'Modern' Apostels & Prophets

Whoever said Paul considered himself to be Judas' replacement? I certainly didn't! In fact, Paul considered himself to be the least of the Apostles, but an Apostle, appointed by Christ, nonetheless.

Barnabas and others were "apostles" in the sense that they were eminent teachers/preachers. However, there is nothing that indicates this title was bestowed upon them by the Lord. The eleven apostles and Paul were by direct appointment eleven on the mountain and Paul on the road to Damascus. Matthias appointment as Judas' replacement was in fulfillment of prophesy.(Psa 109:8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office)

 

Clearly the problem is that CHRISTIAN Jews were teaching that the NT gentile Christian had to ALSO embrace an OT Gospel (as though there is an OT one and a NT one - and the Gentiles have only gotten a small part of the Gospel by accepting only ONE).

Paul declares that there IS no such thing as ANOTHER ONE.

Your argument on the other hand is NOT only ARE there two - but the first one had a gift of prophecy entirely different from the new gospel in the NT. Your two-gospel model is the subject of Paul's statement. There is no "other Christ" mentioned in the letter to the Galations as the subject of his message.

His point is not "if anyone preach to you another Christ" but rather "if anyone preach another Gospel".

The point remains. The subject of Gal 1 is the belief in two gospels - one for OT and one for NT.

These early NT saint would have primarily the OT as their "scriptures". So those presenting this two gospel model to them would be presenting it as one of the scriptures and another one of the Apostles. In any case, simply not true.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Prophecy in the sense of foretelling is over.

But prophecy does not just mean foretelling - it mainly means speaking out God's truth. I think that goes on now in that sense, but it's based on God's word. It's not like being a psychic, which is how I hear it used sometimes today.

 

That was a good text Marcia - but I missed the exact reference. Where was it again?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Indeed - ONE gift of prophecy listed - not two.

And the statements of Agabus etc - in the NT - SHOW this to be predictive - and not "limited" to "good ideas".

God remains correct in His statement "IF there is a prophet among you I WILL speak to them in a dream or a vision".

There is just no way around it. He is correct and there is only ONE gift of prophecy.

When NT authors speak of prophets in scripture - it is STILL that "ONE" gift.

Not even once in all of 1Cor 12 does paul say "Some have the gift of prophecy in forth-telling while others have the gift of prophecy in foretelling while others have dreams and visions".... you simply make that up.

RATHER what we DO see in 1Cor 12 is that entirely DIFFERENT gifts are listed as examples of the DIFFERENT administrations and gifts.

"Some have Tongues while others have gifts of healing" etc.

Your idea of "Some have one kind of gift of prophecy while others have an entirely different one" ... is totally absent from the text.

You have basically nothing but wishful thinking to base that "many kinds of prophetic gifts" to hang your hat on.

The fact that you are in error here - does not make you a heretic - just wrong.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That is an odd twisting of the posts so far.

I did not state there are two kinds of prophecy one for OT and one for NT - you did.

I claim there is "ONE" and that the Gospel is the SAME in OT and NT.

I have voted consistently that the ONE Gospel model - of Gal 1:6-11 was opposed to the "ONe thing in scripture vs another in NT" that the Jewish Christians (who DID accept the diety of Christ BTW) were preaching. Paul himself is a Jewish Christian - but since he DOES see only ONE gospel for NT and OT he did not claim that the Gentiles had to "also" become Jews - as if there are TWO gospel and TWO different ways of salvation.

Paul argues that they (Jewish Christians who DID accept the diety of Christ but NOT the ONE gospel concept for BOTH OT and NT) were wrong in insisting that the Gentile Christians needed another Gospel - needed a nother "better" Gospel - one that was in SCRIPTURE (recall that the NT saint had the OT as their scripture).

Your argument has been that since there ARE two gospels, two ways of salvation - between OT and NT -- that there "might also be TWO forms of the ONE gift of prophecy" - a speculative view that I do not share.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I can't agree on the 2 different ways of prophecy either. The Holy Spirit gives the gift in the NT just as the Holy men recived it in the OT. I you read the OT prophets books and about OT prophets in general (Moses, Aaron, Meriam (their sister), David....ect) wern't most known as a prophet before they wrote their book or was mentioned in the text? As in the case of Deborah she was sitting under a tree prophesing when she was called to help Barak. It don't say no where what she was saying under that tree but it was evident she was know as a prophetess.

 

'[Joel 2:28-32] AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,' God says, 'THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS;
(Whole Chapter: Acts 2 In context: Acts 2:16-18)


Acts 2:18
EVEN ON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT And they shall prophesy.

Here we see ONE gift - in the OT predicted to exist in the NT.

Here we see the NT author CLAIMING that OT gift.

It is one - and only one. Exact equivalence. OT prediction, OT context - showing NT exercise of that OT idea of Prophecy.

Impossible to miss.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob????? Yep, that what I thought I said?

 

**Prophecy in the sense of foretelling is over. **

Could I see chapter and verse for this idea? Id on't see this int eh Bible at all.

Marcia wrote,
**I think we should evaluate NT prophecy on how it's used in the NT and with the realization that the canon of scripture is closed. There is no more extra-biblical prophecy today or the canon would not be closed - our Bible would not be complete.**

It's pretty clear from the Bible that not all prophesy and revelation from God is revealed in the Bible, since the Bible refers to prophecies and revelations that are not included in the Bible. I could add to the list that has already been given if you want me to (and I have time before I move.) It is illogical, then to argue that modern prophecies have to be added to the canon of scripture if they exist, if ancient propehcies didn't have to be included in the canon to be legitimate.


MTA,
How can you believe that Paul met up to the criteria to replace Judas laid down in Acts 1, unless you are prepared to argue that he was following Jesus around from the baptism of John, before the Ascension. I don't see how anyone can read the New Testament, and remember what it says, and conclude that Paul was with Jesus from the baptism of John.

 

Agreed - I just thought I would toss that in about Joel 2 and its being claimed in Acts 2 as an example of one gift - both OT and NT.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Marcia said:**Prophecy in the sense of foretelling is over. **

Link said: Could I see chapter and verse for this idea? Id on't see this int eh Bible at all.


Marcia: It's a conclusion I've come to from the canon of the Bible being closed. God has given us His word; it is not ongoing. Those who claim to give ongoing prophecy are usually either wrong about it (like Benny Hinn) or they have heretical theology.


Marcia wrote,
**I think we should evaluate NT prophecy on how it's used in the NT and with the realization that the canon of scripture is closed. There is no more extra-biblical prophecy today or the canon would not be closed - our Bible would not be complete.**

Link wrote:
It's pretty clear from the Bible that not all prophesy and revelation from God is revealed in the Bible, since the Bible refers to prophecies and revelations that are not included in the Bible. I could add to the list that has already been given if you want me to (and I have time before I move.) It is illogical, then to argue that modern prophecies have to be added to the canon of scripture if they exist, if ancient propehcies didn't have to be included in the canon to be.

Just because not all prophecy is revealed in the Bible does not argue that prophecies about the future are given today. Those prophecies that are referred to in the Bible but were not included in the Bible were given at a time when the canon was not yet closed. God's word to me is the Bible and it is our final authority; it cannot include other revelations or we have no final authority to turn to or study. We have the Holy Spirit and God's word -- no need for further revelation.

 

Sorry, the last paragraph on my post looks like it's from Link, but it's my response to him.

Marcia**Just because not all prophecy is revealed in the Bible does not argue that prophecies about the future are given today. Those prophecies that are referred to in the Bible but were not included in the Bible were given at a time when the canon was not yet closed. God's word to me is the Bible and it is our final authority; it cannot include other revelations or we have no final authority to turn to or study. We have the Holy Spirit and God's word -- no need for further revelation.

 

You are right to question that speculative statement. It is not in the Bible.

Certainly Agabus is an example of foretelling the future while not writing scripture.

Certainly John writes the book of Revelation - foretelling the future AND writing scripture.

And there is no text in all of scripture that says "Prophecy CONTINUES but not in the form of telling the future. From now on when God provides special revelation to men - He is not allowed to foretell the future".

No such text in all of scripture.

Yet people do believe it anyway.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Straw man that does not hold up to scripture.

In Acts 17:11 the people "test" the words of Paul to "see IF those things are so" - testing them BY the Scriptures.

They did NOT say "Hey there are still prophets around so we certainly CAN't use the Word of God as the final authority to turn to or study - so we will just believe whatever anybody says".

The argument speculated at the top and quoted by Marcia was never used by the saints of OT or NT while ALL agree that prophets existed.

And the point made that NOT ALL prophets in OT or NT were writing scripture - debunks the speculation that IF you are a prophet you must write scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

***Marcia: It's a conclusion I've come to from the canon of the Bible being closed.***

Where does the Bible even talk about the canon being closed? Where does the Bible give you any reason to think that if the canon is closed, that prophecy will stop functioning, or that only non-predictive prophecy will stop functioning. Your arguments seem like human reasoning to me. I don't see any reason based on scripture backing them up.

*** God has given us His word; it is not ongoing. Those who claim to give ongoing prophecy are usually either wrong about it (like Benny Hinn) or they have heretical theology.**

So you reject prophecy based on your experience, rather than scripture.

One could probably make your claims about prophets during Old Testament times. In Jeremiah's time, probably most prophets either had aspects of their theology wrong or predicted the future wrongly. There were many prophets prophesying lies. But there was at least one prophesying the truth. The lies and false prophets didn't negate the validity of the gift of prophecy.

Marcia wrote,
**I think we should evaluate NT prophecy on how it's used in the NT and with the realization that the canon of scripture is closed. There is no more extra-biblical prophecy today or the canon would not be closed - our Bible would not be complete.**

**Just because not all prophecy is revealed in the Bible does not argue that prophecies about the future are given today. Those prophecies that are referred to in the Bible but were not included in the Bible were given at a time when the canon was not yet closed. God's word to me is the Bible and it is our final authority; it cannot include other revelations or we have no final authority to turn to or study.***


This is a logical fallacy that involves arguing based on fear. If there is other revelation, you are in the fearful or uncomfortable position, in your own opinion, of having no final authority. This isn't a good approach to doctrine. There are a lot of scritpural truths that are uncomfortable to some people. that doesn't make them any less comfortable. Judas was given power to do miracles, and Caaphas prophesied while he was plotting to have Christ killed. These are uncomfortable ideas to some, that Go can speak and work through those who might not be the elect. But if an idea is emotionally uncomfortabvle to you, that doesn't make it untrue.

The Bible teaches that God gives the gift of prohecy to saints in His church. if you accept the idea that the Bible is the 'final authority' then you should accept that as well.

Christ is the ultimate revelation from God to man. Christ is the Word of God. There are many acts of Christ that weren't recorded in the Bible. This is clear form the end of John. If all the books in the world couldn't hold all He said and did, then the Bible doesn't contain them all.

Is your concept of 'canon,' 'closed canon' and 'final authority,' and the implications of these things based on scripture, or are they just your own human opinions.

 

The unbiblical notion that when the last line of scripture is written - spiritual gifts such as Prophecy cease - is just that.

It also speculates that all prophets listed in scripture - were writing scripture themselves. Obviously that is also not true.

The notion that these spiritual gifts have ceased is based on those two assumptions.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Straw man that does not hold up to scripture.

In Acts 17:11 the people "test" the words of Paul to "see IF those things are so" - testing them BY the Scriptures.

They did NOT say "Hey there are still prophets around so we certainly CAN't use the Word of God as the final authority to turn to or study - so we will just believe whatever anybody says".

The argument speculated at the top and quoted by Marcia was never used by the saints of OT or NT while ALL agree that prophets existed.

And the point made that NOT ALL prophets in OT or NT were writing scripture - debunks the speculation that IF you are a prophet you must write scripture.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]They were testing by the OT scriptures. And this was at a time before the canon was closed. They did not have all the NT scriptures during the time of Acts.