Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:13 pm
.
Hosted by Steve Gregg
https://theos.org:443/forum/
I’m always skeptical whenever someone says this prophecy didn’t happen. I’m not sure how one would verify that claim. Just because no one wrote it down doesn’t mean it didn’t happen and lots of archeological finds that have proven the biblical authors to be correct.Paidion wrote:Have you ever encountered such a prophet? And if not, does that mean that there are no true prophets at the present time?But I also believe, based on scripture, that if someone is a true prophet he will be 100% accurate
Was Jonah a false prophet? He announced, "Yet 40 days and Ninevah will be overthrown!" Jonah 3:4 ESV. It was an unconditional prophecy, but it didn't happen.
Was Micah a false prophet? He prophesied:
This prophecy didn't come to pass.Therefore because of you Zion shall be plowed as a field; Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins, and the mountain of the house a wooded height. Micah 3:12 RSV
The objective Word which is addressed directly to man by God is the distinguishing feature of all Hebrew religion. With the coming of Christ this knowledge of the divine Word is no longer mediated through a few uniquely chosen prophets but comes through the living Christ who is inwardly available to all men. This continuously spoken authoritative Word becomes the great organizing principle of a new type of community: the Church of Christ.
Acts 14:21-2321 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
This statement seems to be contrary to the book of Acts. The coming of Christ doesn’t signify the end of revelation from God to the Church through uniquely chosen prophets. We see in Acts chapter 10 that the revelation that the gospel should go forth to the gentiles was mediated through the apostle Peter.With the coming of Christ this knowledge of the divine Word is no longer mediated through a few uniquely chosen prophets but comes through the living Christ who is inwardly available to all men. This continuously spoken authoritative Word becomes the great organizing principle of a new type of community: the Church of Christ.
It is a loaded question you ask. We know to never trust in the arm of flesh or turn to mere men when we seek direction. Yet Paul Barnabas and others appear to be doing just that. Taking a closer look however we can see that they weren’t seeking direction from man. They were seeking direction from the offices that the Lord had appointed to direct the Church as a whole. They were going to the apostles and elders, not to Peter and John. Peter John and others happen to fill these offices.We have the direct living Presence of Christ within us and in our midst when we gather. Why turn from the Living Christ to mere men when we seek direction from God?
Are you suggesting or supposing that there are no theological debates among LDS members? Or could it be that nobody feels at liberty to openly challenge the "authority" of the church?
I would say the same for protestants as well. There isn't much debate on how to be saved* "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved...". The things protestants debate about are typically non-essentials when you get right down to it.Among those who sustain the leadership of the church as prophets seers and revelators you won’t find much confusion on anything pertaining to salvation.
Do you feel at liberty to openly challenge the Bible? If not why not.
When you say "apostles" here, who are you referring to? There were many apostles beyond the Twelve. They included Barnabas, Silas, Apollos, Timothy, Andronicus, Junia (who was a woman, by the way) and who knows how many others. The word "apostle" simply means "sent one". The authority of the early apostles (including the Twelve) did not come because of an office that they held. It came because they had been in our Lord's presence, They had been discipled by Him and had been sent by Him to proclaim the Gospel. As a result, they were also de facto elders (presbuteros) and overseers (episkopos) and teachers to the followers of Jesus. It was not because of an office (which could be transferred to others). It was because of experience, maturity, calling and gifting. Experience, maturity, calling and gifts cannot be transferred.By hierarchy I mean that the apostles held an authoritative office in the church that others did not. I don’t believe Peter was more than a man nor would I suggest he should be viewed as more. The office he held was however very important.
Ummm, no. They devoted themselves to following Jesus. Following Jesus included following the teaching of the apostles since, after all, the apostles had been taught by Christ. Following Jesus also meant hanging out together, eating, praying, sharing, ministering to one another with one's gifts and encountering the presence of the Living Christ as a gathered community. True unity comes from following Jesus, not men. If you believe that Jesus truly is risen and present with us, this makes perfect sense. On the other hand, if you believe that Jesus and God are far off and uninvolved in our affairs, then the need for following men and building hierarchies makes sense. Experience has led me to believe the former.The office that the apostles at Jerusalem held was essential to the unity and strength of the church in early times and whenever the unity is strongest we see that it is because the disciples followed them carefully. see acts 2:42-47.
Keys and ordinances? Sounds very Catholic. Jesus did not come to start a church, you know. He left that to His followers. It was up those who had been His close disciples when He was alive to sort out what to do next. They had to establish doctrine as situations arose--as in the Council at Jerusalem--but always under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and typically in the open with the involvement of the entire ekklesia. Peter is an excellent example of the fact that one can have been extremely close to Jesus yet still continue to screw up. This is why we desperately need community and mutual accountability to remain balanced. As far as keeping order in the church, that was the job of the elders in each ekklesia. Early churches were led by multiple elders, not the single pastor model which is the norm nowadays.They held keys to perform ordinances that are recognized on earth and in heaven, and they established doctrine and kept order in the church.
I don't know how you're getting "they began giving their authority to others" out of Acts 6:3-7. That is certainly not in the text. You are reading it into the passage. The number of disciples was increasing rapidly. The Jerusalem church had gone from 120 to thousands. There were tensions between the Hellenistic Jews (who would have spoken Greek as their first language) and the Hebraic Jews (who would have spoken Aramaic as their first language). Tensions between Hellenistic and Hebraic Jews went back a few hundred years before Christ, so this was a cultural thing. The Twelve were made aware of the problem because of the input from the Grecian Jews. There were temporal needs which needed to be met. If the Twelve were "calling the shots", as you say, then they would have hand-picked the seven men themselves. Instead, they left it to the "plethos"--meaning "everyone" (plethos is where we get our word plethora, meaning "a multitude"). The Twelve seem to have no problem trusting everyone in the church to be able to recognize who among them is "full of the Spirit and wisdom." If you consider the Seven to be in positions of authority, then what the Twelve are essentially telling the people to do is pick their own leaders!As the Church grows we see the apostles suffering from the same dilemma Moses had. There was more work to do than they could get done themselves. So like Moses, they began giving their authority to others. In chapter 6 they call the disciples together and ask them to recommend 7 honest men full of the holy Ghost to perform duties. (note that the apostles involve all of the disciples whenever they can but they call the shots) The people listened gladly and chose 7 men and put them before the apostles who then prayed, laid their hands upon them and sent them to work. see Acts chapter 6:3-7 This is the first time in the book of Acts where we read of the apostles sharing this authority but later on we will see that it becomes the norm.
Your statement is in direct contradiction to what the text actually says in Acts 6:3-7. It was not the apostles who established the Seven; it was "the plethos". One thing you may not be aware of is that the names given in verse 5 are Greek names. The implication is that the church picked seven Grecian Jews who were "full of the Spirit and wisdom". The Twelve, on the other hand, were Hebraic Jews. They entrusted the Spirit-guided discernment of the people to pick the right men for the job.Churches are set up and men are called by the apostles or by others who have authority from the apostles to establish teachers and leaders throughout the churches.
Paul and Barnabas planted churches which they knew they would have to leave after only a short period of time. Verse 21 says that Paul & Barny returned again to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch and at that time "ordained them elders". This begs the question: Who was in charge while Paul and Barnabas were gone? It seems that Paul and Barnabas initially left the fledgling churches in the care of Jesus Christ Himself. This is not a problem if you truly believe that Christ is risen and present with us. When they returned several months later to see how the churches were fairing, they looked for who among each ekklesia showed signs of maturity and giftedness in caring for the people. They looked for presbuteros (mature believers) who could be entrusted to act as caretakers (episkopos). The word translated “ordained” in this verse, is the Greek word, cheirotoneo. Cheirotoneo comes from the Greek words “Cheir” (meaning “hand”) and “teino” (meaning “to stretch” -- we get our word “tendon” from this same word). The primary meaning of the word cheirotoneo is to vote by stretching out one's hand. Secondarily, it means to select or appoint. This verse could be interpreted as saying that the selection of elders was done by a vote of hands within each ekklesia. Or it could mean that Paul and Barny did the selecting. The first interpretation is consistent with the apostles' modus operandi which we just saw in Acts 6:3-7, but the second interpretation seems to make more sense grammatically in this verse. Either way, what went on here has nothing to do with what we now think of as "ordination". The emphasis is on identifying those who are already functioning, just as in Acts 6:3-7 the "plethos" were told to select from among themselves men who were already known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. It's about function, not office.21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
Acts 14:21-23
It's the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost which pretty much signifies not the end but the diminishment of revelation from God to the Church through uniquely chosen prophets. Other than Agabus and Philips' daughters, you don't hear much about prophets in the New Testament after Pentecost. This is because we all have access to God. That was part of the point of Pentecost in Acts 2. Some are more gifted in the prophetic, for the building up of the church (just as some are more gifted in teaching, evangelizing, administration, etc.) but the days of the Old Testament-style prophets ended with Jesus. He is the last and greatest and everlasting Prophet in the Old Testament sense. We need no other Prophets. We can receive revelation directly from Christ.In Chapter 10 we see what in my mind is one of their most important roles. That of revealing new doctrine. (or new at least to the people hearing it) Danny, you quoted Quaker author Lewis Benson.
"With the coming of Christ this knowledge of the divine Word is no longer mediated through a few uniquely chosen prophets but comes through the living Christ who is inwardly available to all men. This continuously spoken authoritative Word becomes the great organizing principle of a new type of community: the Church of Christ."
This statement seems to be contrary to the book of Acts. The coming of Christ doesn’t signify the end of revelation from God to the Church through uniquely chosen prophets. We see in Acts chapter 10 that the revelation that the gospel should go forth to the gentiles was mediated through the apostle Peter. Lets examine. In verse 2 a devout man (not a Jew) sees a vision and learns that he needs to visit Peter. Verse 9 Peter goes to pray, verse 11- 16 he see’s a vision. We hear of no thers recieving this revelation with him. It seems to be him alone. He learns that the gospel is for everyone and preaches it to this devout man and his house and sees that they are blessed with the Holy Ghost as well. This revelation was so contrary to the teachings and traditions of the past that in chapter 11 verse 2 when he tells the news to the brethren in Jerusalem they don’t at first believe him. After hearing his story and realizing that he isn’t speaking about his personal opinion but that the Lord revealed and proved it to him the argument stops and they accept it as the word of God. (see verses 4- 18) This new doctrine (not eternally new just new to the Jews at the time) now brings up other problems and questions for the disciples. Let’s take a closer look at the council of Jerusalem Acts 15. You left out some key elements. The controversy starts when gentiles are converted. We read of “certain men” who preach that the gentiles need to be circumcised to be saved. There was “no small dissension and disputation with them” And so” they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” 15:2
So here we see what the early church did when questions about salvation interrupt their unity. They went to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.
We do? I disagree. "For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellors there is safety". (Prov. 24:6) We were designed and created to function within community. Although we have direct access to God through Jesus Christ and can be guided and instructed by the Holy Spirit, we still need one another. We are interdependent. This is why God gives a multitude of spiritual gifts to the ekklesia. Within the community of a functioning church, we complement each other, compensate for each other, provide wisdom and council for each other, edify each other, instruct each other, help each other discern what the Holy Spirit is saying, etc. No person is above this interdependence.It is a loaded question you ask. We know to never trust in the arm of flesh or turn to mere men when we seek direction.We have the direct living Presence of Christ within us and in our midst when we gather. Why turn from the Living Christ to mere men when we seek direction from God?
Your retelling of the Jerusalem Council is misleading. I'm assuming you didn't intentionally try to mislead but simply mis-read the text. Nowhere does the text say that the multitude become silent after Peter spoke, as if in acquiescence. Nor does it say that the purpose of Paul and Barnabas speaking was to "confirm what the Lord had spoken through Peter". The whole assembly did become silent but it was while Paul and Barny were speaking (hmmm, that implies that they weren't silent before...) probably because they were enraptured by what was being said. Nowhere does it say that anyone was "converted to the idea." The whole point of the council was to gather input and figure out what to do, hopefully under the guidence of the Holy Spirit.Yet Paul Barnabas and others appear to be doing just that. Taking a closer look however we can see that they weren’t seeking direction from man. They were seeking direction from the offices that the Lord had appointed to direct the Church as a whole. They were going to the apostles and elders, not to Peter and John. Peter John and others happen to fill these offices. So they went to Jerusalem and as you said the matter was brought before everyone. It was equally as controversial there as it had been at Antioch and seems to be quite chaotic until....”Peter rose up” see acts 15:7-11. When he was done speaking “Then the multitude kept silence” the arguing had stopped. Paul and others stood up to confirm what the Lord had spoken through Peter. The controversy was over. Those holding the office of apostle had spoken the will of the Lord, and those who were present were converted to the idea. Letters were sent out to the churches to follow the will of the Lord as it was given to them at Jerusalem.
It's easier to argue that in the New Testament church the office of apostle held special authority than to argue that it still does today. At least in the New Testament church apostles were fairly easy to identify. They had been with Jesus and had references from others who had been with Jesus. Nowadays. anyone can (and does) claim to be an Apostle. It is meaningless. The gift of Apostleship isn't a matter of what's on your business card or name-badge or website. I know people who have the apostolic gift and it's about what they do, not an office that they claim to hold. None of them would be presumptuous enough to claim the office or title of Apostle. But they do function apostolically.If the office of apostle doesn’t hold special authority than perhaps we shouldn’t view the book of Acts or the writings of Paul or any other apostle as scripture anyway. If this is the case there is no reason to study the book of Acts to get answers. I believe however that the apostles did have authority and that their writings, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost, are binding scripture.