-------------- Original message --------------
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Dear John,
>
> Somehow we need to stop wrangling over minutiae. I would love nothing more than to stay on topic.
>
> We seem to agree that apostles had special signs and wonders that
> characterized their office. Where we seem to differ is in our perspective
> of how they were our example. You cast the apostles into an icon of the
> past, as a class of Christian with a greater measure of the Spirit. I have
> trouble with that characterization. Maybe we should leave it at that for
> now. Actually, I think the difference between the two views has more to do with how we see "aspotles." When you read this word, you see "office" and argue from that perspective. When I see the word "apostle." I see function, assignment, a specific and personal calling to the exclusion of "office." For me, the "apostles" were a group of men, typified by "12," given powers not common to the larger church, presented with the assignment of imparting the message of Christ in word and script. It is a function to me and an office to you.
>
> I have problems with people who do the same thing with Jesus.He came as a
> servant so that he could be an example to us all, but so many Christians
> remove him so far from their experience that rather than following in his
> example as he would like for them to do, they think they give him honor by
> idolizing him and keeping a wall of separation between themselves and him.
>
> Many do the same thing with the apostles. I hope you do not have me in mind as you write any of this. None of it has anything to do with the "why" of my position. We see examples of it in
> Scripture, even while they were living. Acts 14 is a classic example, where
> the people called Barnabas Jupiter and Paul Mercurius and wanted to do
> sacrifice to them and make them the central honor of their parade and
> celebrations. When the apostles rightly rejected their adulation, it was
> not long before they turned against them and stoned Pa ul.
>
> The apostles always are put in this difficult spot Are we now talking about David Miller? of being overly
> venerated, but then when they restore the proper perspective, being
> persecuted, ridiculed, and rejected. People want to venerate apostles
> because if they are on the same level as the apostles, it exposes their own
> sinful heart. If they are willing to forsake their sinful heart, all is
> fine, but if not, it is a very uncomfortable position for them to be in.
> The result is that they must reject the apostle. Apostles have this
> polarizing effect. People either have to get on board 100% or they must go
> elsewhere. Apostles cause the wheat and chaff to separate. Again, I hope that you are not suggesting this any of the above has to do with my theology on this subject. You do not challenge my comfort zone in the Lord -- ; not in the slightest. But, I suspect that you think otherwise.
>
> Now let's consider the issue of "faith healers." What is a faith healer? A
> faith healer is someone who prays for the sick, believing that they will be
> healed. So what is the person who is not a faith healer, but also believes
> that God does heal, so he will also pray for healing. What is the
> difference between the "faith healer" and the one who prays for the sick but
> is not a faith healer? IMO, a faith healer is one who thinks he/she has identical powers and purpose as that of Jesus and the typical "12." That power emanates from their person. Is it that the faith healer believes the sick will
> be healed while the other does not? See above. I'm asking you for your definition.
>
> Are you familiar with Smith Wigglesworth? I would be interested to hear
> what you think about his testimony. Have you rea d "Ever Increasing Faith"
> or "Wigglesworth: Apostle of Faith"? Is he the kind of "Faith Healer" that
> you find objectionable? I do know of Wigglesworth. I have not read any of his writings. What little I know of the specifics of his ministry does not allow me to be much of a judge of his work. I am not aware that he claimed to be an apostle. He does not seem to fit into the mold of the "faith healer." But, I really do not know. Suffice it to say, that the only interest I have in this continuing discussion is that which centres itself on the biblical message. Whereas, as discussion of SW might be of value at some point in time, it will have nothing to do with any decisions I might make regarding our discussion. ; Is his raising the dead or casting out devils the
> kind of thing that you do not believe happens through men of faith anymore? David, as a Pentecostal yourself, you surely know of the many many instances in which healing does not occur. Such is an issue given much attention in Pentecostal writings........why the many are NOT healed. You and I cannot point to a single healer, not one, David, who healed all who made appearances at their services IN SPITE OF AN EFFORT TO DO SO. I do not see that same failure when I consider Jesus and the apostles or those whom they commissioned.
>
> What is your opinion of Kathryn Khulman?
>
> As for "going outside the Word," I have not castigated you in the least for
> such. I only want you to acknowledge and recognize when you have. I have
> repeatedly asked you to give proper credit to your sources of modern
> scholars hip, but you have not given me one reference. I have given you reference !! I have quoted from several biblical writers. Did you have a specific reference in mind? I have asked you for
> sources from church history and tradition, but again, nothing. What can we conclude except that your perspective is mere speculation? Again, if you have a specific statement (of mine) in mind, make it known and I will respond. What is not going to work, in this discussion, is for you to continue to pretend that I might be making up "stuff." I do not do this. Who knows ................. maybe I am waiting for you to stick your foot into your mouth.
>
> As for church history and tradition, I have referenced more than just
> Hippolytus. I tire of constantly repeating mysel f, so I will just leave it
> at that for now. In the current discussion, who have you referenced other than H. ?? I have asked this question before. Why do you not answer? Are you hiding something. What is going one. Perhaps something sinister? (I jest, David, doing what you seem to be doing with me.)
>
> Is the reference to apostles in early church writings of the first and
> second century sufficient evidence that they existed after John? NoYou
> continually scoff at and dismiss the early writings that were not canonized.
> Why? You have misrepresented me on this. Why? Are they not useful? Must early writings be Scripture in order to be
> considered valid? I use early writings to help define scritpure, knowing, or at least, believing that only the scriptures have final authority. The "Church Fathers," for example, or historical as a reference, not biblical. Why would these early writings not be considered at least as useful as the ramblings of the modern theologians that you hold in high esteem? I will leave you to own thoughts on this matter.
As for the Scritpures being closed.... I have expressed in this forum many
> times in the past that my perspective is that I do not expect more
> Scriptures to be forthcoming. Nevertheless, there is no mandate or decree
> that closes the Canon. It is only an assumption we have that there will not
> be any more Scriptures written until Christ himself returns. I suspect
> those just before Christ came the first time thought the same thing.
> Nevertheless, Christ did come, and soon more Scriptures were written.An extremely poor parallel "argument." The doctrine of Christ has been given to us by the apostles. The Church has finalized the conon we call scripture. Where you do not anticipate additional scripture, I speak and write with much more confidence. There will be no more scripture. Mandate has nothing to do with this thinking. Function , historical function, does.
The
> only reason such a point is necessary is honesty in approaching the subject. I do not call this "honesty."
the Mormons, who believe that other Scriptures have been
> written, you appear unable to think outside your little theological box. No one I know thinks I have trouble "thinking outside the box." &n bsp; It
> is perhaps perplexing to them why you would so adamantly argue that the
> Scriptures have been closed. It appears that such dogma comes out of
> convenience rather than conviction. funny, I was thinking the sameof your theology.
Original Message -----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [email protected] ; [email protected]
> Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 9:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
>
>
>
> See comments below.
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> My recent comments in Green.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: knpraise@ comcast.net
> To: [email protected] ; [email protected]
> Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 2:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] apostles and prophets
>
>
> David -- this post causes me some concern. Aaahh, but I will limit my
> response to your comments. Read on.
> P.S. Yes, I am writing this note after beginning my response. I have a
> three hour treadmill thingy to do at 12:30. I must get ready .
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > John wrote:
> > > I do believe that the apostles had a measure
> > > of the Spirit that was in addition that of the
> > > gifts of the Spirit
> >
> > The apostolic office is characgterized by special signs and wonders, yes,
> > So I am right to say that the biblical record presents an unique
> > performance on the part of the apostles.
> > but t his should not be characterized as you have done here. Read 1 Cor. 12
> > for the proper perspective of apostles to the rest of the body of Christ.
> > Why not state my 'characterization." I would be will to bet money that
> > you have it wrong. You introduce I Co 12 so others will think you are
> > actually quoting scritpure, when, in fact, you have given us not hing to
> > consider.
> I did state your characterization. You characterized it as, "the apostles
> had a measure of the Spirit that was in addition that of the gifts of the
> Spirit." 1 Cor. 12 discusses spiritual manifestations and administrations
> of the Holy Spirit in a more equal way, explaining diversity, never
> attributing some to having had a greater measure of the Spirit. Now, you are
> simply parsing words, David. Here is what you have written above "...The
> apostolic office is characgterized by special signs and wonders, yes, "
> Whether this is because o f an additional "measure" or ............. you
> know what? In the beginning of this discussion, I made the statement that
> the apostles had powers that were a part of who they were as apostles. That
> really fits in with what you have said - The apostolic office is
> characgterized by special signs and wonders, yes,
>
> It teaches us that upon the less seemly parts we bestow more abundant
> honor. Then it lists offices in an ordering of priorities, with apostles
> first, then prophets, then teachers, and after teachers the other
> manifestations that you apparently accept as long as they are not "faith
> healings," whatever that means. Nowhere in this text does it speak about
> apostles passing away in the first century. Apostles are listed right there
> along with teachers, a characterization that appears different to me than
> the way your teaching about them comes across. Your interpretation of this
> passage as relates to the dur ation of the apostolic office is a real problem
> for you, isn't it? I mean, the text actually says nothing, pro or con, as
> to the duration of the "office." In the shadow of this silence, you have
> fashioned a argument for the continuance of the "office."
>
> > John wrote:
> &g t; > ... the 7 deacons could not do anything of a
> > > miracluous nature before the apostles layed
> > > hands on them.
> >
> > Mere speculation on your part, which flies in the face of church tradition
> > and historical writings. Furthermore, the Scriptures themselves suggest
> > otherwise when they describe these men already as men of faith, filled
> > with the Holy Ghost. No more speculative than your position. What church
> > tradition do you have in mind? What is your source on 'historical
> > writings?"
> I've already mentioned some of them... the writings of the church fathers,
> such as Hippolytus. David, you have not mentioned "some of them." Such a
> statement suggests to the uninformed that you have presented more than one
> historical authority m which is not the case. And I have accepted your word
> for the Hippolytuw testimony.
>
> > John wrote:
> > > Miracles do continue in the church to this day
> > > but to the exclusion of "faith healings."
> >
> > An effeminate remark which even the female founder of your church has
> > disagreed with. If you had a picture of me, you would accuse me of
> > "effeminate" anything. Apparently you honor Semple as some kind of
> > authority within the Christian co mmunity. I do not.
> I find it strange that you carry these non-Pentecostal doctrines while being
> part of a Pentecostal church and representing yourself to others as a
> Pentecostal. An ad hom argument of a desparate man. There are [perhaps]
> millions of Pentecostals who believe just as I do.
>
>
>
> You proudly affiliate with the Four Square church, but go against the
> founder's theology so forcefully, much like many Methodists today do against
> John and Charles Wesley. I've just not seen it much in Pentecostal circles
> like this, so you are hearing from me about it. Your readings are obviously
> not from Pentecostal theologians. You appear very reticent to share their
> names with us. More ad hom nonsense. You do not understand the
> cultural and current traditions of the Four Square church and should resist
> voicing opinions about that which you know next to nothing. You are an
> old time Pentecostal, a vanishing breed. And why? Because their doctrine
> on many points is plainly non-biblical.
> > John wrote:
> > > There is no more impartation of scripture.
> >
> > Speculation and presumption, which might be right, but it has no basis of
> > authority . Now, right here, I have to believe that you have, once again,
> > found yourself to be in theological pickle (see how much better I do when
> > I stick with bibilcial considerations and avoid discussions on "logic" and
> > the like?) You admit that the apostle do have uniques powers and appear
> > to agree that there is no more scripture ("..you might be right ..") --
> > but, well, if you agreee totally, you don't get to right in a discussion
> > with John the Dufus so you speak of "speculation, preseumption ...
> > [and] no basis of authority" for believing that the Bible is closed any
> > additional scripture ------------ somethin I actually believe YOU
> > believe. But save facr if you must. It just makes you look a little
> > silly.
> It makes me look silly to the neo-orthodox theologians who have their own
> dogma and creeds that keep their little clique going, but for lovers of
> truth, what I say is far from silly. I only ask you to examine your
> assumptions fairly, but instead you resort to scoffing and pretending as if
> I am in some kind of theological pickle. Dave Hansen and Blaine have many
> times raised this issue of whether the Scriptures are closed, but you just
> don't seem to acknowledge when you make assumptions about this subject and
> when you have a sure foundation for it. You are entitled to your defense.
> You do not believe that the scriptures are "closed?"" When you speak of me
> being out of touch with my Pentecostal buds, how about you? How many of
> them are going to say "amen" to this idea that the scriptures are not clos
> ed?
>
> the Ephesian church for testing false apostles if John was the last one?
> Because Ephesians was written years before the passing of the
> apostles???????? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are losing it , David.
>
> I'm talking about the book of Revelation, John, not Ephesians. Well, SA Y
> SO. Where does the epistle to the Ephesians mention testing false apostles?
> I'm talking about Rev. 2:2. This was written late I think. I assume you
> believe that too, but Lance probably goes for an early date considering his
> amillennial eschatology. With the passing of the apostles, the need to
> "test" was all the more important. Pleae note, that the testing found all
> who claimed to be apostles to be false !!! Rev. 2:2 makes my point
> precisely.
>
> Why would there be any testing at this time if
> > John was to be the last apostle? there's a good chance all of the apostles
> > are still alive at this point in time.
> I think of the 12, there was only John left at the time Revelation was
> written. Nevertheless, I do believe that there were other apostles still
> alive at the time because they were testing them. The Didache mentions
> other apostles and gives tests for determining true apostles and prophets
> from false ones too. Your theology about apostles has great difficulty with
> church history and tradition, relying upon the ignorance of our modern
> culture with these early writings. I love the way you debate, When it
> suits your purpose, you castigate others for going outside the "Word" and
> now, in this case, when it suits your argument, when, in fact, you do not
> have an argument otherwise, you appeal to sources outside the biblical
> account. It 's hard to keep up with you and Judy.
>
> I have known personally two men who have been raised from the dead. I have
> met apostles who have reported to me experiences of raising the dead, of
> people being healed as they walked by, and who have had cloths taken to the
> sick and seen them healed. Just because you have met false apostles does
> not mean they are all false apostles. I have met false apostles too.
> And now wee come to the difficult part. You cannot and do not deal with
> issues I have raised with a continued discussion of the biblical text.
> Rather, you turn to personal testimony.
> Excuse me, John, but you are the one who turned this to personal testimony.
> I was responding to your lack of personal observations being put forward as
> evidence that there are no apostles today. Why is it fair for you to claim
> you have never met one , and not fair for me to testify about my
> experience?
> The problem is complicated by the fact that I believe that God can raise the
> dead in this day and time.
> Yes, this is a "complication" I encounter all the time with Baptists who say
> they believe in healing, just not faith healers. What's the difference
> between me and the Baptist who prays for healing? I pray expecting to see
> the person healed, so now I am suddenly labeled a faith healer, We have not
> been talking about you until this very moment in time. And I am not going
> to discuss you. somet imes accused of practicing medicine without a
> license, and the poor Baptist who prays not expecting any results unless God
> answers despite his unbelief is the truly Biblical one because he does not
> presume to believe that God will heal anyone.
> We have prayed for people who were technically "dead" who came back.. Such
> a miracle is credited to prayer. No one has ever been raised the
> mortuary's slabe, however. But let's not get into personal argument on
> this issue. I do not and will never accept modern day testimony on these
> matters apart from personal verification. I cannot.
> You sound just like Thomas. The difference between the two of us is that he
> was speaking of Christ and I am speaking of David Miller ........... a
> very big difference. Fair enough, but don't criticize those of us who
> believe without personal verification. But, if you make the claim, then
> you can take the test. You do not think you should be tested for false
> claims of apostleship????? Jesus said, "because thou hast seen me, thou
> hast believed: blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed."
> I am a pastor and what I say is beleived by others. So I will not speak
> from your experience. Sorry. Nothing personal. Our experiences,
> apparently , are vastly different. And within the Four Square community,
> I am very much at home. This would be their stance as well.
> I don't expect you to speak from my experience. I only hope for you to hear
> me and to believe my testimony. I will not believe you without
> verification.
>
> ----------
> "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
> wh o wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> he will be subscribed.
