Aimiel, can you elaborate on your title as "prophet"?

[Krsto]

Aimiel and Godrulz - Good posts re: ministries, church government, and gifts of the spirit. It's great to hear from people who actually have experience in this area vs. just theological opinions.

That said, I wish you (especially gr) would stop using the word "office" in relation to ministry. Apostle, prophet, pastor/teacher, "bishop," elder, "deacon," etc. are not offices, or even positions. They are ministries. Nothing more. They are words that describe function, not position. These terms tell us what these people DO in a church, not what office they have.

Paul never called himself "Apostle Paul." He called himself "Paul, an apostle," to tell us his function or role in the church. Agabus was never called in scripture "Prophet Agabus," but was described as "Agabus, who was a prophet," to let us know which Agabus and what he did.

Mustard Seed - Your arguments are no different than a Catholics, just different wording. If you can't see that you are terribly misinformed or perhaps just plain blind.

 

[godrulz]

I would also distinguish apostle, prophet, pastor, teacher, evangelist from someone who sometimes has the gift of prophecy (I Cor. 12). One can exercise the gift of prophecy, word of knowledge/wisdom, etc. without being a prophet.

 

[Krsto]

I would also distinguish apostle, prophet, pastor, teacher, evangelist from someone who sometimes has the gift of prophecy (I Cor. 12). One can exercise the gift of prophecy, word of knowledge/wisdom, etc. without being a prophet.

Very true. We tend to think of the gifts like we think of a career - something we "do" over a long period of our lives. There is that, and those who do are the ones we think of as being a prophet, healer, etc., but I think Aimiel might have implied all Christians can be a prophet but perhaps what he really meant was any Christian could potentially operate any of the gifts of the spirit at any time because God works through us in accordance to the situation at hand and we need to be open to any gift of the spirit at all times. Our focus, after all, is the edification of the brother or sister or the brethren that we are with at that time and what will edify them.

 

[Krsto]

These legalistic groups have a convenient grey area. I always thought God promised to spew out the lukewarm. How do you view that statement of Christ? What is lukewarm?

A Lutheran! (Kidding . . . sort of).

Seriously, the Christians in Laodicea to whom John was writing would know exactly what he was talking about. They had an aquaduct that piped hotspring water into the city. By the time it arrived in town it was no longer hot but lukewarm. It was not hot enough for tea nor was it cold enough to be a refreshing drink. People wished it were either hot like it was at the spring or cold but as it was if they took a drink it was not good and they would spit it out. It was useless. That is what the HG is warning against, being a useless church, like perhaps one that does not get people saved. Perhaps that applies to your church Mustard Seed!

 

[Krsto]

God honors faith, not theological perfection.

The LDS view on God and Jesus puts them outside of Christianity.

I thought you just said God honors faith, not theological perfection.

 

[Krsto]

Many Baptists and others wrongly assume that apostles and prophets have passed away, yet they retain the other leadership gifts. Some simply rename things and say that modern apostles are really 'missionaries'. Likewise, they pick and chose from the spiritual gifts and seem to be biased against tongues and prophecy (cessation model). There is no exegetical basis for this. It is a preconceived theology supported by their lack of personal experience (contrary to the experience of hundreds of millions of charismatics or Pentecostals).

The Greek word is the same and basically means a 'sent one'. Most Greek words have a spectrum of nuances depending on the context. The 12 Apostles do not have to be identical to subsequent apostles throughout church history. In other words, apostles in Acts, the early church, or today do not have to have seen the risen Christ directly.

The 5-fold plurality of leadership gifts are valuable for maturing the church. Our modern model of one strong pastor leader and a board who sometimes hinders his vision might work in the corporate world, but was not the intention of God's blueprint. Contrary to our traditions, the evangelist gift is one who is resident in the local church and equips the saints to do the work of the ministry. If every member was an equipped evangelist, we would have more impact than one travelling evangelist. The converts would also be discipled in the context of the family of God, rather than falling away after the emotional appeal of a fly by night evangelist looking for $.

I wrote a paper on a biblical philosophy of ministry. Sorry I cannot develop the evidence in a few posts. I humble apostle does not need to call himself such. I am familiar with ministries that seem to have an apostolic function and are called or call themselves such. e.g. In India and Canada, I am aware of leaders who have planted dozens of churches and give oversight to them. They raise up and send out other church planters and the kingdom of God grows numerically and in spiritual maturity. They seem to have a gift and anointing that goes beyond being responsible for one local church. Regardless of the label, like Paul, they function as those who are sent out and send out others. They have not seen Jesus first hand, but they grow His Church in impactful ways.

We could take one of these 'apostles' to the Mormons. There concept is different. Anyone can claim to be an Apostle and sit high up in an organization's hierarchy. Mormon apostles have a revelatory and governing role and sit in headquarters. They are not actively planting churches and giving direct oversight to them and mentoring other church planters. This is similar to JW's Governing Body (policy makers, but not effective at raising up congregations to reach the lost).

Anyone can claim to be an Apostle. In some charismatic circles, some high profile charismatic leaders go by this title. This does not make them apostles nor are they necessarily doing what NT apostles did (sent out of local churches, planted churches, oversee churches, etc.). The local church is God's plan for the family and army of God. If He gives leadership and spiritual gifts for edifying and equipping the local church, why would we negate them and rely on modern church growth techniques that often come from the corporate business world?

The bottom line is to find out all that Scripture says about the Church and leadership. We should line up our beliefs and practices with the Word and not our humanistic models of church government (there is no one model of church government in Scripture...culture, local situation, etc. can affect the exact model, yet we should apply biblical principles).

Excellent post. I think it can be shown, however, that the presbyterian form is biblical, the Word of God is directly opposed to the episcopalian form, and the congregational form is mostly biblical, though pure democracy was never intended.

 

[Krsto]

Mormons concept of 'one God' is not the Judeo-Christian concept. 'The New Mormon Challenge' deals with this. Read "The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith'; D and C; and Bruce McKonkie's "Mormon Doctrine" to understand your true belief in 'the plurality of gods'. Ironically, The Book of Mormon does not explicitly teach this Mormon distinctive. Semantics has always been an issue in dealing with Mormons and similar groups (they redefine classic terms and twist Scripture to their own destruction).

Oh, and trinitarians don't play semantic games and redefine classic terms like "hypostasis" and say God has three of them or "theos" by reading into it a modern English definition of the word rather than take it for what it means, or completely ignore what "logos" means in Greek?

Give me a break.

BTW - and ironically, I use the Mormon Church as an example of what can be done with no paid pastors. At least at the local level, they are more biblical than most churches in their church polity - if we ignore the presence of Salt Lake City that is.

 

[godrulz]

I thought you just said God honors faith, not theological perfection.

Minimally, it must be faith in the true vs worthless counterfeit Christ/gospel (2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6-10; Jude 3). Faith is only as good as the object we put it in. By theological perfection, I refer to peripheral Christian debates like Calvinism vs Arminianism vs Open Theism, not salvific issues like the Deity and resurrection of Christ (Jn. 1; I Cor. 15; Rom. 1).

 

[godrulz]

Oh, and trinitarians don't play semantic games and redefine classic terms like "hypostasis" and say God has three of them or "theos" by reading into it a modern English definition of the word rather than take it for what it means, or completely ignore what "logos" means in Greek?

Give me a break.

BTW - and ironically, I use the Mormon Church as an example of what can be done with no paid pastors. At least at the local level, they are more biblical than most churches in their church polity - if we ignore the presence of Salt Lake City that is.

A triune understanding is defensible, even without philosophical, technical terms to help us understand its parameters. Arianism and polytheism are contrabiblical.

Mormons are organized, but so is Microsoft. JWs also have authoritarian structure and uniformity, but they are autocratic and unbiblical in belief and practice (mind control, not Spirit led).

 

[Krsto]

A triune understanding is defensible, even without philosophical, technical terms to help us understand its parameters. Arianism and polytheism are contrabiblical.

Yes, Arianism and polytheism are contrabiblical. That's why I'm not a trinitarian.

 

[godrulz]

Yes, Arianism and polytheism are contrabiblical. That's why I'm not a trinitarian.

Arianism reduces Christ to mere creature. Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus is uncreated Creator in His preexistence (Jn. 1; Phil. 2).

God is triune, not triplex (LDS). He is compound unity with only ONE uncreated spirit nature, not 3 gods with 3 substances. Within the ONE eternal spirit of God are 3 personal distinctions who are co-equal, co-eternal, co-essential. Trinitarianism is strictly monotheistic like Judaism and Islam and Unitarianism; it is not polytheistic like Mormonism and Hinduism.

You are rejecting a straw man view and are Arian since you deny the unique Deity of Christ and reduce it to a New Age-like divinity. If you call him a god (must be a false god since there is only one true God), then you are also polytheistic (belief in more than one true God).

 

[Aimiel]

There is that, and those who do are the ones we think of as being a prophet, healer, etc., but I think Aimiel might have implied all Christians can be a prophet but perhaps what he really meant was any Christian could potentially operate any of the gifts of the spirit at any time because God works through us in accordance to the situation at hand and we need to be open to any gift of the spirit at all times. Our focus, after all, is the edification of the brother or sister or the brethren that we are with at that time and what will edify them.

No, our focus needs to be: Jesus. If we come to know Him, personally, then operation in the gifts of The Spirit of The Lord will be according to His Will. It's when we lose our focus upon Him or simply don't have a relationship with Him that we tend to stray. Yes, any Christian can manifest gifts of The Spirit as The Lord wills, if they're willing and avail themselves of God's Presence; but the 'gift ministries' of pastor, evangelist, apostle, teacher and prophet are uniquely God's to assign as He wills, as well, and aren't up to men to decide at all. A man's gift will make room for itself. God's gift ministries make themselves apparent, and He manifests them as He wills. These ministries have never been removed, as cessationists teach, any more than knowledge of The Lord has ceased. When God restores these ministries in their fullness in The Body of Christ, throughout the earth, we will rise up as one, together, in the full measure of The Man: Christ Jesus, as He intended from the beginning. Then we will do the works that He did and greater.

 

[Krsto]

First you say this:

A triune understanding is defensible, even without philosophical, technical terms to help us understand its parameters.

Then you say this:

God is triune, not triplex (LDS). He is compound unity with only ONE uncreated spirit nature, not 3 gods with 3 substances. Within the ONE eternal spirit of God are 3 personal distinctions who are co-equal, co-eternal, co-essential.

In three sentences you have just given me at least 6 philosophical technical terms, none of which are in the bible.

I'll bet you can't describe God with terms only used in the NT.

I don't want to hijack this thread but I couldn't let this pass.

 

[Krsto]

No, our focus needs to be: Jesus. If we come to know Him, personally, then operation in the gifts of The Spirit of The Lord will be according to His Will. It's when we lose our focus upon Him or simply don't have a relationship with Him that we tend to stray. Yes, any Christian can manifest gifts of The Spirit as The Lord wills, if they're willing and avail themselves of God's Presence; but the 'gift ministries' of pastor, evangelist, apostle, teacher and prophet are uniquely God's to assign as He wills, as well, and aren't up to men to decide at all. A man's gift will make room for itself. God's gift ministries make themselves apparent, and He manifests them as He wills. These ministries have never been removed, as cessationists teach, any more than knowledge of The Lord has ceased. When God restores these ministries in their fullness in The Body of Christ, throughout the earth, we will rise up as one, together, in the full measure of The Man: Christ Jesus, as He intended from the beginning. Then we will do the works that He did and greater.

Amen Bro.

 

[serpentdove]

Aimiel,

you stated this in a previous thread:

I'm curious can you elaborate on this further, please.

The Berean

A prophet is a messenger of God (2Ch 36:15; Isa 44:26) and a servant of God (Jer 35:15). Are you suggesting that Aimiel is claiming to be something more? When he speaks from God's word, he has all authority as any prophet or apostle.

 

[Krsto]

Minimally, it must be faith in the true vs worthless counterfeit Christ/gospel (2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6-10; Jude 3). Faith is only as good as the object we put it in. By theological perfection, I refer to peripheral Christian debates like Calvinism vs Arminianism vs Open Theism, not salvific issues like the Deity and resurrection of Christ (Jn. 1; I Cor. 15; Rom. 1).

What you have determined to be a salvific issue is rather arbitrary. You have no more basis for your decision than what the cults decide. If the nature of Christ is a salvific issue then where was the early church before they got it all "figured out" at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD?

 

[serpentdove]

I would also distinguish apostle, prophet, pastor, teacher, evangelist from someone who sometimes has the gift of prophecy (I Cor. 12)...

:thumb:

 

[godrulz]

First you say this:



Then you say this:



In three sentences you have just given me at least 6 philosophical technical terms, none of which are in the bible.

I'll bet you can't describe God with terms only used in the NT.

I don't want to hijack this thread but I couldn't let this pass.

It can be shown that there is only one true God and many false or so-called gods, not God by nature (Gal. 4:8; I Cor. 8:4-6).

We see verses about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each are given personal attributes (will, intellect, emotions). Each is also called God or has the names and attributes of God.

The only way to embrace all verses is to see that within the one spirit of God that there are 3 personal distinctions, not 3 gods. There is nothing wrong with using terms to differentiate metaphysics/ontology from personality, character, etc. Every field of knowledge including medicine and theology has terms for precision and communication. This is important in light of heretical, cultic attacks against orthodoxy.

Jn. 1:1 supports a triune view and refutes Arianism and polytheism. Logos has philosophical implications, but it was a chosen title for Jesus.

 

[godrulz]

What you have determined to be a salvific issue is rather arbitrary. You have no more basis for your decision than what the cults decide. If the nature of Christ is a salvific issue then where was the early church before they got it all "figured out" at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD?

From the time of Jesus, ff., He was followed as Lord, God, Messiah, Savior even without a full articulation of the Trinity which was formalized vs invented later in response to heretical attacks. Scripture is clear that Jesus is the only way to eternal life and the Father (Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16; Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; Rom. 10:9-10; I Jn. 5:11-13, etc.). Our faith is only as good as the object we place it in. There are false gods, false christs, false gospels. There is truth vs error and it eternally matters on this vital subject (Jesus asked who do you say I am/men say I am?). This is not arbitary, cultic, etc. Making affirmation of Joseph Smith as a prophet and Book of Mormon as Scripture, or Watchtower JW Society acceptance as a condition of eternal life is indefensible. Making faith in the real vs false Jesus is germane and core to the gospel (just as His resurrection is according to I Cor. 15), not subjective, arbitrary, indefensible. You deflect because you fall short of the gospel, the power of God (Rom. 1:16 Christocentric). There is a difference between biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity and numerous lies including Jim Jones, David Koresh, Mormons, Muslims, Christian Science, Unitarian, Scientology, New Age, etc.

 

[Krsto]

From the time of Jesus, ff., He was followed as Lord, God, Messiah, Savior even without a full articulation of the Trinity which was formalized vs invented later in response to heretical attacks.

The Jews and the Jewish Christians were strict monotheists and would not have entertained a triune God. That concept was indeed invented. No serious Evangelical scholar (as opposed to pastors who write books) believes the doctrine was formalized in response to heretical attacks. They agree the prelates at Nicea broke new theological ground.

Would you be interested in what Evangelical scholars have to say about that?