red is the color of choice.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Recent comments in Green below.----- Original Message -----From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 2:47 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets-------------- Original message --------------
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The job of the apostles was not to write the Bible, Matthew, Mrak (probably under the supervision of the Apostle Peter), John's gospel and letters, Paul's authorship including Hebrews, James, and (perhaps) Titus author all of the NT books except three (Luke/Acts and Jude) !!!!I'm talking Bible and you are talking NT. Still, most apostles wrote nothing that made it to the Bible, and probably most of what the apostles said or did never made it to the Bible. Writing the Bible was not the job of the apostles. why do you change the context of the discussion? Yes , I am sepaking of the NT. IT WAS MY POST YOU ARE RESPONDING TO -- so I assume You are talking about the same thing I AM talking about. Just another example of mono v mono.and the apostles did not suddenly disappear once the Bible was "complete." The recording of "scripture" ended with the death of John. Coincidence? I think not.The idea that the Scriptures were being recorded, and this suddenly stopped when John died, is bogus. Men of God wrote and this kind of writing was done before John and after John. Hundreds of years later, some of these writings were canonized as Scripture. You got me , here. I have no idea what you are talking about, unless you late date some of the NT scritpures. Wouldn't surprise me.Most of the apostles left us no Scripture at all, including the chief apostle, Jesus Christ himself. true. And I am not saying that they all did.I hope you agree that MOST apostles left us no Scripture at all. You might try reading the sentence IMMEDIATELY preceding your sentence above. Short memory ????But, if we were to delete Luke/Acts and Jude, we would still have all of NT teaching - and all of it done by or under the tutelage of the apostles.Why now add "under the tutelage of the apostles"? What is wrong with accepting the fact that most of the Bible was written by prophets, and that some of the apostles made significant contributions to it? Again, I will insist on talking about the NT scriptures. For the sake of this discussion, I really do not care who wrote the bible -- only who wrote the N. T. You have a problem with "under the tutelage of the apostles"?? I beleive Mark was supervised by Peter. And Paul spoke of others writng some of his letters -- they were written under his tutelage. Let me put it to you this wise -- ALL OF NEW COVENANT DOCTRINE WAS GIVEN TO US BY AN APOSTLE, WHETHER , PETER, JAMES, PAUL, MATTHEW OR JOHN. I believe this to be the keys to the kingdom.Most authors of the Bible were not apostles. We have Matthew, John, Paul, Peter and James writing 23 books and three writers authoring 4 books. It is doubtful that James the Lord's brother was an apostle and yet, 21 lines from now (not counting salutations and headings) you argue for the apostleship of James !!Sorry... this is one of those "brain fart" times. I don't know what I was thinking at the time I wrote this. James was an apostle. It is obvious to me. John is wrong and must be opposed. so we start writing before our brain kicks into gear.and Jude the Lord's brother probably was not either. The author below did not comment on Mark that author thought DM was aware of the opinion of many that Peter supervised the writing of Mark and gave Mark most of his information - since Mark was not around Christ as far we any of us knowI am aware that many scholars view most of Mark's information to come from Peter, but I am not aware of the idea that Peter directly supervised its writing. As for Mark not being around at the time of Christ, Hippolytus names Mark as one of the seventy appointed by Jesus in Luke 10. Hippolytus of 340 AD ??? Use him for an authority if you wish. I don't I believe that Mark (as well as Luke) was around during the ministry of Jesus, and that he was one of those probably under consideration to replace Judas Iscariot. Thanks for your opinion on this. We disagree.or this other Jude Jude was , indeed, an oversight but my point remains as restated above when he says, "with this group of men, we have the writings of all the NT scripture..."&n bsp; Then the author here casts modern day theologians into prophets? Such could not be further from the truth. The theologians of today are more analogous to the scribes of Jesus day. Think about it."Prophet" as in apostles and prophets, the foundation of the household of God (Eph 2:20) can have one of [at least] two meanings. The first, a prophet as one who predicts the future and the second, as one who reveals or explains the revelation of God. I think the later notion gives us a better fit, the apostles loose and bind, present revelation and the prophet (for all ages) continues to illuminate this revelation. I can't insist on this idea as excathedra, but I can certainly teach it.There are many other definitions that could be considered, but the problem you are having is contrasting teachers and prophets. Teachers explain revelation. Prophets give revelation directly from the Spirit. I use the term as one who builds up the church (Cor 14:4-5). The prophet , here is greater than he who speaks in a tongue UNLESS the tongues speaker interprets...... why? Bacause, in this passage, it is the prohet who interprets and in so doing, builds up the church. I call this a "theologian." I use the term in the sense of "theologian" becasue, in I Cor 14: 3, Paul speaks of the three fold function of the prophet -- given to the church for co mforting, consoluation and strengthening. It is this idea of "prophet" that presents the foundation of the church. With this idea, and it is a legitimate option, the apostles and prophet s are married into the same ministry -- the giving of the message and the continuation of that message.The effect of this teaching is important. If one is a prophet, has the ability to present and explain and excite the mind of the student and he/she does not --------------- what does that mean for them personally? If Bill Taylor, for example, is gifted with the ability to tie Chruch history and the Revelation of the written word and the reality of the Living Christ together into something that is a t least understood by the evangelist, the pastor, the teacher and he decides to do something else -- well, how should he view his stewardship of the gift given?It sounds to me like he should view his stewardship as that of a teacher. How does Bill Taylor see his stewardship? Why don't you ask him? Does he consider himself a prophet? I believe that he might consider himself a theologian.... and that is my point. Why don't I ask him??? because I am talking about how I consider him. Why do I need to ask Bill about what I think of him and his place in the church?I knew one man who was a very gifted teacher, but then he began to think himself to be an apostle. It had terrible results for the body of Christ. Teachers should be considered teachers, and thank God for that gift, rather than trying to cast themselves into something else. Yes, when men claim to be what they are not, they do themselves and others harm.And then there is the false assertion that all the miracles of the NT were performed by Jesus or one of the apostles. Let's look at what John actually said, shall we: The apostles were charged with world mission, binding and loosing and the performace of miracles as an extension (in the Spirit) of who they were. All the recorded miracles of the NT scripture are performed by Jesus or one of the apostles. The phrase "as an extension of who they were" is very important to me. All of what was promised in Mark 16: applies to the apostles.First we see Perry applying it only to eleven apostles, but now you are applying it to all the apostles. Why?Peter could walk by and people were healed. Paul could be hung on the wall of a jail cell, knowing all the while that God had placed his opponents into his hands - that he would be the victor. Stephen is an exceptional case. He is singled out in scripture as being full o f faith and the Spirit and power.Stephen is not "singled out." I disagree. I refer you to Acts 6:5. He is given description that sets him apart from the others. There are others, and it was not considered uncommon You have lost track of the fact that these 7 deasons were chosen by the 12 so that the apostles could give themselves to the destribution of the word. I believe these 7 men functioned as an extention of the 12 apostles. The 12 chose them, prayed for them and layed hands on them. They were not a common group of men !!!or strange. Jesus appointed SEVENTY in Luke 10. Why? What is Jesus teaching us here by appointing SEVENTY to do the same job that he had the TWELVE doing in Luke 9? I am talking after the cross, NT scripture, the setting into the church those whose function included the work of an apostle, a prophet, an evangelist, a pastor , a teacher. Before the cross and after the cross are very important considerations for me. We observe the evangelist Philip having similar miracles. Is he also an exception to your rule? They were empowered by the 12.I certainly do not beleive that miracles ended with the passing of the apostles !!Good! whatever.God continues to use men and women to this day to accomplish even the miraculous - it is a gift, one of many. But I do not believe in "faith healers." And why? Because I believe that only the apostles could do such things by way of ministry assignment , as a result of who they were and not just how they were gifted. The apostles were the complete package.When you say that "only the apostles could do such things," you have become a teacher of extra-Biblical revelation. The Bible makes it very clear that others besides the apostles did these things. Furthermore, there have been many who have done such things. What do you think the founder of your church, Aimee Semple McPherson, would say about your anti-faith healer theology? If healings occurred, they were not because Aimee Semple was a "faith hearler." There are no "faith healers" in the present day Four Square church.There is no reason to believe that they continued beyond the first century (except, perhaps, John).No reason? Are you claiming that nobody beyond the first century ever did these things? I am saying that no one, after the death of John, functioned as an apostle.Consider Ananais who brought sight back to Saul and imparted to him the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and Stephen who did many miracles among the people, as did the evangelist Philip, preaching in Samaria. I do not agree with your conclusion about Ananais. Stephen was gifted with faith and power. How he used these things -- to include the working of miracles -- well, I do not know this from reading scripture. But I do beleive he had the same powers as did Philip -- power they received from the 12 apostles.Following is something I wrote about apostles and prophets back in 1992. Although dated, perhaps it will help you in your thinking about apostles and prophets.Peace be with you.
David Miller.----- Original Message -----From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 1:53 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophetsWithin the church , God has placed apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teacher. There collective ministries are given a threefold purpose, but the specifics of each functionary is unique and even exclusive.The apostles and prophets are a case in point. They are a part of those named in Eph 4:11 ff while , at the same time, considered apart from the remaining categories (evangelists, pastors and teachers). It is the apostles and prophets who are the foundation of the "household of God" (Eph 2:20.) Because they are named as the foundation of the Church, we can be confident that their ministries compliment each other.The apostles are given an identify -- the "12" -- while, in fact, their numbers include the original 12, Matthias, Paul, Barnabas, James the brother of Jesus, and arguably Apollos, Silvanus and Titus. With this group of men, we have the writings of all NT scripture except the historical record of Luke (Luke/Acts). most of the time cute little rich girls are spoiled pagans.
> Do you
> > know of one cute little rich girl celebrity who
> > is a "steadfast" believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? If not then
> this is
> > not a description of Linda.Their counterpart is the prophet. Whereas the apostles were given to the First Church, the prophets continue with the church throughout the ages. It is not the prophets work to continue the addition of scripture. That work was completed with the apostles. The scriptures were finished with the passing of the apostles. In time, the Church Catholic was challenged to identify those scriptures and, with the providential consideration of God, the Bible was the result. The prophet, named as a part of the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20) is, in reality, those we commonly refer to as "theologian." He is the one who continues the work of the apostle as he illuminates the message, keeping the biblical message at center stage and fresh for each new era within the church. People like Athanasuius, Eusebias, Origen, Tertullian, Calvin, Luther, Barth are prophets to the Ch urch Catholic while others, less catholic in function, add to this illuminary function, men like Wesley, Torrance, NT Wright, and, finally, those who have read and are acquainted with the above and have a good working knowledge of the written word, people like Debbie Sawczak, Bill Taylor, Victor Shepherd, Jon Hughs and the like. It is the prophet that keeps the word alive and helps to keep us centered on the Christ.The evangelist, pastor and teacher benefit from these prophets and give their (the prophets) conributions meaning to those within the church who have a better understanding of the common man and his language. And, so , the church at all levels is benefited, edified, regenerated with the living word without adding more and more scripture and bigger and better phenom. A truly divine arrangement.jd
