Comments on: The Continuing Acts of the Apostles? http://ceruleansanctum.com/2005/01/the-continuing-acts-of-the-apostles.html Looking for the 1st century Church in 21st century America Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:08:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Tim http://ceruleansanctum.com/2005/01/the-continuing-acts-of-the-apostles.html#comment-2366 Tim Sat, 29 Jan 2005 06:59:00 +0000 http://ceruleansanctum.com/?p=263#comment-2366 I was going to post a comment, but the comment got really long, so in stead of posting it all here I posted it to my blog. Maybe some of my readers will get in on the discussion too. http://burndive.blogspot.com/2005/01/re-continuing-acts-of-apostles.html I was going to post a comment, but the comment got really long, so in stead of posting it all here I posted it to my blog. Maybe some of my readers will get in on the discussion too.

http://burndive.blogspot.com/2.....stles.html

]]> By: Diane http://ceruleansanctum.com/2005/01/the-continuing-acts-of-the-apostles.html#comment-2365 Diane Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:35:00 +0000 http://ceruleansanctum.com/?p=263#comment-2365 A quick observation before I comment: You really are a Pentecostal, not a Charismatic (i.e. Azusa, Wales revivals). Or as I prefer to call myself, a neo-Pentecostal. A second quick observation: Au contraire, Kenneth Hagin taught for decades that the apostle was in actuality a combo of evangelist, prophet, pastor-teacher. (by the way, the Greek grammar suggests a four-fold, not a five fold). Comments: You have inspired me to blog on this. So next week when the post actually happens, I will let you know. Otherwise, my comments here would take up too much space::) But here is a summary of what I will say. *Yes there are apostles. *There is no ministry called "missionary" in the Bible. *Most missionaries are evangelists. A few are apostles. *The "apostles" here in America for the most part are not apostles. Diane A quick observation before I comment:
You really are a Pentecostal, not a Charismatic (i.e. Azusa, Wales revivals). Or as I prefer to call myself, a neo-Pentecostal.

A second quick observation:
Au contraire, Kenneth Hagin taught for decades that the apostle was in actuality a combo of evangelist, prophet, pastor-teacher. (by the way, the Greek grammar suggests a four-fold, not a five fold).

Comments: You have inspired me to blog on this. So next week when the post actually happens, I will let you know.
Otherwise, my comments here would take up too much space::)

But here is a summary of what I will say.
*Yes there are apostles.
*There is no ministry called “missionary” in the Bible.
*Most missionaries are evangelists. A few are apostles.
*The “apostles” here in America for the most part are not apostles.

Diane

]]> By: Anonymous http://ceruleansanctum.com/2005/01/the-continuing-acts-of-the-apostles.html#comment-2364 Anonymous Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:28:00 +0000 http://ceruleansanctum.com/?p=263#comment-2364 It seems to me that those who maintain that there are no apostles fail to take scripture seriously. Since these are mainly cessationists the fatal flaw is the same as of cessationism; that while they claim to have a high view of scripture, they simultaneously adopt a theology that precludes application of much of scripture to contemperary practise, they do not allow the operation of the gifts, miracles and the ascension gifts in practise. So they rip large chunks of the bible out, making them of historical interest only, since, on their version these verses and chapters have no impact on how we live our lives. How can that be a high view of scripture? Isn't it suspicious that this set of teachings reduces scripture to a repository for a few general principles, thus empowering the professional "teachers" and creating the frame for a purely private i.e. individualistic faith? Is it coincidence that the anti-supernaturalism and individualism of these teachings accord perfectly with a secular humanist world view. Windblown It seems to me that those who maintain that there are no apostles fail to take scripture seriously. Since these are mainly cessationists the fatal flaw is the same as of cessationism; that while they claim to have a high view of scripture, they simultaneously adopt a theology that precludes application of much of scripture to contemperary practise, they do not allow the operation of the gifts, miracles and the ascension gifts in practise.
So they rip large chunks of the bible out, making them of historical interest only, since, on their version these verses and chapters have no impact on how we live our lives. How can that be a high view of scripture?

Isn’t it suspicious that this set of teachings reduces scripture to a repository for a few general principles, thus empowering the professional “teachers” and creating the frame for a purely private i.e. individualistic faith? Is it coincidence that the anti-supernaturalism and individualism of these teachings accord perfectly with a secular humanist world view.

Windblown

]]> By: Anonymous http://ceruleansanctum.com/2005/01/the-continuing-acts-of-the-apostles.html#comment-2363 Anonymous Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:20:00 +0000 http://ceruleansanctum.com/?p=263#comment-2363 It seems to me that the origin of the idea that there are "no longer any apostles" would bear some investigating. Could it be that the self proclaimed successors of St Peter began this idea? The obvious incentive to do so would be to enhance their authority as the sucessors of St Peter the Apostle, and prevent any challenge to that authority because then no-one by definition could be equal to the Bishop of the See of St Peter? If that is so, then to reject continuing apostolic ministry is to refuse to be fully Reformed. It seems to me that the origin of the idea that there are “no longer any apostles” would bear some investigating. Could it be that the self proclaimed successors of St Peter began this idea? The obvious incentive to do so would be to enhance their authority as the sucessors of St Peter the Apostle, and prevent any challenge to that authority because then no-one by definition could be equal to the Bishop of the See of St Peter?

If that is so, then to reject continuing apostolic ministry is to refuse to be fully Reformed.

]]>