Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets

[knpraise]

John in whatever color this  is.  

 

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Hi John. I was not sure that you were the one who wrote that piece in the
> beginning, which is why I spoke about the "author." It is a very common
> doctrine among scholars and theologians. I offer a few more comments below.
>
> David Miller wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> John wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I'm talking about how there were many writings that were reverenced and read
> in the churches during the first 300 years after Christ ascended into
> heaven. For example, there were writings such as Clement's Epistle to the
> Corinthians, and the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas. The
> early churches did not suddenly have a complete "Bible" when John wrote
> Revelation. The viewpoint that one must be an apostle or directly appointed
> by an apostle to write Scripture is not accurate, neither is the viewpoint
> that the apostles are the only ones who did miracles, and those upon whom
> they directly laid hands. There is NO Biblical basis for such viewpoints.

David, I regard the books of the Protestant bible to be scripture.  I assume you do as well.   So let's limit our discussion to these books.   Secondly,  my post spoke of what the apotles did in regards to the New Covenant sciptures.   Third,  I accept Jude, Luke and Acts as scripture.   Fourthly,  it was the work of the apostles to give to the church the teachings we hold as the teachings of Christ, in addition to the very words of Christ.   There is no doctrine unique to any book or letter written by someone other than an apostle or under their tutelage.  I do believe that the apostles had a measure of the Spirit that was in addition that of the gifts of the Spirit  ........   the 7 deacons could not do anything of a miracluous nature before the apostles layed hands on them.  Miracles do continue in the church to this day but to the exclusion of "faith healings."   There is no more impa rtation of scripture.  

None of this is to say that only the apostles could work miracles.  But Stephen and Philip are not witnesses to this circumstance since they were commissioned by the 12 to continue work the 12 did not have time to do.  In the Pentecostal tradition,  I have seen many who claim to be "apostles."   Not a single one can raise the dead,  heal by casting a shadow, walk through unopened doors and the like.   I do not think these men to be evil  --  simply confused.  

> Such viewpoints are basically modern inventions.
>
> David Miller wrote:
> >> Most of the apostles left us no Scripture at all, including
> >> the chief apostle, Jesus Christ himself.
>
> John wrote:
> > true. And I am not saying that they all did.
>
> The point is that if only a small fraction of all the apostles did write
> Scripture, then the primary work of apostles was not writing Scripture.

And where do you find me saying that "writing" scripture was a primary function of each of the apostles? 

The
> reason for making Scripture their task or miracles their task is to relegate
> their office to the past. It is a modern form of apostolic persecution.

This is not my reasoning.   Becauswe you believe in scripture that is not part of the biblical record has little influence on me.  Becaue you do not recognize a  difference in the measure of the Spirit to the apostles is , equally, of little influence.  Do I believe that my point is written in stone?  Not at all.  But it is no more speculative than your position.  And the point of my post was about prophets and theologians  !!!!!! 

 

> The line of thinking is that if we show their function no longer necessary,
> then their office is no longer necessary. Thereby, modern apostles are
> immediately cut off from the body of Christ. It is done by definition
> rather than sound argument, much like the way Creationists are cut out of  science.

None of the above is the case in my case.
>
> My perspective is that the primary work of apostles was oral, not written.
> Just like Jesus Christ. Therefore, there is a need for their ministry to
> continue and there is no Biblical justification for supposing that they died  out in the first century.
>
> John wrote:
> > You have a problem with "under the tutelage
> > of the apostles"?? I beleive Mark was supervised
> > by Peter.
>
> What happened was that Mark, like Stephen, Barnabas, and Luke, were among
> those who LEFT JESUS in John 6:66.  Shall I make a big deal about your theology and the use of 6:66 ????    There is evidence that Peter helped  bring Mark back and Paul helped bring Luke back. Yes, Mark was mentored by  Peter, but your effort to draw attention to this fact is only done to  salvage your theory that only apostles wrote Scripture.  Again, this has never been my claim.  But I do beleive that only the apostles were given the keys to the kingdom  -- and only through them came the foundational teachings of the Church. Do you agree with this?      You even imply that
> perhaps Peter dictated to Mark what to write in his gospel.
>
> Following are the steps you take to make your case:
>
> 1. Narrow the topic from the Bible to only the NT.
> You expanded the topic.  It is my thesis to which you reply.
> 2. Narrow the topic further by showing how most of the NT was written by  apostles. 23 books to 4 will pretty much make my point.
>
> 3. Argue that the part of the NT that was not written by apostles was
> written by those under the tutelage of apostles.
> I did not make this argument in regard to Jude, Luke/Acts. You are now deliberately misrepresenting my post. 
> 4. Reject historical data that is contrary to your philosophical
> perspective on the basis of it simply being untrustworthy.
> there is good reason to believe that Hippolytus is not reliable.
> 5. Conclusion: the apostles were the ones responsible for the NT.
> Conclusion:  the apostles were responsible for new covenant teaching
> 6. Only apostles and those directly appointed by them did miracles.
> There is a miraculous performance unique to the biblical account of the apostles. I make a point of this, you do not.  The gifts of the spirt provide for continued miracles as does prayer.
> 7. Conclusion: the writing of Scripture and the performing of miracles
> end ed when the apostle John died at the end of the first century.
> two out of three ain't bad. 
> Am I the only one on this list that has problems with this line of
> reasoning? Do I really have to spell out the problems here?

You're not going to  ask for a vote, are you? 
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller.
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how
> you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend
> who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> he will be subscribed.