably get away with putting words in peoples mouths , but not with me, Im used that nonsense.

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth. I asked questions focused on the idea of 'maturity'. Why would the type of things done in that era be considered immature? What specifically in scripture do you have in mind for 'grow in history' and why would that make the church not look like what is presented (or presented as normative) in scripture for how the church should look? Why would the sending of ministers to reach unreached areas not resemble what we see in Acts? Should it be done away with? Should our 'pattern' for it be something extrabiblical?

 

[Hitch]

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth. I asked questions focused on the idea of 'maturity'. Why would the type of things done in that era be considered immature? What specifically in scripture do you have in mind for 'grow in history' and why would that make the church not look like what is presented (or presented as normative) in scripture for how the church should look? Why would the sending of ministers to reach unreached areas not resemble what we see in Acts? Should it be done away with? Should our 'pattern' for it be something extrabiblical?

The canon of Scripture had yet to be decided.
Mat 13.

That answers the first two things you brought up, the rest is just more of your tactics, not interested.

 

[presidente]

The canon of Scripture had yet to be decided.
Mat 13.

That answers the first two things you brought up, the rest is just more of your tactics, not interested.

Why would canon of scripture be decided change how scripture applies to the church? Does having a canon make part of it not apply anymore? What is the reasoning behind the canon of scripture comment?

 

[Hitch]

Why would canon of scripture be decided change how scripture applies to the church? Does having a canon make part of it not apply anymore? What is the reasoning behind the canon of scripture comment?

LOL I dont believe this is a serious question, cant tbelieve might be a better way to put it.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Why don't you just make up what 'Twelve Apostles of the Lamb' means, and try to create a contradiction with other scripture? Wouldn't your reasoning also lead one to conclude that Barnabas, Silvanus and Timothy were false?

No it would not. Jesus promised the twelve apostles TWELVE THRONES from which they would be judging the TWELVE TRIBES of Israel. So there are only TWELVE apostles of the Lamb. The ones you mentioned were companions of the apostles.

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Rev 21"14)

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Mt 19:28)

That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Lk 22:30)

Twelve is the number of divine government. Hence there are twelve tribes of Israel, and only twelve apostles of the Lamb. And within the Church God doubles that number so that we see 24 elders surrounding the throne of God in Heaven. Elders were to govern churches.

 

[SophieT]

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth. I asked questions focused on the idea of 'maturity'. Why would the type of things done in that era be considered immature? What specifically in scripture do you have in mind for 'grow in history' and why would that make the church not look like what is presented (or presented as normative) in scripture for how the church should look? Why would the sending of ministers to reach unreached areas not resemble what we see in Acts? Should it be done away with? Should our 'pattern' for it be something extrabiblical?

should our pattern for it be something extrabiblical.....

well that makes total sense in this thread

I bet your favorite expression is 'let's circle back'

 

[SophieT]

I see in the Bible a number of elders appointed from within the very church they are a part of. I see in scripture elders charged with pastoring the church/flock of God.

I see in scripture 'every one of you' sharing a psalm, teaching, tongue, revelation or interpretation-- unto edifying, with more instruction to set parameters and clarify that. I see where Paul commanded the church to let the prophets speak two or three and to let the other judge, and 'for ye may all prophesy' one by one.

But I go to church and I see one pastor. I see him giving one sermon. I see hierarchical titles not found in scripture like 'senior pastor'. But I see Jesus is the chief Pastor in I Peter 5.

Are these churches false? Do the leaders all have no grace to lead or teach?

I also see in scripture that members of the body of Christ can be sent. The Spirit can send, and then the men sent recognized as 'apostles'. The church is not left without scripture that shows how 'the work' can be continued. I see in Ephesians 4 that Jesus gave gifts, including apostles, after the ascension, though the original Twelve were appointed before it.

But I can go to churches and see no application of this or conflicting ideas. I can encounter Christians in these churches who consider the idea of an 'apostle' doing ministry these days to be blasphemy or heresy, with no scripture rightly interpreted that backs that up.

And then I can go to churches where 'apostle' is used for a church leader who is basically creating another layer of hierarchy, trying to be a 'senior pastor' to 'junior pastors.' His layer of hierarchy is called 'apostle' and theirs 'senior pastor' and neither title is in scripture.

If I'm going to consider this last category with their fuzzy hierarchical idea of 'apostle' as unbelieving heretics, why wouldn't I consider all the 'senior pastor' churches the same way? Why wouldn't I think the same way of churches that have board 'elders' but call a 'pulpit minister' an 'evangelist?' I do not see these different patterns of ecclesiology in scripture.

But does that mean that no one in any of these movements has any grace to minister? Do people come to faith in Christ through their ministry? Do those who come to faith learn the word of God and grow? Do they have any spiritual gifts that minister to others? Do they bear the types of fruits in their lives that the Bible talks about.

I could find someone in either the regular 'senior pastor' evangelical churches or the NAR type 'apostle' groups who taught some serious error or sinned, probably, if I started digging. Does that mean no one else that we put these labels on has good fruit?

I also look in the Bible and see messes in churches. The Corinthians are probably the best example. They probably did not understand spiritual gifts. They were dividing into groups-- apparently some were labeling themselves after their favorite ministers. There was even a fornicator having sex with his own step-mother. If he took his father's widow to wife or if it was even more shocking of a scenario, I do not know. Paul did not use the word 'adultery' there. But they were tolerating this sin and shouldn't. Then Paul warned them about all kinds of sin, idolatry, adultery, same-sex sex between men, and went into detail a bit about why not to have sex with a prostitute. What were these people into?

And doctrinally, there were people saying there was no resurrection of the dead! An attack on a core doctrine of the Christian faith.

But he considered them to be believers, and there were people among them operating in genuine gifts of the Spirit. Churches can be messy. I try not to be too quick to dismiss others as unbelievers. And those who are quick to do so often have some kind of doctrinal issues themselves, and sometimes their accusations are at least partly based on their perspective as someone with doctrinal error.

As far as who God has saved, that is up to God. We as believers have to have concern about who we fellowship with, eat with, etc. So there are some practical issues.

@SophieT @Rhomphaeam

 

[presidente]

No it would not. Jesus promised the twelve apostles TWELVE THRONES from which they would be judging the TWELVE TRIBES of Israel. So there are only TWELVE apostles of the Lamb. The ones you mentioned were companions of the apostles.

If your reasoning that modern apostles have to be false apostles because there were 12 apostles of the Lamb, then the same reasoning could be applied to the extra 5 or 7 or so other apostles mentioned by name in scripture. There were 12 apostles of the Lamb, but there were more than 12 apostles, and some of those other apostles were 'apostles of Christ.' See I Thessalonians 2:6-7 for a Biblical use of that term.

If 12 is the number of government and the 12 apostles will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, then it is worth noting that Paul described himself as the apostle to the Gentiles. He also wrote about how Jesus appeared to the Twelve before appearing to himself, excluding himself from that number by his own words. A straightforward reading of the Gospels would have Judas iscariot hung and not a witness of the resurrection. Matthias was a witness of the resurrection before Paul, so it makes sense that the passage there in I Corinthians 15 acknowledges Matthias as the 12th apostle.

 

[presidente]

should our pattern for it be something extrabiblical.....

well that makes total sense in this thread

I bet your favorite expression is 'let's circle back'

Shaka when the walls fell!

I read your words. I do not get your point.

There are plenty of extra-biblical patterns people follow for church-related issues. There are plenty of traditions to draw from, and some religious people make up ways of doing things and others imitate. This is really common with US evangelicals.

 

[presidente]

LOL I dont believe this is a serious question, cant tbelieve might be a better way to put it.

I think we might have both been using phones. I could have worded mine better, and your spelling is a little wonky on that last post.

What I am saying is there a reason to believe that when the canon is completed, parts of the Bible about what the church should be like should no longer apply?

That's the problem I see with some cessationists--- 'the reason they did things X way in the Bible is because the canon had not been completed'. Or 'The reason God did X and Y was because the canon was not complete.' If you press them to open up the scriptures and show where it says that this major shift will happen after the canon is complete, and that parts of the New Testament are not applicable after the canon is complete, that is a problem for them. I can think of one proof-text that is used, but poorly applied.

 

[Hitch]

I think we might have both been using phones. I could have worded mine better, and your spelling is a little wonky on that last post.

What I am saying is there a reason to believe that when the canon is completed, parts of the Bible about what the church should be like should no longer apply?

That's the problem I see with some cessationists--- 'the reason they did things X way in the Bible is because the canon had not been completed'. Or 'The reason God did X and Y was because the canon was not complete.' If you press them to open up the scriptures and show where it says that this major shift will happen after the canon is complete, and that parts of the New Testament are not applicable after the canon is complete, that is a problem for them. I can think of one proof-text that is used, but poorly applied.

Call me after you raise a few folks from the dead.

 

[SophieT]

If you look at these threads, topics can be broader than the OP or narrower, or veer off on tangets. The A in NAR is apostolic. You aren't a moderator are you? If a moderator tells me my posts are too far off topic, I'll listen. But if you aren't, I don't care that much about whether you think my posts are on topic. I think your interpretation of what is an appropriate range of discussion for a topic like this is unreasonable, or else I just wonder if you are subconciously seeking some emotional drama and are trying to stir up a bit of conflict over some small thing.

it shouldn't take a moderator

the op is clear and yet you manage to disregard it and take opportunity to express your thoughts on just about everything with no support other than I think, I saw, I suppose, I this and I that

you do not like my straight forward responses and so you resort to an ad hominin attack with regards to wanting drama...I suppose because I am female. that is a pitiful example of your own angst about women

your posts are not on topic. your posts, for the most part, consist of you trying to massage the Bible into your own ideas and if it were not for your desire to speak about yourself, I doubt we would see much of you

looking over your posts we see one long rambling psychological exposé about your own doubts and lack of understanding. people reveal who they are whether they think so or not

and yes I know that applies to me also and I am not worried about it.

 

[Hitch]

it shouldn't take a moderator

the op is clear and yet you manage to disregard it and take opportunity to express your thoughts on just about everything with no support other than I think, I saw, I suppose, I this and I that

you do not like my straight forward responses and so you resort to an ad hominin attack with regards to wanting drama...I suppose because I am female. that is a pitiful example of your own angst about women

your posts are not on topic. your posts, for the most part, consist of you trying to massage the Bible into your own ideas and if it were not for your desire to speak about yourself, I doubt we would see much of you

looking over your posts we see one long rambling psychological exposé about your own doubts and lack of understanding. people reveal who they are whether they think so or not

and yes I know that applies to me also and I am not worried about it.

Well said.

 

[presidente]

it shouldn't take a moderator

the op is clear and yet you manage to disregard it and take opportunity to express your thoughts on just about everything with no support other than I think, I saw, I suppose, I this and I that

I occasionally use those phrase. I also have argued very specifically from scripture for doctrinal stances on the issue. I have read the OP. Evaluating the doctrinal strengths and weaknesses of what the NAR actually believe in light of scripture seems to be within the bounds and norms of the forum. I moderate a rather narrow forum elsewhere, and I've moderated broader forums. If the mods or owners want to set some narrower parameters, I would respect that.

But if you don't like what I think the parameters of such a discussion are, that's tough. You don't have any right to tell me what to do. You don't have to be in control of people. Why not relax a little, calm down, take a deep breath, go out side, get a little fresh air, pray a bit? If you don't like something on a forum, you don't have to read it. If you don't like the style or breadth of discussion, you can just not say anything, like I suppose most other do. If you haven't read it, you shouldn't make broad comments on other people's posts. If you take issue with the doctrinal content of my posts, I don't mind if

you do not like my straight forward responses and so you resort to an ad hominin attack with regards to wanting drama...I suppose because I am female. that is a pitiful example of your own angst about women

I have asked a rude and poorly behaved male posters on the Internet whether he had internal desire for drama. If that makes you think of women liking drama, read the Proverbs about quarrelsome women and consider whether there is something there that makes women come to mind, and meditate on what you can learn from them for your own life. You are constantly getting into this little arguments with people about nothing. I've seen it with other posters from time to time. For this thread, you seem to think I am a target.

your posts are not on topic. your posts, for the most part, consist of you trying to massage the Bible into your own ideas and if it were not for your desire to speak about yourself, I doubt we would see much of you

You seem to think in a very wooden way. Maybe you aren't open to aspects of the Bible that do not fit your preconceived notions, or many you skip over my posts but want to comment on them anyway. If you have issues with the specifics of Bible interpretation, quote them and let's discuss it. That's in keeping with the nature of the forum. But do you see anyone else starting quarrels with other posters along the lines of yours with me in this thread?

looking over your posts we see one long rambling psychological exposé about your own doubts and lack of understanding. people reveal who they are whether they think so or not

I am a human being. At times I do not understand God's will in certain things. If you can't relate to that, maybe you aren't introspective, or maybe you just do not want others to know you don't know everything or cannot admit it to yourself. Some of us go through a process to determine what decision to make or how to discern the will and work of God... at times. At times it can be easy or one can get really specific direction.

 

[presidente]

Call me after you raise a few folks from the dead.

If you want to research modern reports of resurrections from the dead, you can do so. I believe Keener may have some research on that in his 1200+ page volume 'Miracles'. It seems to have been a rather rare miracle throughout scripture and also today.

But why would you require that I personally raise someone from the dead before being able to answer why you think parts of the New Testament no longer apply? What about 'we walk by faith, and not by sight." Shouldn't we believe the teachings of scripture and seek to understand them even if we haven't seen every little type of thing God may do mentioned in it in our own personal experience?