Good. Now let me share with you why I supposed that you had not carefully sorted this question before making your assumptions. There were more than 13 apostles in the NT.

a) First, there were twelve whom the Lord appointed (Luke 6:13). After Christ's resurrection, one was chosen to replace Judas who had fallen to go to his own place (Acts 1:16-26); so these were always called "the twelve".

b) Then there were others chosen besides the twelve. Paul was called an apostle, as he most often wrote in his epistles (Rom. 1:1 and I Cor.9:1-2).

c) Barnabas was also recognised as an apostle, for notice that the word 'apostles' (plural) was used in reference to him and Paul in Acts 14:14 - "Which when the apostle[b]s[/b], Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes. . ."

d) Several others were also chosen as apostles by the risen and ascended Lord through the Spirit. Eph.4:11 shows that these apostles were more than 'the twelve' because the understanding there is that (i) this appointment was made after the Lord's ascension (verses 8 & 11 - "Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. . . and He gave some apostles. . ."; and (ii) they were given as gifts to the Church, operating in the church rather than outside to establish churches in other places (I Cor. 12:28 - "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles. . .".

Turn to Rom. 16:7 where Andronicus and Junia were notable among the apostles. All these verses show that there surely were more than 13 apostles besides the twelve and Paul.

The apostle Peter was both an apostle and an elder in the Church in Jerusalem. This is borne out both in Acts 15 and in his epistles. Writing in his epistles, he addressed himself as an apostle thrice (I Pet. 1:1; II Pet. 1:1 & 3:2) and as an elder once (I Pet. 5:1). Notice also that at the time he was so addressing himself as an elder, he did not cease to be known as an apostle even in Jerusalem; so your inference does not hold true that there was no need for him to be called an apostle just because he was an elder based in Jerusalem.

As you can see, teacher TV01, your student does not agree with you on these matters because you've clearly not handled them well. And what's this about your reference to tithes/tithing in almost every thread these days when you're discussing issues about Christianity? I don't see why you're mentioning in red capitals "NO TITHING" in quoting Acts 15:19-25. May I remind you that there was no Lord's Supper or "giving" mentioned in those verses - so then, what's your point? Has this issue become a personal matter that you would mention tithes/tithing with a cynical twist in almost every thread? There really isn't a need for that at all, and I hope you'd stick more to the issues at hand in future posts.

Regards.

4get_me,

TV01:

To be honest the number of NT Apostles would be a mute point to me.
I consider grasping the "how & why" of the apostolic to be sufficient.

Paul walked/worked with a whole group of people.
Both Timothy and Titus, where to "appoint elders". I see that as "establishing" the church/churches, so in a sense it's definitely apostolic. Are they to be considered apostles?
Are they to be considered Apostles like Peter? or maybe like Paul? All good questions, but I'm not sure how important it is.
I must say the True Apostles were personally selected by the Lord himself, even Paul as "one out of time".

So perhaps we can make a distinction between an "Apostle" a title/position/selected, and "the Apostolic" as a function?

As you can see by my use of the term True Apostles, I am fully aware that not only the Apostles of the Lord moved in the apostolic. What about Timothy? or Titus? But does that make them Apostles like "The 12"?

Andronicus and Junia were notable among the apostles (not as apostles) is a possible reading of this.

But lets not get bogged down in semantics, others moved in the "Apostolic". Let me ask you this,

How does an "Apostle" operate in daily church?
Is what present day apostles do in anyway foundational?

When Peter wrote giving instructions (especially to those in the dispersion), he was talking things foundational, and as was sensible he lent the weight of his apostolic authority to his missives

As for the tithing references. You have long promised a rejoinder, but so far none has been forthcoming. So as far as I am concerned that conversation is ongoing, and I find it convenient to buttress my position, where the turn of any discussion allows.

The Lords supper? Pray tell, what has that to do with Jews? or the Law?

Say on sir,

God bless

TV01,

In response to your assertion that you saw only 13 (or the 12 and Paul) apostles in the NT, my rejoinder was to show that there were more than 13. If you disagreed with Andronicus and Junia being apostles, surely you can't ignore the fact that Barnabas was an apostle, regardless the semantics or versions you read. By that one fact alone, it's clear that your reference to 13 foundational apostles is untenable.

The apostle Peter in writing to those in dispersion clearly addressed himself as both an apostle and an elder. Not only was he addressing foundational matters, but also issues far more than that. Not all the apostles wrote epistles or missives in order to function as apostles; but that did not make them any less apostles. Fact is, Peter was an apostle from the time he was commissioned as such till his death; there was never a time when it so happened that the title was no longer needed or became obselete with him.

Present day misappropriation of Christian terms are rife; but that does not mean that the real meaning of Biblical roles and functions are blurred as a result. There were apostles in early Christianity - far more than 13 of them; nowhere is the idea given that after them, there would be none other called apostles. We have had apostles whom God commissioned - as far as Eph. 4:11 is concerned - and God continues to raise such today as He wills. You ask what roles this class of apostles play in the church? Why, it's clearly outlined in that same passage in Ephesians 4:12-13 - "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ."

Now some argue that the apostles are no longer needed and there are no more apsotles after the 12 or 13. If that were true, then in the same measure, there would have been no more prophets, nor evangelists, nor pastors and teachers! A careful study of Ephesians 4 will show you that the class of apostles and others outlined there will continue until we all reach the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. That is why God has set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, etc. (I Cor. 12: 28). Apostles are not merely for foundational work; they are also given to build up and perfect the saints.

Now, do not suppose me to be neglecting the tithing issue. First, I have dealt extensively with that in other threads and I don't see a need to go repeating myself on that. Second, I made it clear in one of such threads that you cannot use an OT verse to lay a curse on NT people in as much as God has not done so. Third, I specifically promised to rest your heart with respect to the Law, the Sabbath and Grace - not about tithing. I just wondered why you seemed to be so unsettled about the tithing issue that you'd have to make reference to it anywhere and everywhere you address issues that are not even related to it - ala your reference of Acts 15.

Let's do it like this: I'll leave you no promises about anything henceforth. When I can have the time to address the issues as stated earlier, you'll be reading them.

Regards.

I think in total about 20 (or so - not sure of exact number presently) were referred to, technically or 'loosely', as apostles.

I'm afraid I'm also of the opinion that there are no apostles today. Technically, in my opinion, the true apostles were the 12, counting Judas, + Matthias - who was selected by lot to replace the latter. To that list we add Paul of Tarsus. The twelve were of course the original "sent" ones who were direct witnesses of Christ, specifically selected by Him. It was also a qualification for the selection of Matthias that he was also a direct witness of the life of Christ (and His resurrection, I believe). Paul's case is special because, whilst not having been with the rest from the beginning, he was called and "sent" directly and personally by Christ Himself in that Damascene experience.

These 13/14 are to me the true "technical" apostles. Others were loosely called/referred to as 'apostles', mostly by Paul, but I do not think they are apostles in the true/technical sense.

Today, anyone calling himself an apostle is, in my opinion, self-delusional. In any event we are all sent now, so if any Christian is an "apostle" then all Christians are "apostles".

In conclusion, strictly-speaking, only the 13/14 were true apostles; a few others were so referred to in the NT in a kind of "honorary" sense. There are no apostles today or all are "apostles" today.

Interesting points. However, I'm persuaded that there were far more than 13/14 referred to in the NT as apostles, and my reasons are equally strong.

1) First, because Scripture speaks in terms of divine inspiration, there's nothing "loosely" termed in the Bible.

2) There were eleven apostles after Judas fell to go to his place. But when Matthias was chosen to replace him, he was numbered among the eleven (Acts 1:26), making the number twelve; and thus - "the twelve" as they were often referred.

3) Barnabas was not loosely called an apostle - he was placed on the same technical sense that Paul was so addressed in Acts 14:14.

4) A careful study of Ephesians 4:11 shows that the apostle Paul was referring to a class of persons far more than the twelve, himself and Barnabas: these were viewed as gifts to the Church by the ascended Christ (v.8 ). Why is this important? For the simple reasons that they were spoken of as gifts for a special on-going work/ministry in conjunction with prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (see carefully verses 12-13).

Some have thought that after the foundational work of the apostles and prophets in Eph. 2:20, there was no more need for the roles of apostles in the Church since that time. Not true. To make that mistake is easy from ignoring other texts of scripture on the gifts of Christ to the Church. I Cor. 12:28 clearly says that God has set some in the church, firstly apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, etc. Notice it did not class apostles and prophets as being first (that is, foundational) - each class of gifts were specifically recognised as playing their distinct and collective roles in the Church.

The mistake many people often make is to ignore verses 12 and 13 of Ephesians 4. If the apsotles and prophets were only foundational and no more than that, they would not be included in or viewed as part of the gifts in verse 11 for "the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ". These work and ministry are not matters left solely for the evangelists, pastors and teachers -  apostles and prophets raised by God after Paul and the twelve are surely in view in verse 11.

The second mistake many people make is that they see apostles as all doing the same rank-xerox thing. It shouldn't necessarily be so. Peter was an apostle to the circumcision (that is, the Jews), as Paul was to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:8 and Rom. 11:13). Other apostles fulfilled other roles, no less in the capacity of apostles but not every one of them handled the same apostolic matters. For example, Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom to bring the NT Gospel of the saving grace of God to Jews and Gentiles (Acts 2:10 - Jews; and Acts 10:44-45 - Gentiles). Paul on the other hand was an apostle specially commissioned by the Lord to teach the Gospel to the Gentiles (Rom. 1:14; Eph. 3:8; and I Tim. 2:7). More than that, he was the apostle specially chosen for the revelation of Christians both as God's building and as the Body of Christ (I Cor. 3:10 and 10:17).

The point is that the apostles, while all fulfilling their commission in apostolic capacity, did not necessary all do the same things.

Hence, there is just no way we could separate the apostles into "technical" and/or "loose" appellations. They were all apostles; and to view some as this and others as that is to ignore the collective testimony of Scripture.

Regards.

Enigma, 4get_me, Morning ,

Read your comments with interest.

4get_me, let me say this, it's obvious (and good, I think), that we take/have different approaches to our common faith. One thing I hesitate to do, is moderate anyones walk with God. Share? yes, influence and inform to some degree? Of course that'll happen. But moderate? no way, otherwise it's not really their walk.

Now, about tithing, please don't take it personally, a lot of what I see and indeed where I am in my walk, started from my coming to the understanding that it is simply dead work. You may or may not agree, no problem, I used to withstand those who didn't tithe and rail against those who argued for net as against gross income. But 2 things;

1. I found that a conclusion for or against tithing, is but the beginning of a deeper discussion. Whenever there's a crime, of whatever nature, good police will always investigate the money trail. I'm sure you'll continue your personal search, but please consider that.

2. The debate is not strictly between the two of us, it's open forum. No one else has complained or even mentioned my bundling this in with other threads. If I feel the discourse will deepen our understanding of the tithing issue as well, why not? However, as a mark of goodwill and the fact that I treasure our sharing, I will desist.

On to the question of Apostles, gifts and offices. Please don't take this personally, but, although I really applaud your research, sometimes I feel it gets very technical and doesn't speak much to the "outworking" of real live Christianity.

So for example, you insist on quantifying numbers and identifying names. No problem. Now my question was "How does the apostle operate in church today. You respoded with the quote from Ph 4 about edifying etc. etc. Yes sir, I know that is the reason for all Christian ministry, office, gifts, but my question was very specific. Not why, but what & how. You've mention "apostolic commission and capacity". Please sir, elucidate. Commissioned, how?, capacity, what?

As I stressed repeatedly, God is sovereign, He can do whatsoever He pleases. I quoted the opening of Hebrews 1, about how God once spoke through the prophets, but has now spoken to us through His Son. Does that mean prophets no longer exist? That's a pick 'em question. But does it mean that if the prophetic is required, God can't/won't use someone for the purpose? Likewise the apostolic.

We can argue the point endlessly. Paul said "last of all" in referring to himself as an apostle. How technical do you want us to be? It's why I said numbers are a mute point to me. I am not so much interested in scoring points or winning arguments, as in being better informed and hearing how other believers are living it.

I think this insistence on delineating offices, functions, hierarchies, is typical of one who sees the Church as organisation. I sense that you sometimes research to prove a point, or maybe validate what is practiced in your mode of worship. Maybe it would help if (as I feel I have tried to do), share your denominational leaning or mode of worship. After all, surely that's as important as sharing doctrinal positions?

Apologies for having to reference scripture off the cuff in this one, can't really access my resource just now.

Let the dialogue continue.

God bless

TV01,

Goodday. Please don't make it sound like this has gotten to a stage where things are muddled up, and then seek to blame it on my posts. I dare say it seems to me you're going round in circles and not facing issues. Let me take you back a few posts as reminders:

1) my concerns and inputs were informed by your assertions that I found untenable.
For instance, for the sake of this reminder, you surprised me with your cursing the NT church with an OT verse; and you have not been able up until now to show me where I was wrong on refuting that notion.

2) I have not sought to moderate anyone's walk on this Forum, and if that's what my posts read like to you, pray that you check your own posts again and see if that's not exactly what you've been doing as well. In a forum where publicly affecting issues are debated, it's the norm to observe that everyone does their utmost to show how and why they agree or otherwise disagree with the posts they are debating. That does not translate into moderating others' walk.

3) so how could I share without influencing by way of persuasion? And how could I persuade without a reference to some sort of authority - the Bible in this case? And if I don't quote texts, how do my persuasions hold any substance? I don't understand what you mean by moderating others' walk; all the same I've never taken anything personal, unless where things have been said in bad light, like the case with your reference of I Sam. 8.

You may suppose my posts are very 'technical' - can't help it sometimes, and a very dear friend of mine has pointed that out to me (syrup). I'm really not perturbed by the notion, and it's always my style to play it safe by stating it as it is. This is the reason why I pointed out what I did - line by line, precept upon precept; showing from Scripture what and why my persuasions are. The "outworking" of practical Christianity says nothing of itself when people ignore what the Bible says on complaints of being technical or this and that.

Here again. . . (had to take a short break. . .lol)

TV01:

So for example, you insist on quantifying numbers and identifying names. No problem. Now my question was "How does the apostle operate in church today. You respoded with the quote from Ph 4 about edifying etc. etc. Yes sir, I know that is the reason for all Christian ministry, office, gifts, but my question was very specific. Not why, but what & how. You've mention "apostolic commission and capacity". Please sir, elucidate. Commissioned, how?, capacity, what?

Reason why we got to this point was because you had earlier made the assertion that "Everything else is needless religion." That made me suspect that you perhaps had not taken the time to see what the Bible says about ministering gifts in the Church. As has been debated, it turned out that, where we miss this point, all else will be confused. So, if there were only 13 apostles, it would not matter what the gifts meant anyways, because that would suppose that there were no such gifts beyond the apostles (which clearly is not correct); and secondly, it would presume that if God raised up true evangelists, pastors and teachers today, you'd be obliged to write them off as "needless religion!"

As to the question of "what & how" - I've dealt with those in a nutshell discussing the examples of Peter's commission to the circumcission, and Paul's to the Gentiles, yes? Commissioned: specifically called to the task with authority. Capacity: acting in the office of the calling.

Regards.

TV01:

I think this insistence on delineating offices, functions, hierarchies, is typical of one who sees the Church as organisation. I sense that you sometimes research to prove a point, or maybe validate what is practiced in your mode of worship. Maybe it would help if (as I feel I have tried to do), share your denominational leaning or mode of worship. After all, surely that's as important as sharing doctrinal positions?

Not at all. I'm not one to see the Church as an organization, but that doesn't mean that there is no sense of the Church being organized. Second, it's not an insistence on delineating the various roles, functions, and offices; it's important to see that the Bible teaches it. If it wasn't important, I'm sure they would not have appeared on the pages of the Bible. (Or, how else did you come to the conclusion earlier that "There are only two offices in the church today elders (always in plurality) and deacons"?). Lastly, I haven't read anything about you "sharing your denominational leaning or mode of worship" on this Forum; would like you to point this out where you have.

Blessings.

4get_me,

Did you really read my last post?

I said "I try not to moderate" and you launch a full scale offensive in denying that you do so yourself? I never said or insinuated that you did. I didn't accuse you of anything. If I don't do it, why would I let anyone do it to me? All I did was express how I see the tone of the discussion and "my" approach. There is absolutely no reason for your defensiveness.

If you find my assertions untenable, like I said, no problems.

But please don't ascribe things to me. Was there a misunderstanding about the curse thing? Possibly, did I clarify? Yes, did you indicate dissatisfaction with my clarification? No. But again, to keep things current, I'll clarify again.

I use the word "church" in one of two ways.

1. The institutional/traditional/denominational church (especially as it relates to the religious abomination falsely called "Christianity"

2. The body of Christ.

I believe I made it very clear (as does the bible) that the "church" in 1. above, is cursed and more besides. Feel free to disagree. If you are still uncertain, I am as ever, willing to elucidate.

If your position is "as long as it's called church it flies", fine. Like I said, I don't moderate, I share. Feel free to accept or reject. Hear Paul say, "We do not have dominion over your faith"

If you "don't understand what I mean by moderating others walk", why not ask   ?

If there's anything you feel requires clarification. Please do ask.

In the meantime, can we get back on topic?

My questions remain the same;

How does an "Apostle" operate in daily church in this day and age?
Is what present day apostles do in anyway foundational?

Later

God bless

TV01,

TV01:

Did you really read my last post?

I said "I try not to moderate" and you launch a full scale offensive in denying that you do so yourself? I never said or insinuated that you did. I didn't accuse you of anything. If I don't do it, why would I let anyone do it to me? All I did was express how I see the tone of debate and "my" approach. There is absolutely no reason for your defensiveness.

Did I really read your last post? Thoroughly. Did you really read mine? I don't know. Where you "try not to moderate" does not and should not tie in with a response to make it look like I'm doing so. Happy now?

TV01:

I use the word "church" in one of two ways.

1. The institutional/traditional/denominational church (especially as it relates to the religious abomination falsely called "Christianity"

2. The body of Christ.

I've noticed that your use of the term "church" as a pejorative term in addressing others who do not fall into your idea and interpretation of church is at best an unhappy exercise. The fact that denominations exist does not warrant a Christian's use of "church" in any pejorative sense. Six churches out of seven in Rev. 2 & 3 had problems, some of which would shock us today; but nowhere do we read that Christ perjured them. Tell me something - these "religious abomination falsely called Christianity" have come under your incessant scathing in almost all your posts: do you see any thing of God's grace to appreciate in them? Nothing at all?

TV01:

I believe I made it very clear (as does the bible) that the "church" in 1. above, is cursed and more besides. Feel free to disagree. If you are still uncertain, I am as ever, willing to elucidate.

No, you did not - show me if I'm mistaken. You read the word curse into I Samuel 8 where there was none and I pointed this out to you. If you're still insisting that Christians in the denominations are cursed, I want the direct verse for that.

TV01:

My questions remain the same;

How does an "Apostle" operate in daily church in this day and age?
Is what present day apostles do in anyway foundational?

Please go read my posts where I addressed both questions. If you're not satisfied, ask. And while you're that, let me enquire: are you of the view that there are only elders and deacons and everything else is needless religion? In other words, no evangelists, pastors and teachers, and other gifts today? Would you mind sharing about your views from the Scriptures?

Ragards.

4get_me,

This is proving harder than it ought, but I'll persevere.

I try not too moderate, I was not accusing you of such, apologies if it sounded like I was.

As for my pejorative use of the word '"church", I hope you can see the distinction I made, but if not, I can't offer you much solace as to my use of words.

I thought I made it clear that it's the "religious systems" themselves that are false. God's true church, the Bride of Christ is comprised of individuals, who "repent towards God and put their faith in Jesus Christ, nothing added or taken away", wherever they are. I remember making this point yesterday. Are some of these individuals in those "religious systems"? yes.

Suffice to say, look for the women. "The Bride" and the "harlot". One represents the true church. The other looks, acts and pretends to be the real thing. God calls her a harlot, an abomination and her promise (curse) is desolation. He also advises those who are His to "come out of her". If you don't agree, like I said, fine.

If you have the position that as long as it's labelled "church" its "Christian" and God's grace is on it, I can disagree can't I?

As to my questions about apostles. I'm sorry, I can't quite figure out your responses. I'd appreciate a quick summary, such as what they do, how, how they are commissioned etc etc. You spoke about Peter and about Paul, but nothing that I could see that speaks to current day apostolic work/practice.

Elders/Pastors/Bishops/Shepherds are all facets of the same role.
Is teacher an office? Or teaching a gift? Read the end of your last post.
Likewise the Evangelist, Prophet, Apostle, or is it the evangelistic, prophetic, apostolic?

Like I've asked please explain how you see it/them operating. in the body of Christ today.
Since you won't say, how do I know that you are not just justifying your "denominational" bias? Maybe you can, advise what the apostles,or prophets in your church/idea of church do?

You are on this thread questioning "Catholic" teaching aren't you? but like I asked, what is your "Tradition"?  For the sake of fullness and a sense of integrity why don't you say?

As ever, I'm happy to talk, but if you are offended, I'd rather it not be because of me.

God bless

TV01,

As stated before, I'm not taking anything personal nor am I offended. If you read me so, no qualms.

First, you've not shown me what your own denominational/church model is, call it whatever you like.

Yes, I question most of the practices in the Catholic tradition; but that is no warrant for me or anyone else to place a curse on them, especially when God has not said so. I remind you: "How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed?" (Num. 23:8 ). That is the principle that runs through scripture. Now when you use I Samuel 8 to log a curse on the Church, you're no longer sharing an opinion but judging as if you're God sitting on the judgement throne.

The new idea now is that you've left I Samuel 8 and running under cover of Revelation 18. Let's make it clear: do you concede that I Samuel 8 does not speak of a curse on God's people (OT or NT) contrary to your assertion earlier? You have still not answered that question. But I'll not be tedious to you any longer on that. Bottom line is: don't curse anyone or system if God has not granted you the judicial capacity to do so.

It's not clear to me if you actually are open to views. For example, are you specifically about "teaching" or "teacher" as gifts or office respectively? To me, there's no confusing the two, because there were those called "teachers" so appointed (the office - see I Tim. 2:7; Acts 13:1 & II Tim. 1:11), as well as those who exercise the gift of teaching (II Tim. 2:2). Just because we are all encouraged to teach others what we have learned does not mean that we are all "teachers" as used in Eph. 4:11. The question is asked: Are all teachers? (I Cor. 12:29), and from what the apostle shared previously in verse 28, it would be a clear "No."

In the local church where I worship, we do not have an apostle. This in no way means I should deny that God had raised apostles and others according to Ehp. 4:11 besides the early Christians. I don't want to draw this into an encyclopedia, but so that I could discuss with you in a directed manner, may I ask you to share what roles you think each of the gifts mentioned in the Eph. 4:11 actually were meant to fulfill in the Church. I don't mind that you outline them in some depth, so I could understand how you view the roles, offices, and functions of each ministering gift. That perhaps might be more helpful.

Regards.

Hi 4get_me,

Thanks for your response and apologies for my late reply. I am pleased we have persevered and I hope it'll be worthwhile.

Please, about this "curse on the church" business. From my definition of "true" church, I hope you can see that for me to say that is counter intuitive. Let me simplify, I see the curse/judgment thus, corporately on "systems" that claim to be of God and are not and individually, on people that claim to love God and don't. So to me, those coporate entities are not true church and those individuals are not true Christians. So the curse is not on God's people, but on things and people who claim to be, but are not. I hope this satisfactorily clarifies. Please let me know if you require more of an idea of where I'm coming from on this.

(You previously asked about this under the "Tithe or not to tithe" thread, and I responded thus on 27th April)

"Curse on the Church"
Do I mean God's "elect/chosen/set apart ones"? No. I mean the Institutionalised, corporate man made religion that masquerades as Christianity.

I hold the view that not everything or everyone called "Christian" is. I believe it's clearly outlined in scripture. I do not know your views on this, but maybe we differ on that point.

As to my traditional/denominational position, I used to be a staunch traditionalist, but I was led (actually, dragged kicking and screaming might be a more apt way of putting it!) "out". I currently attend a few small fellowships, but not in the sense of an "institutionalised church" or "organised religion" (and yes I use those terms somewhat pejoratively). I occasionally go to traditional church for any number of reasons (Also, could I please refer you to my response to a question you asked on May the 4th on the "Proper role of Money In The Church" thread.)

So that would make me a "Bible believing Christian". Not "Non-denominational" More like ex or extra-denominational, but those are not labels I'd personally use, as they'd probably mutate into a system in their own right.

I'll respond to the question in another post, and probably ask a few of my own.

Speak soon.

God bless

Hello TV01,

I trust you had a good weekend. A few things have occupied me as well, so no problem posting a little late. My response:

Regardless of your definition, God did not make it anyone's business - yours, mine or others' - to lay any curse on people, and there are several verses to show that. It is His prerogative to do the judging on that Day. We may question most of the various practices in Christendom (especially where they are the traditions of men); where we find them unsatisfactory expressions of the Lord's mind, ours is to cleanse ourselves and be prepared vessels for His good works (II Tim. 2:19-22). "Systems" and "claims" do not put any man in God's stead to curse or judge, while conveniently labelling his-/herself a "Bible believing Christian."

Let me help with the example of the Lord's attitude to the church in Sardis in Rev. 3:1-6. Notice His words to them: "You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead" (ESV). This is the equivalent of your concern about "people who claim to be, but are not." What was the Lord's attitude towards them? He observed that their works were not perfect before God and simply asked them to be watchful and repent (vs. 2-3). You will not find Him pronouncing a curse or judgement on them, sad as their case may have been. It is in the strength of such clear examples in the authority of God's word that I've appealed time and again that you refrain from cursing and judging anyone, using terms pejoratively to describe people, or reading things into Scripture where they don't exist. God is Judge - leave the judgements to Him alone.

No problem with your attending whatever group that suits you by whatever term. I don't think God is really concerned with how we describe ourselves; but He certainly is concerned about how we term or describe other people. When you came out of a "system" (i.e., "staunch traditionalist" and now use pejorative descriptions at them, don't you think it's a little worrisome that you still go to the same "systems" (i.e., "traditional church" that you protest against? My point is, if you're not satisfied with a church, seek God's will in fellowship wherever you may feel at home without exhibiting a censorious attitude towards those whom you were formerly part of.

I was never Roman Catholic and my attitude towards them was equally unbalanced. But when I saw that it was not my place to censor or judge anyone in the various denominations, I repented and held my tongue from that very day. True, I may still question most of the practices that are clearly extra-Biblical in them; but questioning those practices does not give me a right to be pejorative to the extent of judging and/or cursing anyone. Please don't feel that I'm being censorious towards you; I'm appealing to your good sense of reasoning as a fellow brother in the Christian faith. Let's learn more to love the people and leave matters of divine judgement in God's hands alone.

Welcome anytime to asking any questions. May God bless the hearts of all who seek Him in truth and love.

4get_me.

@4 get me

i like you and your analysis of the bible, wat church do you attend?

@lordimpaq,

Uh-oh. . .lol - am I in trouble now?

Okay, I do a lot of travelling by nature of my work; so when I'm in the USA, I attend Bellview Baptist Church in Coldova, TN.

Hi 4get_me,

I've read you rejoinder. Thanks.
Your insistence that I "put myself in the place of God and judge and pronounce curses where none are" is becoming somewhat of a bore. I should also mention, that you are ascribing things to me that I didn't say and positions that I don't hold.

Firstly, I clearly outlined what I saw to be a pronouncement of God. I find it funny that with your stance on the role of the prophet (and no, I'm not saying I am one, at least not in the sense you mean. And yes, I will be posting as promised), who essentially said "God says if you do/don't do such and such, then the consequences will be as follows". So for example, The Bible Say's this

2 Thessalonians 2:11 - And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,

We may agree/disagree who this is directed at, but it's a pronouncement of God and if I echo it, what's the problem? As for your references to the 7 churches in Revs 2/3, point noted, but I'll say there are other readings of these chapters, and I could equally quote chapters 19 and the judgment therein, but so as not to overly digress I'll leave that for now.

Secondly, as we both know "who can curse whom God has not?" which I believe you quoted earlier. In that case if I was cursing the church, would it not be utterly futile and sheer folly on my part? In which case, why don't you just have a good laugh at my expense?

And no, it's not worrying if I occasionally attend traditional church. For example, I went to a wedding in one yesterday. If I was totally censorious, hating or judgemental, would I ever step into one? If I was judging those in them would I celebrate with them? The only reason I didn't list the "any number of reasons" was to keep it short. If you insist on reading what I don't write and ascribing positions I don't hold it takes us away from the discussion. I don't know that I want to spend every post endlessly debunking some of the things you lay to my charge.

While I'm there, may I say that I find it a little worrying that you always pick and cavil on non-essentials. In your rejoinder to my article on tithing, you went to great lengths to rebuke my tone and my admittedly throwaway line about communion. You've since endlessly harped on this curse on the church issue. But sir, you never, ever responded to the meat of the essay, which was about tithing. In fact at the end, you wimped out and in the interest of peace I let that slide.

And you have the temerity to accuse me of dodging? Please.

As for your stance towards traditionalism/denominationalism, it's just that, your stance. I don't share it.

If you want to discuss, I'm here. But I have to ask that you consider your responses in future and stay on message or else! (no dude it's not a curse ).

God bless.

Dude TV01,

Hope your Sunday was a pleasant one. I haven't insisted on anything or dodged the meat of any issue. You've consistently cursed and judged other people and insisted on using words pejoratively at them. All I asked was that you showed me where you found curses in the several texts you've alluded to. You showed none. God made no pronouncements of any curses in I Samuel 8. If He did, I asked you to show me; you did not.

There are several other texts besides 2 Thes. 2:11 where declarations like you've quoted thereto are found; but I ask - was that text directed at believers who know the Lord? Or, again, could that be used as a 'curse' verse? Revelation 19 is yet future, where multitudes praise God for His judgements; so it's inconsequential in the present discourse.

I don't always pick and cavil at non-essentials. If you're expressing an opinion, no qualms. When you state something of a curse with emphasis where the texts do not say so, you're no longer sharing an opinion. I've dealt with the issue of tithing extensively in other threads. Not satisfied? Clearly state your concerns. What I promised earlier was not a follow up on tithing, but the difference between Law, Grace and the Sabbath. But you left those out and kept on harping on tithes in almost every post, even in some off-topic. Care to explain why you're perturbed about my calling your attention to that?

TV01:

If you want to discuss, I'm here. But I have to ask that you consider your responses in future and stay on message or else! (no dude it's not a curse .

I don't take that as a threat, and you should read me well: I've always stayed on message. Take your own advice: no need to mention what is uncalled for; and as long as your statements border on something more than opinions, others will ask questions and call your attention to them.

Enjoy.

Hi 4get_me,

4get_me:

I was never Roman Catholic and my attitude towards them was equally unbalanced. But when I saw that it was not my place to censor or judge anyone in the various denominations, I repented and held my tongue from that very day. True, I may still question most of the practices that are clearly extra-Biblical in them; but questioning those practices does not give me a right to be pejorative to the extent of judging and/or cursing anyone.

Okay, so you are not and never have been  Roman Catholic, yet you question most of the practices that you say are "clearly extra-biblical"

May I ask why?

4get_me:

Tell me something - these "religious abomination falsely called Christianity" have come under your incessant scathing in almost all your posts: do you see any thing of God's grace to appreciate in them? Nothing at all?

This grace that I apparently don't see and you obviously do, how does it work? Doesn't it obviate the need to point out "extra-biblical" practices. Why not just let them get on with it? Surely it's just a difference in approach, or maybe an alternative way of practicing their religion? Does this grace you speak about, not cover up or carry over these practices?

If most of the practices are in your considered opinion "extra-biblical", how much extra-biblical practice is acceptable before there's a problem? before error, before apostasy? So presumably, you are somehow more pious, because you point it out as wrong, but fail to point out or warn of possible consequences. Or maybe there aren't any?

Why point it out? If there is no consequence, no curse, no judgment?
Is it just a point scoring exercise to you? Or maybe you are just trying to establish the superiority of your own tradition or knowledge?

You see someone, unaware that they are headed towards a precipice, and you comment on the weather? I'm sure they'll be please too know you are in no way censorious or judgemental.

Did I say you "wimped" out earlier?
I express my heartfelt, unreserved apologies to any wimps out there.

I hope you had a good weekend.

God bless


ps ~ you adopt a dispensationalist view to Revelations? That quite quaint!
        (non-judgemental me  )

Hi TV01,

Let me share my views with you rancour-free and in the spirit of dialogue. I'm not one given to cynical talk or sarcasm, and I do my best to face issues rather than express sly invectives.

TV01:

Okay, so you are not and never have been  Roman Catholic, yet you question most of the practices that you say are "clearly extra-biblical"

May I ask why?

Questioning the practices of any group is not the same thing as laying a curse on them, is it? Besides, none of the verses you quoted in support of your "curse" or "consequence" actually point to the issue. It began with 1 Samuel 8, and if you insist there's a curse in that text, just point it out.

TV01:

This grace that I apparently don't see and you obviously do, how does it work? Doesn't it obviate the need to point out "extra-biblical" practices. Why not just let them get on with it? Surely it's just a difference in approach, or maybe an alternative way of practicing their religion? Does this grace you speak about, not cover up or carry over these practices?

Simple: it works as I've told you before - try not going beyond what the Bible says. If God has not cursed anyone, why sweat it out cursing them by yourself? The Lord did not curse churches that had problems (as the examples in Revelation 2 & 3); so why would you go the length of doing so on your own?

TV01:

If most of the practices are in your considered opinion "extra-biblical", how much extra-biblical practice is acceptable before there's a problem? before error, before apostasy? So presumably, you are somehow more pious, because you point it out as wrong, but fail to point out or warn of possible consequences. Or maybe there aren't any?

Questioning and warning go together - and I've done them both consistently, even in your case. I questioned so many things you've stated; warned that you're going beyond what is stated in Scripture; and I'm still doing it here. Notice, not one time have I ever used a word in the pejorative sense at you nor have I cursed you with one verse from the Bible. When we question certain practices that are unbiblical or extra-biblical, we warn people involved in them in the spirit of humility, with words of grace seasoned with salt, and refrain from cursing people even when they don't heed the warnings (Col. 4:6).

Now tell me, if questioning and warning equates "cursing" and speaking to people in "pejorative sense", what Bible have you been reading?

TV01:

Why point it out? If there is no consequence, no curse, no judgment?
Is it just a point scoring exercise to you? Or maybe you are just trying to establish the superiority of your own tradition or knowledge?

Sad if that's all you could read in my posts. When you decry the traditions of others in preference for your own with the constant use of "pejorative sense", and "why do I so detest that word leader/s", have you not clearly demonstrated that you're trying to be superior to others and scoring your own points?

No one's denying you the right to express your opinions or question the practices in the denominations: I've done so and continue to do so. However, when you keep harping on almost anything and everything with a "pejorative sense" to the extent of cursing God's people, you've gone beyond opinions into a serious matter - and that has to be taken up. The whimpering then is none other but yours.

All I've said is show me where in the Scriptures you were ferreting your curse on the church, for that is precisely what you stated in another thread (read it here), with emphasis "Yes I do" -

TV01:

"A curse on the church currently" ~ Yes I do. It's a consequence of men asking for a king. Another thread? 

It was the church you cursed, yes? And you've found no grace at all to see how wrong you were all along, yes? FYI, God did not curse the church - and that's what I've consistently maintained.

Wanna discourse the Revelation? Welcome anytime. My weekend was busy but very pleasant - thanks for asking. 

Regards.

Hi 4get_me,

To be honest, when this first cropped up you were probably right to pick up on it. However, since then, I've repeatedly stressed my making a distinction between "Church" as institutionalised religion and "Church" the body of Christ. Not only did I go to great lengths to clarify, I did so on a number of occasions and across posts. I also apologised.

Now, you may not make that same distinction, you may not even agree with my use of words, but you know exactly what I mean.

I've copied some of 1 Samuel 8 below.

4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, 5 and said to him, "Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations." 6 But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." So Samuel prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord said to Samuel, "Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. 8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day--with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods--so they are doing to you also. 9 Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them." 10 So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a king. 11 And he said, "This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. 12 He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. 14 And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. 16 And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, F21 and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. 18 And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day." 19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, "No, but we will have a king over us, 20 that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles." 21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he repeated them in the hearing of the Lord. 22 So the Lord said to Samuel, "Heed their voice, and make them a king." And Samuel said to the men of Israel, "Every man go to his city."


I think it's quite straight forward. The people demanded a king, which was in effect a rejection of the Lord. God pronounced the consequences of their action through Samuel. Now if you think my labelling that pronouncement curse/wrath/judgment too strong, that's you prerogative, no problem.

You can see the effect of this pronouncement through the kingly lineages in both Judah & Israel. Neither part ever truly had real peace.

Now my point being in this dispensation, if you make for yourselves a King other than the Lord, you will suffer the same consequences. Feel free to disagree.

In the church, the body of Christ, the Lord is always King no problem.

In an apostate church the Lord is not King, I see these same consequences applying.

Again, feel free to agree or disagree, but please don't insist that I'm cursing the "Body of Christ".
I apologise again for any misunderstanding, my initial error. But if you still do not agree with me, fine, but at least you understand my use of words and distinctions

Now, I personally think we've pretty much exhausted this particular point, and it will soon start to border on inanity. I'd like to nail it and move back to the main discussion.

If you insist on still taking issue, and that there is still a problem, please say, but as this subplot goes, I'm not sure I have anything to add, or that there is any point.

Thanks

God bless

TV01,

I have more distinctions to make of "Church" than you supposed - as used of men and as used in the Bible. Whatever the case, your use of "curse" on anyone does not reflect a biblical position. Nowhere do you find God cursing the church, whether as referring to the various "institutionalised religion" or the Body of Christ. Do the churches have problems? Yes, as surely as we read of in the NT and as we see in our day. Are we therefore to judge and curse anyone? No, for that is God's prerogative and not man's.

1 Cor. 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

You may not agree and still want to judge and curse some before the time and before the Lord comes - it's all as you wish.

I Samuel 8 does not speak anywhere of a curse. Quoting verse 9 from your version: "However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them." There you have it - "solemnly forewarn them" does not translate as "solemnly curse them", does it? If I missed the verse for where you had your curse, please show me.

Just because they asked for a King does not mean that God pronounced a curse on them. So, what then was David - a king set by God over His people (I Sam. 16:1, 12-13), or a consequence of the curse that you supposed stemmed from I Samuel 8?

In this dispensation, Christians have no other King than the Lord Jesus Christ. Correct me where I'm wrong, but I don't know of any denomination that has made a king over them other than the Lord, as you hinted at.

Your curse is not justified anywhere in the Bible; and as I Cor. 4:5 says, we ought not to judge anything until the Lord comes. It's all up to you to ignore that, do your own thing and continue to curse/judge anyone as you so please.

I'm available anytime for whatever else you'd like to discuss.

Regards.

Peter was not the foundation of the Church, and that is clear in I Cor. 3:11 -

"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."