<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] 3. Do you believe that when Paul said this, that he was operating under the movement of the Holy Spirit:<br><br>" I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied:..."<br>I Corinthians 14:5<br><br>If so, what has changed? </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>This is reminiscent of one of the arguments used by Roman Catholics for oral tradition. They point to Paul's command to the church at Thessalonica to hold fast to the traditions by word and epistle and impose that command in a one-for-one fashion upon all churches today. It is true that every word in Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, training in righteousness, etc., but it does not mean that every imperative given in a particular historical context is a perpetually abiding principle upon the church today in precisely the same way. In the case just mentioned with the admonition to hold fast to the verbal testimony of the apostles we would say in response, "Show me an apostle and I will hold fast to his verbal testimony." But the reality is that there are no apostles today and so this command to hold fast to the oral traditions is an impossibility for us to keep in precisely the same way as the church at Thessalonica, though we do keep it in principle since we believe nothing is lacking in the written testimony left to us.<br><br>So the answer to your question is similar; what has changed is that there are no more apostles, and hence the peculiar gifts of the apostolic ministry (2 Cor. 12:12, Heb. 2:4, et. al) have ceased to take place.<br><br>Sincerely in Christ,<br><br>~Jason
Your quote:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]but it does not mean that every imperative given in a particular historical context is a perpetually abiding principle upon the church today in precisely the same way. In the case just mentioned with the admonition to hold fast to the verbal testimony of the apostles we would say in response, "Show me an apostle and I will hold fast to his verbal testimony." But the reality is that there are no apostles today and so this command to hold fast to the oral traditions is an impossibility for us to keep in precisely the same way as the church at Thessalonica, though we do keep it in principle since we believe nothing is lacking in the written testimony left to us.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br> And you know an apostle how? By scripture? Does the scripture tell us how to recognize an apostle? If not, then how do you know there are no more apostles? By experience, right? Unless there are scriptures telling us that this office has ceased....<br><br> This goes back to the experience vs. scripture idea.<br>
...unfortunately, I don't have the time in a block to do so. But I have every intention of responding to your post as I can. I hope to do so today, but am unsure of opportunity to do so. Sorry for any inconvenience.
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] And you know an apostle how? By scripture? Does the scripture tell us how to recognize an apostle? </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Yes in fact it does. When an apostolic replacement was sought for Judas the following critera were imposed:<br><br> 21 "Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 "beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." (Acts 1:21-22).<br><br>This idea of witness is inexorably linked to the apostolic commission. This is not merely in the softened way that we use the term today, but they were literal witnesses of his entire ministry, and most particularly, of His resurrection. The only "exception" to these guidelines is the Apostle Paul, who was "born out of due time":<br><br> 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. (1 Corinthians 15:8-9).<br><br>Though Paul did not accompany Jesus during His entire ministry, he did receive his training personally from Christ and was still a witness of Christ's resurrection. Paul defends his apostleship based upon the fact that he did not receive it from men, but from Jesus Christ directly (1 Cor. 9:1, Gal. 1:1; 12-19, also Acts 9:27). It is this personal witness of the resurrected Christ that serves as one of the essential qualifications for the office. In fact, the great wonders were to testify to this personal witness of the resurrection:<br><br> But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. (Acts 1:8)<br><br>Acts 4:33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. <br><br>So unless you know someone who accompanied Jesus during the entire time of His ministry and has been a witness of His resurrection or has seen Him face to face and received direct revelation from Him, I would say it is easy to rule out the claims of any self-professed apostle today. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]<br><br>But hey, I'm willing to reconsider my exegesis if someone wants to stand up to the plate and work the real signs of an apostle before me ... just as long as they are also willing to accept the biblical penatly for being shown to be a false prophet! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/takethat.gif" alt="takethat" title="takethat[/img]<br><br>[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]<br><br>Sincerely in Christ,<br><br>~Jason<br>
