Apostolic Succession

It seems to me that Paul bases his apostleship on the grace of God, not on ecstatic gifts or the signs of an apostle and he does that because he was divinely appointed by the risen Christ for that purpose and since it is Christ who did this, it seems to me He has the authority to do so.

This holds true today, as the Lord Jesus Christ by His Spirit anoints men and women for His purposes in the Body of Christ.
 
Last edited:
Steve, what I am saying and did in fact say, is only the recorded facts and not any thesis whatsoever. I do not speak opinions or conjecture because I am just not that smart and only post what exists to be tested and proven. I respect your thoughts but I must disagree with you and here are the recorded facts on the early Catholic church and their teaching succession of the office of Apostle:

Irenaeus, (Against Heresies 3:3:1 (A.D. 180-199-ibid 4:26:2)................
"It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father.

Tertullian, (The Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:1 (A.D. 200).
"Therefore, they will be challenged to meet this test even by those Churches which are of much later date – for they are being established daily – and whose founder is not from among the Apostles nor from among the apostolic men; for those which agree in the same faith are reckoned as apostolic on account of the blood ties in their doctrine.

Firmilion of Caesarea (Letter to Cyprian 75:16 (A.D. 255-256).
"Therefore, the power of forgiving sins was given to the Apostles and to the Churches which these men, sent by Christ, established; and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place."

So, as you can see I am including nothing on my own but simply what is recorded from past teachings and comments about Apostolic succession which is easily found on the web.
Those are the same people this blogger I mentioned was quoting from in his teachings on his blog.
 
I want to say this in as nice a way as I can to you Francis. The way you state you question portrays me as being less than honest and deceitful purposefully. I am assuming you are not aware of that so I will forgive you for such a slant. To be frank with you I never evade anyone or anything my brother. It is just not in my DNA. In fact our dear moderators have to regularly remind me to not be so direct and I am glad that they do.

2nd.......YOU may think that I manipulated the conversation so as to avoid something BUT YOU would be the only one to say that.
Again, that is YOUR perception because it certainly is not my style. I am just not that smart Francis neither do I have the ability to think that way. If YOU think that then it is all YOU.

Now once again to answer you. You said you have read all the posts in this thread and if that is the case you saw in #78 that I did answer the question Sues asked and she since then has asked nothing of me that I am aware of. That being the case it was my understanding that she was happy with my response to her.

I am pretty sure you will reject what I am about to say but it is my understanding of the Bible that Paul was personally chosen by the risen and glorified Christ to be His apostle to the Gentiles. He makes it clear in the book of Galatians that his special calling was "not from men nor through man" in .

And you are correct when you say that Paul the Apostle had not accompanied Jesus during his earthly ministry, he did not meet the apostolic criteria of ac 1:21-22. However, it is clear, that he considered himself to be an apostle. Even though the only place in the Book of Acts where Paul is called an apostle is in reference to the apostles of the church in Antioch in 14:4, 14.

Dr. Luke's portrayal of Paul's ministry for the church gives implicit support to his apostolic claims. Not only does Acts depict Paul as manifesting the signs of an apostle, but in its three accounts of the Damascus Road encounter, his apostolic task is presented as the direct action of the risen Christ.

Paul's own claim to apostleship is likewise based on the divine call of Christ and that is the key IMO.
He is an apostle, "not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead" as seen in
. His encounter with the resurrected Jesus served as the basis for his unique claim to be an "apostle to the Gentiles" as we see in .

It seems to me that Paul bases his apostleship on the grace of God, not on ecstatic gifts or the signs of an apostle and he does that because he was divinely appointed by the risen Christ for that purpose.

I apologise if I insulted you Major, thank you for taking it kindly.

I disagree that you answered Sue, but that is not the purpose of this post

From the very beginning of the thread you have adamantly insisted that the criteria of apostleship was exclusively defined by Peter. I think most people would accept that criteria, but only for the selection of Matthias.
And of course Paul's subsequent commission completely denies Peter's criteria, but again I don't want to address that debate as it has been beaten to death and it will not change your stance.

So just to be clear on my own position, as far as I am concerned Euphemia has so far consistently stated the correct and clear biblical understanding of apostles and apostleship.

The following Strongs definition of apostle is taken from biblehub.com
The person sent away-
Cognate: 652apóstolos (from 649/apostéllō, "to commission, send forth") – properly, someone sent (commissioned), focusing back on the authority (commissioning) of the sender (note the prefix, apo); apostle.

I previously stated that any additional meaning for apostolos would have to be gained from the specific context, such as the one you keep insisting on for the replacement for Judas. I also stated that any additional criteria would have to be left behind when the word is exported to other situations such as Paul's. That latter fact is clearly proven in the book of Acts.

The act of sending someone away.-
649 apostéllō (from 575 /apó, "away from" and 4724 /stéllō, "send") – properly, send away, i.e. commission; (passive) "sent on a defined mission by a superior."
As an intensification of 4724 /stéllō ("send"), 649 (apostéllō) focuses back to the source (the one sending), strongly connecting the sender to the one sent (His mission). This verb is used of closely connecting the Lord (the sender) to the believers He personally commissions – as with John the Baptist () and the twelve apostles (; cf. also with His holy angels, ).

That brings me to the following.
Anyone who is an apostle can only be so because he has been sent, and that is the meaning of the word apostle. All the additional nonsense is added fluff that cannot alter the actual Greek meaning.
To demonstrate this.

2These are the names of the twelve apostles (Apostolos, one who is sent away, ie. emissary, or missionary) : first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
.................................................etc. etc....
16“I am sending (Apostello, sending away)you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.


Within this scripture, we see the one who is sent, we also see the action of the one sending him, we also see the one who does the sending.
It also shows that if someone is sending (Apostello), then the one who is sent must be the Apostolos or emissary or missionary or apostle of that specific sender.
Thus if God sends someone to do something, whether scripture calls him an apostle or not, that sending or apostello from God automatically makes the messenger an apostle of God.

John1v6 There was a man sent (Apostello) from God whose name was John.

Thus, even though he is never named as such, John the Baptist is an apostle because he was sent by God.

Mark13v41The Son of Man will send out (Apostello) his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.
So even angels can be apostles, or sent ones.

So that's the maths, or grammar. To deny that is just daft.

Bluntly, the word apostle has to be defined by the context, and that context can vary. Thus God can send anyone to do anything he chooses.
The real issue is who is doing the sending. In claiming that there are absolutely no more apostles, you are saying that God no longer sends anyone to do anything.
This means that none of your Baptist ministers have any mandate whatsoever from God, and obviously it means the same for all other workers of the church. If God is no longer sending, then they are all just ministers of the flesh, building wood hay and stubble.
 
I apologise if I insulted you Major, thank you for taking it kindly.

I disagree that you answered Sue, but that is not the purpose of this post

From the very beginning of the thread you have adamantly insisted that the criteria of apostleship was exclusively defined by Peter. I think most people would accept that criteria, but only for the selection of Matthias.
And of course Paul's subsequent commission completely denies Peter's criteria, but again I don't want to address that debate as it has been beaten to death and it will not change your stance.

So just to be clear on my own position, as far as I am concerned Euphemia has so far consistently stated the correct and clear biblical understanding of apostles and apostleship.

The following Strongs definition of apostle is taken from biblehub.com


I previously stated that any additional meaning for apostolos would have to be gained from the specific context, such as the one you keep insisting on for the replacement for Judas. I also stated that any additional criteria would have to be left behind when the word is exported to other situations such as Paul's. That latter fact is clearly proven in the book of Acts.



That brings me to the following.
Anyone who is an apostle can only be so because he has been sent, and that is the meaning of the word apostle. All the additional nonsense is added fluff that cannot alter the actual Greek meaning.
To demonstrate this.

2These are the names of the twelve apostles (Apostolos, one who is sent away, ie. emissary, or missionary) : first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
.................................................etc. etc....
16“I am sending (Apostello, sending away)you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.


Within this scripture, we see the one who is sent, we also see the action of the one sending him, we also see the one who does the sending.
It also shows that if someone is sending (Apostello), then the one who is sent must be the Apostolos or emissary or missionary or apostle of that specific sender.
Thus if God sends someone to do something, whether scripture calls him an apostle or not, that sending or apostello from God automatically makes the messenger an apostle of God.

John1v6 There was a man sent (Apostello) from God whose name was John.

Thus, even though he is never named as such, John the Baptist is an apostle because he was sent by God.

Mark13v41The Son of Man will send out (Apostello) his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.
So even angels can be apostles, or sent ones.

So that's the maths, or grammar. To deny that is just daft.

Bluntly, the word apostle has to be defined by the context, and that context can vary. Thus God can send anyone to do anything he chooses.
The real issue is who is doing the sending. In claiming that there are absolutely no more apostles, you are saying that God no longer sends anyone to do anything.
This means that none of your Baptist ministers have any mandate whatsoever from God, and obviously it means the same for all other workers of the church. If God is no longer sending, then they are all just ministers of the flesh, building wood hay and stubble.
Of course I have to disagree with your explination.

Frances, I really do not care who you support or agree with on this or any other subject. It is what it is and if you and others do not accept what the Scriptures say which I post, I have already told you that it is your choice. Believe what or WHO you want to.

Agreeing with Euphemia does not make her right anymore than you standing in a garage makes you a car!!!

I said from the very beginning of this thread that the word Apostle meant...."Sent One". Anyone can be a SENT ONE.
All who God saves are in fact sent into the world to spread the gospel. We are all sent by God! But that has nothing to do with the original 12 and was their a succession from those men. THAT is what I have been talking about.

That has never been in dispute and really has no context from the original posted comments by Sue.

It has been or at least it has been by me the consideration of the 12 apostles appointed and commissioned by Jesus Christ.

Yes God can send who He wants to do what He wants which was my answer to your question concerning Paul not being with Jesus during His earthly ministry. You have just confirmed that answer of Paul being the exception.

Bluntly speaking, your claim of Baptists not having a mandate from God is disingenuous and absolutely untrue. You just said God can send who He wants to where He wants but now you say except the Baptists faith. So by your theology the Methodist denomination, and Presbyterian, Church of Christ, and the others who do not believe in Apostles today are In the same condition.
By your words and explanation, Drs. Billy Graham, Charles Stanley, Oliver Green, J. Vernon McGee, Billy Sunday, Charles Moody and the list of other great men did their work for God without a mandate from God. Do you realize how silly that sounds?????

When did YOU last read the "Mission Statement" from the men to know what their calling was???? Do you have any idea how many individuals this men have lead to Christ for salvation only to have you say they have no mandate from God to do so.
Do you have any clue to how many churches they have started and colleges they have begun?

All the trouble you went to, to post the grammatical context in essence means nothing at all since we have been discussing the original 12 and was there a line of succession to THEM, not to people who are sent by God but who are not apostles. That is simply not and has not been the question. You have IMO thrown up a smoke screen in trying to define what the word Apostle means which we all have agreed upon a long ago.

With the attitude and personal comments being made from you, I am pretty sure the mods are about to close this thread but as for me I am not going on with this. It is becoming much to confrontational for me and I do not like the way this is heading.

You have a good weekend and I am sure we will talk about something else latter on down the road.
 
Do you agree with him as well? Is he saying the early Catholic church continued the Apostolic succession ?
Major, of course I don't agree with him. That is what I have been saying all along. And, yes, he is teaching apostolic succession, which is why I posed the question in the first place. He is someone whose ministry is known in evangelical circles, which is why it surprised and concerned me to see that he was teaching this false doctrine, and that, although he would begin his teachings with a scripture, he quoted these early writers, such as you mentioned, to support his theology. Since I had not heard of this before, and had just begun to research it, I opened this discussion to see if any of you had any knowledge of it. All of your comments helped me gain a greater understanding of what this is about, and as I prayed about it, and looked at the scriptures, the Lord gave me the understanding I believe he wanted me to have from it, which I think I shared in post #30, if my memory serves me correctly.

I agree with you that we are to have no more apostles in the sense of those in the New Testament who spoke God's God-breathed words to the people. In other words, there will be no adding to or subtracting from scripture. I believe Matthew-Revelation are the scriptures we are to follow as the "Word of God." Nonetheless, I do believe that the body of Christ, as the royal priesthood, and filled with the Holy Spirit, has the living Word dwelling within them, and in the Bible, and thus we have the authority of the Word of God by which we speak, and in that sense we speak God's God-breathed words. We are all called of God, commissioned to his service, and are sent out with the gospel of salvation. So, in a sense, by the definition of the word "apostle," we are all sent out ones. Yet, we don't all have authority over others, and what authority any believers do have comes straight from God, and not through succession.

I think it really comes down to a matter of what this all really means, in all practicality, in our daily lives. I believe we need to guard against those who claim to have come from a line of apostolic succession and who are bringing with that some new revelation which they believe we must obey. Yet, I believe in all the gifts of the Spirit, and that they are alive and well and active within the church today, but they must be exercised according to the instructions given us in scripture. If someone is bringing a teaching to us that is different from what we have previously received, we need to test it to see if it is of God. If the scriptures prove it to be false, we should reject it. We should test everything we hear against the Word of God, and not easily buy into anything anyone says, no matter who they say they are, or by what authority they believe they speak. Yet, I also believe we should not quench the Spirit by ignoring what might be a message from God through one of his servants (not adding to scripture, but sharing the truths of scripture in a practical way in application to our world and lives today), such as what many preachers do. We just need to be discerning and test everything against the Word of Truth, and not be persuaded by what is clearly false.
 
Of course I have to disagree with your explination.

Frances, I really do not care who you support or agree with on this or any other subject. It is what it is and if you and others do not accept what the Scriptures say which I post, I have already told you that it is your choice. Believe what or WHO you want to.

Agreeing with Euphemia does not make her right anymore than you standing in a garage makes you a car!!!
I merely quoted Euphemia as a benchmark to save me repeating what she had written.
And we most certainly do accept and believe the scriptures you have posted, we just don't believe your interpretations of them.
I said from the very beginning of this thread that the word Apostle meant...."Sent One". Anyone can be a SENT ONE.
All who God saves are in fact sent into the world to spread the gospel. We are all sent by God! But that has nothing to do with the original 12 and was their a succession from those men. THAT is what I have been talking about.
This conversation has gone way beyond the twelve. It is the fact that you have tried to apply the criteria of the twelve to all subsequent apostles that we disagree with.
That has never been in dispute and really has no context from the original posted comments by Sue.

It has been or at least it has been by me the consideration of the 12 apostles appointed and commissioned by Jesus Christ.

Yes God can send who He wants to do what He wants which was my answer to your question concerning Paul not being with Jesus during His earthly ministry. You have just confirmed that answer of Paul being the exception.
Bluntly speaking, your claim of Baptists not having a mandate from God is disingenuous and absolutely untrue. You just said God can send who He wants to where He wants but now you say except the Baptists faith. So by your theology the Methodist denomination, and Presbyterian, Church of Christ, and the others who do not believe in Apostles today are In the same condition.
By your words and explanation, Drs. Billy Graham, Charles Stanley, Oliver Green, J. Vernon McGee, Billy Sunday, Charles Moody and the list of other great men did their work for God without a mandate from God. Do you realize how silly that sounds?????

When did YOU last read the "Mission Statement" from the men to know what their calling was???? Do you have any idea how many individuals this men have lead to Christ for salvation only to have you say they have no mandate from God to do so.
Do you have any clue to how many churches they have started and colleges they have begun?
I said nothing of the sort in my post.
I merely pointed out what was was the logical consequence of what you believe. Here is what I actually said.-
"In claiming that there are absolutely no more apostles, you are saying that God no longer sends anyone to do anything.
This means that none of your Baptist ministers have any mandate whatsoever from God, and obviously it means the same for all other workers of the church. If God is no longer sending, then they are all just ministers of the flesh, building wood hay and stubble."

As you can see, I was not making that claim myself. My stance is that the apostolic calling, just like the other four ministries has continues no stop since that time, otherwise the above statement must be true.
All the trouble you went to, to post the grammatical context in essence means nothing at all since we have been discussing the original 12 and was there a line of succession to THEM, not to people who are sent by God but who are not apostles. That is simply not and has not been the question. You have IMO thrown up a smoke screen in trying to define what the word Apostle means which we all have agreed upon a long ago.

With the attitude and personal comments being made from you, I am pretty sure the mods are about to close this thread but as for me I am not going on with this. It is becoming much to confrontational for me and I do not like the way this is heading.

You have a good weekend and I am sure we will talk about something else latter on down the road.

I really don't think you should accuse me of laying smoke screens Major.
 
Major, of course I don't agree with him. That is what I have been saying all along. And, yes, he is teaching apostolic succession, which is why I posed the question in the first place. He is someone whose ministry is known in evangelical circles, which is why it surprised and concerned me to see that he was teaching this false doctrine, and that, although he would begin his teachings with a scripture, he quoted these early writers, such as you mentioned, to support his theology. Since I had not heard of this before, and had just begun to research it, I opened this discussion to see if any of you had any knowledge of it. All of your comments helped me gain a greater understanding of what this is about, and as I prayed about it, and looked at the scriptures, the Lord gave me the understanding I believe he wanted me to have from it, which I think I shared in post #30, if my memory serves me correctly.

I agree with you that we are to have no more apostles in the sense of those in the New Testament who spoke God's God-breathed words to the people. In other words, there will be no adding to or subtracting from scripture. I believe Matthew-Revelation are the scriptures we are to follow as the "Word of God." Nonetheless, I do believe that the body of Christ, as the royal priesthood, and filled with the Holy Spirit, has the living Word dwelling within them, and in the Bible, and thus we have the authority of the Word of God by which we speak, and in that sense we speak God's God-breathed words. We are all called of God, commissioned to his service, and are sent out with the gospel of salvation. So, in a sense, by the definition of the word "apostle," we are all sent out ones. Yet, we don't all have authority over others, and what authority any believers do have comes straight from God, and not through succession.

I think it really comes down to a matter of what this all really means, in all practicality, in our daily lives. I believe we need to guard against those who claim to have come from a line of apostolic succession and who are bringing with that some new revelation which they believe we must obey. Yet, I believe in all the gifts of the Spirit, and that they are alive and well and active within the church today, but they must be exercised according to the instructions given us in scripture. If someone is bringing a teaching to us that is different from what we have previously received, we need to test it to see if it is of God. If the scriptures prove it to be false, we should reject it. We should test everything we hear against the Word of God, and not easily buy into anything anyone says, no matter who they say they are, or by what authority they believe they speak. Yet, I also believe we should not quench the Spirit by ignoring what might be a message from God through one of his servants (not adding to scripture, but sharing the truths of scripture in a practical way in application to our world and lives today), such as what many preachers do. We just need to be discerning and test everything against the Word of Truth, and not be persuaded by what is clearly false.

Well said Sue and I do believe that you and I are saying exactly the same thing. What you have seen in this thread is classic.

What We have seen is the separation of Bible interpretation from the view of the Charismatic Pentecostal faith which accepts the role of women as Pastors and the use of all the "Sign Gifts" and the more orthodox view which comes from the Baptist-Presbyterian- Methodists etc. view which rejects those interpretations.

One of the views requires that one change or adapt or interpret the words to what one wants the Scriptures to say and mean, while the other accepts the "literal" meaning of the words said in those Scriptures.

Then in the middle of that difference we have individuals who become upset that they are challenged to explain their understandings which always leads to personal comments and confrontation. It is nature of man and that is sad but it is none the less the truth.
 
Well said Sue and I do believe that you and I are saying exactly the same thing. What you have seen in this thread is classic.

What We have seen is the separation of Bible interpretation from the view of the Charismatic Pentecostal faith which accepts the role of women as Pastors and the use of all the "Sign Gifts" and the more orthodox view which comes from the Baptist-Presbyterian- Methodists etc. view which rejects those interpretations.

One of the views requires that one change or adapt or interpret the words to what one wants the Scriptures to say and mean, while the other accepts the "literal" meaning of the words said in those Scriptures.

Then in the middle of that difference we have individuals who become upset that they are challenged to explain their understandings which always leads to personal comments and confrontation. It is nature of man and that is sad but it is none the less the truth.

Major, We all come from various backgrounds, family upbringings, and if we were brought up in the church, as I was, we also come from various thoughts on what the scriptures teach and how they are to be interpreted. For me, much of what I was taught has remained with me, as the Lord has confirmed over and over again the truth of those teachings, as they were very solid biblical teachings. Other things I was taught growing up I had to relearn, because some of those things were just traditions of humans passed down from generation to generation, or were hangovers from the various doctrines of people which they brought into the church from their family's religious upbringing. Some things I got wrong on my own, because I didn't read a passage in context, and so I had to relearn what it was teaching based upon the context, and by comparing scripture with other scripture.

The main thing for all us to keep in mind, I believe, is to always remain open to seeing if maybe we got some things wrong, not challenging the foundations of the Christian faith, obviously, but just being willing to be challenged, and then to test what we hear, and then to be willing to change how we have always believed if the scriptures teach us that what we had always thought was true is not really true. I have learned so much over the years just by being challenged in my faith, and thus it driving me to the Word of God to learn what it really says, and by not accepting someone telling me not to bother with it because "our denomination" doesn't believe that way. I don't want to believe what some denomination believes. I want to believe the truth, and so I am a seeker of truth, and I don't mind admitting I was wrong if I learn I was wrong. We just all need to be humble and be willing to ask God to show us where we have things wrong, and to continually guide us into all truth, yet not easily swayed back and forth by various winds of doctrine.
 
Major, We all come from various backgrounds, family upbringings, and if we were brought up in the church, as I was, we also come from various thoughts on what the scriptures teach and how they are to be interpreted. For me, much of what I was taught has remained with me, as the Lord has confirmed over and over again the truth of those teachings, as they were very solid biblical teachings. Other things I was taught growing up I had to relearn, because some of those things were just traditions of humans passed down from generation to generation, or were hangovers from the various doctrines of people which they brought into the church from their family's religious upbringing. Some things I got wrong on my own, because I didn't read a passage in context, and so I had to relearn what it was teaching based upon the context, and by comparing scripture with other scripture.

The main thing for all us to keep in mind, I believe, is to always remain open to seeing if maybe we got some things wrong, not challenging the foundations of the Christian faith, obviously, but just being willing to be challenged, and then to test what we hear, and then to be willing to change how we have always believed if the scriptures teach us that what we had always thought was true is not really true. I have learned so much over the years just by being challenged in my faith, and thus it driving me to the Word of God to learn what it really says, and by not accepting someone telling me not to bother with it because "our denomination" doesn't believe that way. I don't want to believe what some denomination believes. I want to believe the truth, and so I am a seeker of truth, and I don't mind admitting I was wrong if I learn I was wrong. We just all need to be humble and be willing to ask God to show us where we have things wrong, and to continually guide us into all truth, yet not easily swayed back and forth by various winds of doctrine.

Absolutely correct Sue!
 
That same power is given to all of us by the Holy Spirit. However the first apostles laid the foundation that we continually build upon.



We, as apostles of Christ in general, sent out ones for Him, carry all the power and authority of Jesus Christ in us. Now, that said, there is a special gifting or calling of apostle for the Church, and not everyone has that. But it, like all the other gifts and callings, has not ceased.
While all who are Christ's are sent out into the world. Not all are Apostles even as Paul said not all are the hands or feet.
 
While all who are Christ's are sent out into the world. Not all are Apostles even as Paul said not all are the hands or feet.

Paul never denied that we are all the hands and feet of Jesus Christ in the world. In fact Paul said:

1 John 4:17
Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world.

2 Corinthians 5:20
So we are Christ’s ambassadors; God is making his appeal through us. We speak for Christ when we plead, “Come back to God!”
 
Paul never denied that we are all the hands and feet of Jesus Christ in the world. In fact Paul said:

1 John 4:17
Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world.

2 Corinthians 5:20
So we are Christ’s ambassadors; God is making his appeal through us. We speak for Christ when we plead, “Come back to God!”
If you look carefully you will find I was replying to the post that implied ALL are APOSTLES one the basis that all are sent...people who jump to their own conclusions never arrive at the truth.
For Paul actually said not all are the hand etc.
The verse you then quoted has nothing to do with the subject in hand.
In christ
Gerald
 
If you look carefully you will find I was replying to the post that implied ALL are APOSTLES one the basis that all are sent...people who jump to their own conclusions never arrive at the truth.
For Paul actually said not all are the hand etc.
The verse you then quoted has nothing to do with the subject in hand.
In christ
Gerald

I was pointing out to you that Paul never once said we are not all "the hand". In context, Paul was speaking about the importance of our spiritual gifts, and that not one single gift is more important than another. The truth is that we are all ambassadors for Christ, and are sent out ones for Him, despite the fact that Holy Spirit will endow certain people with the apostle anointing. It is the same with faith...all of us who believe in Jesus Christ have faith, but there is a spiritual gift of faith that some people have been anointed with.

Both verses I supplied are appropriate.
 
I was pointing out to you that Paul never once said we are not all "the hand". In context, Paul was speaking about the importance of our spiritual gifts, and that not one single gift is more important than another. The truth is that we are all ambassadors for Christ, and are sent out ones for Him, despite the fact that Holy Spirit will endow certain people with the apostle anointing. It is the same with faith...all of us who believe in Jesus Christ have faith, but there is a spiritual gift of faith that some people have been anointed with.

Both verses I supplied are appropriate.
I stand corrected .

But as we were talking about Apostles. The gift of faith is not the domain of just Apostles.It is a gift from time to time the H'S will and can give as it is needed.this gift of faith is over and above that "measure "of faith God has given to all men.
But as I'm sure you know the "gifts" and the ministries of God are two very different things.
I don't agree as to all being equal in importance.on the basis that all those ministries as listed in Ephesians are for the perfecting of the Bride of Christmas etc,
In that regard those ministers of God are very important.
But if true ministers of God then they will neither Lord it over the sheep or take advantage of them or "make merchandise "of them.
When some challenged Moses authority did they not say are we not as holy as you?
(A doubtful judgement given their actions)taken at face value they were.but it was not given to them to minister as Moses was called to do.
was not there a king of Israel (HUZZIAH? ) who sought to do the office of the priesthood and offer incense unto the Lord?He found out to his great cost ,though a king he was not meet to do so.
It is not then a matter of greater or lesser 'importance' but rather of function and ministry.
that is not the same as gifts.though both minister and fellow brethren may as God so wills manifest those gifts several as he wills.
sorry then for any misunderstanding. I much prefer talking/conversation as there is less likely hood of it and if it does happen can quickly be rectified.
 
Back
Top