82% of Brits think religion does more harm than good

[Bono]

2) That God appointed in the hierarchy of the church, according to 1Cor 12:28, first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues?

Are you a charismatic, j-man?

[Bono]

2) That God appointed in the hierarchy of the church, according to 1Cor 12:28, first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues?

Are you a charismatic, j-man?

Charismatic?  As in what way?

I should have placed that passage in quotes, for it was directly taken from scripture:

1Cor 12:28 "And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues."

But, the answer to your query lies in the series of rhetorical questions in the immediately following passage:

1Cor 12:29-30 “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues?”

Actually, the answer to my query lies in another passage, which alos follows that one, but not so immediately, and in what you make of it:
1 Corinthians 13:8 8Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.

I am not seeking a debate here, just trying to understand your position.

EDIT: Not just that, but it seems to me that you're advocating teh continuance of the apostolic office in the modern church. Am I getting your point right?

[Bono]

EDIT: Not just that, but it seems to me that you're advocating teh continuance of the apostolic office in the modern church. Am I getting your point right?

1Cor 12:28 [God appointed] first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues, 


Apostle (noun) - a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders. (Aside from the Twelve, such a title was also given to Matthias, Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, and Silvanus.)

Why would I not believe that God still chooses people giving them orders to relay a certain message?

I'll leave out the other stuff, because as I said, I am not looking for a debate on Charismatism, because it's an area of study with which I am not very aquainted with. The best I can do is recomend you John MacArthur's book Charismatic Chaos, at least for a different perspective.

However, I think this warrants exploration. Let's check the qualification for apostleship the Bible presents us:

Acts 1:22-23 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection

Notice two requirements: 1) company with Christ during His earthly ministry until His ascension, and 2) witness of the resurrected Lord. These were the qualifications which had to be met by the new twelfth apostle, who, as it turned out, was Matthias. Clearly, this eliminates any present day apostleship.

It seems that the second qualification is what the New Testament specifically emphasizes. Paul cited it in defense of his own apostleship: "Have I not seen Jesus Christ?" (I Corinthians 9:1). This would also reveal that these requirements apply not only to that elite group of "the twelve," other apostles excepted, as it is sometimes argued. The qualification stands for all who would claim apostleship.

The requirement is clear: no man can be an apostle who has not been a witness to the risen Lord. So unless someone is willing to claim that his age is more than twice that of Methuselah, there is no gift of apostleship today. The qualifications for it simply cannot be met.

The credentials of Christ's apostles also included the ability to perform miracles. Jesus Himself gave this power to the twelve when He commissioned them (Matthew 10:1). Again in defending his apostleship to the Corinthians Paul mentioned this as something which identified him as a true apostle: "Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds" (II Corinthians 12:12).

The apostles were miracle workers who could bear personal witness to the risen Lord.

Thus, my case against the possibility of the continuance of the apostolic office is:
1) The qualifications for the office cannot be met today

2) The nature of their work prohibits their continuance -- they were foundational with a revelatory ministry; the church now is in the superstructure phase of its building, and revelations have ceased

3) The ability to perform sign gifts, the accompanying credentials of the apostles, is absent today

4) Paul was the last apostle.

5) No one today has such absolute authority over the churches. Pastoral authority and leadership is one thing, but apostolic authority is quite another. Furthermore, no one today has the privilege of doctrinal infallibility as did the apostles (the pope's claims to the contrary notwithstanding). Quite the contrary, Christians today are simply to measure all teachings by the foundation-standard given by the apostles themselves

6) New Testament examples of successors to the apostles (eg, Timothy and Titus) are never called apostles or regarded with full apostolic authority. They were to carry on the apostle's work as, in a sense, all Christians are, but genuine apostolic succession was never considered; indeed, those first generation Christians themselves recognized the uniqueness of the apostles of Christ.

7) The early church (just after the apostles) recognized their absence.

[Bono]

I'll leave out the other stuff, because as I said, I am not looking for a debate on Charismatism, because it's an area of study with which I am not very aquainted with. The best I can do is recomend you John MacArthur's book Charismatic Chaos, at least for a different perspective.

Without further ado, would you kindly state for the record what aspects of my religious beliefs fall into the category of “Chaos”?!

Does belief in the gifts of tongues fall into that category? 

If so, are you saying that the entire church in Acts 2 was “chaotic” because they believed in the speaking of tongues?

Acts 1:4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

Are you saying that Paul was also “chaotic”?

1Cor 14:18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.

I didn't title that book, MacArthur or his editor did. The latter, I suspect, since it makes for a fancy alliteration. I am recomending it for its content, not for the title.
As for Acts 2, the "tongues" there were definitely foreign languages, not some "heavenly language", otherwise the foreigners wouldn't have been able to understand the Apostles.
The bok covers many chaotic aspects, such as phony miracle workers, people who claim to recieve new direct revelation from God, etc.

The requirement is clear: no man can be an apostle who has not been a witness to the risen Lord. So unless someone is willing to claim that his age is more than twice that of Methuselah, there is no gift of apostleship today. The qualifications for it simply cannot be met.

If you are using that as a requirement for the definition of the word “Apostle”, then pray tell how Barnabas qualifies for the title, for the bible explicitly refers to him as an “apostle”?

Acts 14:14 “But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this...” (NIV)

Acts 14:14 “Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of…” (KJV)

Are you disagreeing with the Bible’s claim that Barnabas was an “apostle”?

No. Are you disagreeing with the Bible when it says that a witness of the living Jesus is necessary for apostleship? This just means that Barnabas must have had some form of witness.

Only fifteen people in the BIble are bestowed with the title of Apostle--the Eleven, Matthias, James, Barnabas and Paul. It is patent that this is a closed-knit group which admited no other company.Others are called apostles (II Corinthians 8:23 and Philippians 2:25), but these are church apostles. There is no small difference between one commissioned by and representing a church and one personally commissioned by and representing Jesus Christ! These were the men with the unique honor and authority in the church. There were also apostolic legates, such as Timothy and Titus, who possessed some degree of authority as well, but their authority was invested by the apostle Paul, not by Christ directly. Their authority was not absolute as it was with the apostles. A man today claiming apostleship should carefully consider the implications of such a claim.
Anyways, if not personal wtiness to Christ, which test do you propose for determining apostleship today?

[Bono]

, MacArthur or his editor did. The latter, I suspect, since it makes for a fancy alliteration. I am recomending it for its content, not for the title.

Again, what was the point in you citing the book?

The point was that, given my lack of knowledge in this area, I was pointing you to a knowledgeable source to present you the cessasionist point.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. Are you disagreeing with the Bible when it says that a witness of the living Jesus is necessary for apostleship?  THis just means that Barnabas must have had some form of witness.

Or, this just means you have redefined the Greek word to fit your religious beliefs.

You act as if Christianity coined the Greek word “apostle” (apostolos).  It did NOT.

The Greek word “apostolos” simply means “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders”

Look it up in any Greek Lexicon.  You will find that Christianity did NOT invent the Greek word.

I am not redifining anything.

" Apostle"

The term "apostle" (Greek, apostolos) simply means, "a sent one." An apostle is a messenger, an ambassador. The idea is that of representation: an apostle is a personal representative for the one(s) who sent him. He comes in the place of, representing the interests of, and bringing a message from someone else.

" Apostle of the Church"

An apostle of a church, then, is one sent by a particular church to represent that church's interests and/or deliver its message. Paul mentions that Epaphroditus was the apostle from the church at Philippi: "Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellow soldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants" (Philippians 2:25). The Greek word here translated "messenger" is apostolos. The relationship between Paul and the Philippian church was a close one, and this is one indication of it: they sent a messenger to assist Paul in his labors for Christ. He (Epaphroditus) was their apostle; he represented the church at Philippi to the apostle Paul. II Corinthians 8:23 also mentions such church apostles ("messengers," Greek, apostoloi).

" Apostle of Christ"

The gift of apostleship, however, refers to that carefully select group of men who were the personal representatives of Jesus Christ Himself. "Apostle of Christ" is a much more specific and technical use of the term "apostle." In a sense, all Christians are to be apostles for Jesus Christ, but this gift of apostleship belonged only to a very few. An apostle of Christ was a personal messenger of Jesus Christ, sent by the Lord Himself. He was a vicar of Christ (if you will pardon the expression!). He was one who represented the interests of Jesus Christ to men.

Now answer my question. How do you propose to determine apostolic claims today?