Here are the comments received on the The Fork in the Road: “The Way of UNITY between “Christian Churches” and Churches of Christ,” Part 1 post from December 20 to December 27, that is, between crash and restoration of the back up.
It would take days and days to restore the comments as comments, and they’d all post with my icon next to them. So I’m posting them as a post so that anyone wishing to do so may easily rejoin the discussion below.
Sadly, my own comments appear to be lost forever, as I don’t get my own comments by email. If anyone has one of mine from this time they’d like to see reposted, forward it to me. But I don’t recall saying anything particularly worth preserving.
These are also the only comments I’m planning to repost, as they are 80% of what was posted after the crash, and the only questions that seemed to me to be still under discussion. But if you would like to see more comments re-posted, just let me know.
aBasar Mon 12/19/2011 12:19 AM
One of the reasons, Ray, we “downsized” our church to a network of house-churches was the problem for the leaders to have regular fellowship with all members. Scott, our main preacher at that time, said that when he started a concersation this sunday it would most likely be continued a year later if he tries to give equal attention to each member in the congregation. After restructuring, each small-group leader is the shepherd of his small group, the burden is divided and each member gets the support and attention needed. Each church leader is engaged in a small group as well, but our leadership tasks are focussed on the whole church – esp. to maintain unity among the various house-churches, to provide sound teaching, to handle the “tougher” cases which cannot be solved by a house church alone and the like.
P.S.: Our Sunday gatherings (assemblies) in the house churches actually run like I summed it up above. So I don’t write from theory, but I see it working in real life.
Ray Downen Wed 12/21/2011 8:07 PM
Pardon my ignorance. I don’t know of any such association. Chapter and verse? Jay writes: The NT speaks of the laying on of hands in association with baptism.
Who? Where? When? I see frequent references to baptism. Every time conversion is reported, we note that baptism was part of the process. But laying on of hands? Associated with immersion in water as part of conversion? I think not!
aBasnar Thu 12/22/2011 12:42 AM
Now, I ask you, why doesn t the same logic apply to baptism? After all, we really can t separate the receipt of the Spirit from salvation. God mediates our salvation via the Spirit!
5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
In Titus 3:5 everything is harmoniously together: Not our deeds, but His mercy; baptism (washing of regenartion), Holy Spirit. We should not view baptism as a work we do, because we are baptized (passive tense) and don’t baptize ourselves.
Taken literally the promises are tied to faith, repentance, baptism. And baptism is combined with laying on of hands (though not always reported in detail). THat#s one side of the coin. Therefore, if someone asks me what baptism has to do with salvation, I answer: It is the way we obtain/receive the promise.
The other side of the story is the confusion around us (which we are a part of!). The doctrin of salvation has been altered dramatically: The one side added sacrament after sacrament, while the other side (in reaction) rejected all sacraments. The Zwinglian view of baptism and the Lord’s Supper is predominant among Evangelicals (and Anabaptists), but it was an overreaction to sacramentalism. Luther and he splt over these questions. Revivalism added to the confusion by introducing the “sinner#s prayer” as “the exact moment” of our salvation. While we are accused of “baptismal-regeneration-heresy” they invented a “sinner’s-prayer-regeneration-heresy”.
Now, when we stress baptism as the “exact moment of our salvation”, we treat it like a means of “assurance”: I am saved because I have been baptized. Evangelicals would say the same, replacing baptism with the sinner’s prayer. IN BOTH CASES, Jay, we take ONE “element” of our salvation process and neglect others even to the degree of actually denying them! We deny laying on of hands as necessary, don’t we? Evangelicals deny baptism as necessary.
Let me clarify what I mean with “necessary”: The promise is tied to a number of things that belong together, that form one process. God’s Grace in Christ comes first, the preaching builds on this, we must hear and be touched by the Spirit to respond, we respond in baptism and receive the Spirit, we henceforth lead a holy life without no one can see the Lord. It’s the uniny of this salvation process that gets lot in our discussions when we focus on one element only.
Talking about “assurance”: Is there assurance when we destroy the unity ofthe salvation process? When we maginfy one element and belittle the other one? I doubt it.
Still, God is greater than our cry for assurance. Assurance is something WE need, not God. God, in His mercy, is not bound to all the elements of salvation to save us. He looks at the heart, our sincerity and faith, and I trust that many unbaptized Christians will enter His Glory. But this is entirely up to God. I can’t point to a specific verse that would allow such a conclusion, I can only point to the character of God as I see it in the scriptures.
Yes, baptism is also for our assurance, Jay; but this is just one side effect. Our assurance should mainly rest in what Christ did and is for us.
On this side of eternity, baptism is also necessary for unity, among 7 essentials. Therefore we need to tlk with other Christians about it, because WE cannot say someone is saved without having been baptized. But WE can also hardly claim to have the Spirit without (at least) having asked for Him. WE should also be slow, very slow to speak of our salvation as granted before we have finished the race.
Concerning these thought, humility is a far better approach than speaking proudly of our assurance, whether it is the notion of our “exact moment of salvation” or the doctrine of “unconditional eternal salvation/once saved-always saved”. I cling to my Savior and Lord, walk with Him and trust that He will see me through. But I’m not saved (in the final sense) until I finsihed my race. I’m only saved in an “initial” sense: I was born again and received into His Kingdom; I embarked on a spiritual journey/pilgrimage.
Ray Downen Thu 12/22/2011 7:31 PM
Alexander speaks of many things, two of which may not be fully accurately spoken of. He writes: We can hardly claim to have the Spirit without (at least) having asked for Him.
And I wonder whether we can trust that Peter was inspired when he promised that all believers who repent and are baptized WILL receive both remission of sins and the gift of THE HOLY SPIRIT. He didn’t say we would have to ask specifically for either result. Do we have to ask? And he affirms that laying on of hands is associated in the New Testament narrative with baptism. Where is this association? I’ve managed to miss it.
Ray Downen Thu 12/22/2011 7:42 PM
Price wrote well: Ray?.I?m a little confused about your last two posts? In the first to Jay regarding singing in a ?formal assembly? you suggest that the Eph and Col passages are about daily living rather than the corporate assembly? In your remarks to Alexander following, you suggest that there was no such thing as a ?formal assembly??if I?m understanding you correctly? That would mean that the teaching and speaking to one another through song as the Eph and Col passages state would then seem more to apply to the informal gatherings that you say were more the norm?That still makes them apply to the thought of a gathering of persons?One can?t ?teach? or ?speak? to another if another isn?t present? I agree with you on I Cor 14? just don?t think that the Eph and Col passages EXCLUDE our concept of worship with a ?gathering? of people.. It does exclude it as a consideration of just a ?personal? exercise it seems to me since someone else should be present.. Is that fair to your comments ?
———
Yes, your helpful comments are fair to my comments, says Ray. The point I hope we all see is that IF indeed Paul was teaching a cappella singing (which he surely was not) then it’s for every assembly, not just formal “worship assemblies.” Many who oppose Christian use of musical instruments “in worship” assume we’re not worshiping except at specific times so designated by church leaders. So they feel free to play their guitar or harmonica or other instrument when they sing about Jesus outside the “worship service” but refrain from torturing God’s ears with musical instruments (that’s apparently the way they see it) during a “worship service.” And they want no fellowship with us who know God loves music however produced by His people.
aBasnar Fri 12/23/2011 12:25 AM
@ Ray
May overall “assumption” is that no description of a NT conversion is systematically complete, nor detailed. Sometimes only faith is mentioned, sometimes only baptism, sometimes repentance is added, sometimes it is left out, in other places laying on of hands is mentioned, while elsewhere it is missing …
I stopped therefore taking one verse and saying: “This verse tells us all we need to know.”
As for the passages where laying on of hands is mentioned in connection with receiving the Holy Spirit, they all show that Act 2:38 does not mean that whoever is dipped into water receives the Holy Spirit for granted. On the other hand, the house of Cornelius shows us that the Holy Spirit i neither tied to water baptism nor to laying on of hands in an inflexible way.
First: The Lord said we may ask for the Spirit.
Luk 11:13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”
I wonder how we imagine we can obtain this promise without asking God for it? Granted that baptism is like a formal request for all benefits of salvation, then we should be very careful to get a full picture of baptism – laying on of hands seemed t po be part of the act:
Act 8:16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 8:17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.Act 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.
Both examples show that the Spirit is received by laying on of hands shortly (a few days) or immediately after baptism. You can’t ay that because this is not mentines in all the other cases that it did not happen. Don’t forget that laying on of hands was all but uncommon! When Christ or His apostles healed someone they often laid hands on the person; a blessing was accompanied by laying on of hands.
When someone was appointed for a ministry in the NT church, hands were laid on the person and God was akd to proved special gifts of the Spirit in order to help the servant fulfill his ministry:
Act 6:6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.
Act 13:3 Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.
1Ti 4:14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you.
2Ti 1:6 For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, 2Ti 1:7 for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.
The last verse may even refer to Timothy’s baptism, while the other reminds Timothy of his “ordination” as missionary.
You see, Ray, that they did something we don’t do anymore. This is a call for further restoration, in’t it? And that’s just one little thing. Did you notice that prayer sometimes was accompanied with fasting in the scriptures? Also something that got lost …
It should be our goal to be as accurate in our teaching and practice as possible. We are not called to defend “limited human knowledge” (The Campbells discovered a tremendous amount of truths about the NT church, but were limited) nur church traditions (even unwritten ones). We should strive to understand und o the full counsel of God. Therefore we should not be defensive when someone points us to a scriptural theme that we (so far) have neglected.
Todd Collier Fri 12/23/2011 7:20 AM
So we have more evidence for the laying on of hands after baptism for the purpose of receiving the Holy Spirit (which we do not do even though the connection is more direct) than we do for regular weekly Lord’s Day communion. (Which we bind on all to the point of making it a test of fellowship.) So how do we explain this one away like we do with the holy kiss?
Price Fri 12/23/2011 7:25 AM
Alexander…Regarding the laying on of hands…I’ve never seen a person “be baptized” without somebody holding on to them… But, I assume you refer to some “method or style” of doing it that has been lost… Has it been lost ? Are we instructed in the way to lay hands on people the “right” way ? I find it odd that it was indeed mentioned so many times and yet no instructions given on how to do it if indeed it was necessary for receiving the Holy Spirit… seriously..wouldn’t that make it a critical element in salvation because without the Holy Spirit, one doesn’t belong to Jesus..(Romans 8)
aBasnar Fri 12/23/2011 9:15 AM
@ Todd
Exactly!
@ Price
Contemplate the consequences …
Charles McLean Fri 12/23/2011 10:36 AM
I find it interesting that Hebrews 6 mentions the laying on of hands as an elementary teaching about Christ. How is it that we know so little of something that the writer suggests should be content for the immature? We certainly know faith and baptism and repentance and eternal judgment, so where did we leave the track? And how have we read past this for so long?
Todd Fri 12/23/2011 10:51 AM
Actually the Hebrew writer’s list of basics we should move beyond is what we spent almost all of our time on while I was growing up. Perhaps we were afraid of anything more.
Doug Fri 12/23/2011 12:27 PM
Dare I mention Apostolic Succession? There are still a number of denominations that tie the laying on of hands to those with apostolic succession lineage. Did we close the door prematurely on this?
Ray Fri 12/23/2011 12:46 PM
Alexander provides passages where anointing is mentioned, never in connection with conversion, but always as a setting-apart for special service. He may prefer to ignore the clear promise by the apostle Peter that the Spirit is given as God’s gift to every convert who because of faith in Jesus has repented and been baptized. Laying on of hands was no part in conversion. It was not then. It is not now. We have no reason to connect conversion and a laying on of anyone’s hands.
When Christians were appointed to special works for Jesus, church leaders did set the appointees apart by a laying on of their hands. The apostles did so, and imparted to the appointee a special gift of the Spirit. If other church leaders did so, it is not mentioned that any spiritual gift was a part of the anointing.
It does not seem helpful or in any way accurate to link laying on of hands with the “gift of the Spirit” which comes to every Christian as God’s gift when the convert’s new birth is completed in the act of being baptized. The anointing of a few is not the common experience of the many.
Ray Fri 12/23/2011 2:02 PM
Doug asks: Dare I mention Apostolic Succession? There are still a number of denominations that tie the laying on of hands to those with apostolic succession lineage. Did we close the door prematurely on this?
—————
RAY REMARKS: The apostolic writings mention nothing about apostolic succession. The question might better be asked: Why imagine that apostles anointed further apostles and they anointed further apostles, and it continued to this day? Apostolic succession is a figment of someone’s imagination. Did “we” close the door on it? No, it wasn’t opened.
Ray Fri 12/23/2011 2:14 PM
Charles McLean ponders about Paul’s mention of “laying on of hands” as a part of early Christianity. It was a part of early Christianity. When an apostle anointed a person, the apostle was transmitting power for spiritual gifts to that person. Each mention of it in the apostolic writing refers to it being done by apostles with following spiritual powers except when Paul urges church leaders to not “lay hands on” anyone too soon. This was in connection with choosing leaders for a congregation, I think. And it surely does imply that other leaders, not necessarily apostles, did set apart newly-chosen leaders by an anointing. We do well to avoid putting people into leadership positions prematurely. It would be good to know whether or not Jesus wants us to continue more “laying on of hands” than is our current practice when disciples seek to be set apart for special service as missionaries or any particular work for Jesus. And it would be good to know for sure who should DO the laying on of hands!
Ray Fri 12/23/2011 2:21 PM
May I repeat and be believed that no laying on of hands is involved in baptizing a new convert to Jesus as Lord? The anointing is never connected with the act of baptizing. It is connected with setting apart individuals for particular work for Jesus. In one case, it is connected with making clear to all that Samaritans were fully qualified to be Christians. There the anointing was followed by spiritual gifts which had been given by God because of the laying on of apostolic hands. And it did convince the Jewish Christians that Samaritans also could become Christians. It would appear that was the reason for the anointing in that one case at least.
aBasnar Fri 12/23/2011 2:31 PM
Ray, did you really read what I wrote? Where was “anointing” mentioned in the list of passages I quoted? There was not a drop of olive-oil in them! I could write a book about our fearful reluctance towards anointing the sick (as in James 5) – oh, we might be confused with Catholics! But I suspect that the Catholics do some things that are right in our Bibles that we don’t do because of our strict separation from the Catholics. Which is stupid.
My passages on laying on of hands fall into two camps:
a) Receiving the Spirit in the process of conversion
b) Receiving special gifts for a special ministry
As for (a) either Acts 2:38 did not prove true in Samaria and Ephesus or baptism included laying on of hands (even when not mentioned expressly – such as repentance or faith are not always mentioned). I believe the latter is true.
I think it was Charles that reminded us of Hebrews 6:
(KJV) Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Heb 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Note that laying on of hands follows directly after baptism – which is interesting as all these six “basics” are in a logical order: repentance-faith-baptism-laying on of hands-resurrection-judgement. (The plural of baptism is a bit strange, however the translation as “washings” (as in the ESV) is totally misleading because this would send the whole passage back into OT-Jewish-customs! This is not the point of this text.).
Anyway: Any church doctrine that cuts out laying on of hands and insists that it is not there and does not have anything to do with us … is not faithful to God’s Word. I bemoan our various inconsistencies and our boastful pride as churches of Christ: “We are the fully restored NT church”. No, we are not. We started out fine, very fine indeed – but we stopped in the middle of the road as if having embarked on the journey of restoration is the same as having completed the journey …
Ray Fri 12/23/2011 2:32 PM
Todd Collier: So we have more evidence for the laying on of hands after baptism for the purpose of receiving the Holy Spirit (which we do not do even though the connection is more direct) than we do for regular weekly Lord?s Day communion. (Which we bind on all to the point of making it a test of fellowship.) So how do we explain this one away like we do with the holy kiss?
——————————-
RAY WRITES: I must have missed something that was sent to provide “evidence for the laying on of hands after baptism for the purpose of receiving the Holy Spirit (which we do not do).” The ONE instance when this was done, it was apostolic hands which were used in the anointing. Philip had been in Samaria but had not laid hands on anyone to anoint them “for the purpose of receiving the Holy Spirit.” Philip could perform miracles. He could not pass on that power. The apostles anointed to make clear that Samaritans were acceptable as Christians regardless of what little regard Jews (including Jewish Christians) had for these half-breeds. Later we read of Paul laying hands on seven former Baptists who changed to become Christians. Paul also was an apostle who could transmit the Spirit’s gifts by anointing, as also in the case of Timothy, so the examples we see are not setting a precedent for anointing all converts, so far as I can tell. What proof did I fail to see?
Ray Fri 12/23/2011 2:43 PM
Alexander wants to disconnect anointing from “laying on of hands.” O.K., it’s now separate. But where in even one passage is a “laying on of hands” connected with conversion? Each passage I know of has to do with a laying on of hands which had a purpose other than conversion. The laying on of hands was done to ones already in Christ, wasn’t it? Where is any mention of laying on of hands during the conversion event? The mention of it in a listing of things may be meaningful. Or it may not at all mean that it was a common practice in the sequence as suggested by Alexander. It surely was common in the apostolic age. Why is it not connected with conversion in any of the several accounts by Luke in Acts? Why would any Bible student now want to connect it?
aBasnar Fri 12/23/2011 2:46 PM
Elders laid hands on Timothy, so it was not limited to Apostles (1Ti 4:14). Ananias, when restoring Paul’s sight, laid hands on him (Acts 9:17). When the Lord blessed the children, He laid His hands on them (Mark 10:16) … this act is not limited to just one meaning and purpose. But it is mentioned so often in scripture and neglected so completely among us that I say: Something is wrong here.
Just to say it again: Anointing and laying on of hands are two very different things. They may go hand in hand, but are distinct. Anointing requires oil, laying on of hands doesn’t. The only exception is when “anointed” is used in a figurative sense (as e.g. in 1Jo 2:27). But nowhere is laying on of hands described as anointing. These two are not synonymous.
Price Fri 12/23/2011 2:51 PM
Ray…Would you categorize the replacement of Judas with Mathias as a succession ? I see that the Apostles put forth two candidates to succeed Judas.. No mention of a command to do so but I guess they felt it was a good idea… Anyway, it seems it was God who chose them, or at least that is what they assumed by the lot landing Mathias’ way.. Also, it doesn’t mention the laying on of hands on Mathias…It just says that we was numbered among the twelve…
Then, it curious how Barnabas is referred to.. When you follow the story from Acts 13:2 to 14:14…Barnabas is picked by the Holy Spirit for ministry and is later referred to as an Apostle… He doesn’t seem to be succeeding anyone…He’s just chosen by the Holy Spirit… Could not the same God who chose the patriarchs, judges, kings, prophets and Apostles of yesterday do the same thing today? Are we aware of any “mighty wonders and signs of Barnabas?”
Obviously as you mentioned Timothy was to lay hands on leaders in the church…How much more could a person need the supernatural empowerment and discernment than a leader in the early church… I’m not aware of any passage that suggests that the men on whom Timothy laid hands on were NOT empowered in special ways… Not sure the need for Holy Spirit empowerment for leaders has changed all that much in 2,000 years.
Seems to me that there are enough inconsistencies to suggest that there may not be as clear a pattern as one might suspect…
aBasnar Fri 12/23/2011 3:07 PM
But where in even one passage is a laying on of hands connected with conversion?
Samaria was a “two-step-conversion” so to say:
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, Act 8:15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, Act 8:16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 8:17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.
What was “wrong” here? They believed, were baptized, but did not receive the promise of Acts 2:38 (the Spirit). Note, it’s not about a or the gift of the Spirit, but the Spirit Himself! Their regeneration was not complete, yet. For reasons we can only speculate (no explanation is given) this was a “two-step-conversion”, and the laying on of hands had directly to do with receiving the Spirit in order to complete the conversion-process.
Actually: Conversion is always a process, not just a momentuos event. Sometimes all are close together, sometimes days, weeks or even years separte (e.g.) repentance from baptism.
The second example: The disciples of John in Ephesus:
Act 19:1 And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples.
Act 19:2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
Act 19:3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.”
Act 19:4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.”
Act 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.
The first question Paul asked: “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you were baptized?” Their answer revealed that their understanding of Christ and the Gospel was limited to what John the Baptist had taught. So he baptized them into the name of Jesus and laid hands on them so that they receive – again not just a gift – but THE Spirit. From this day on these disciples of John were disciples of Christ.
They started out as people believing in Jesus but with an insufficient understanding of the Gospel, and now they gladly received the Gospel, forgiveness in Christ through baptism and the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands.
Ray, what is debatable here? What is unclear? Both passages speak of conversion, and in both instances the receiving of the Spirit is connected with laying on of hands.
For me this is quite interesting: Some of our brothers believe the Spirit is shut in between the two covers of the Book, they don’t believe (or understand) the indwelling of the Spirit. What would they answer to Paul’s question: “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
We normally don’t even pray for the Spirit to come at baptism, do we? Nor do we lay on hands. So I suspect that there are many among us who are insecure on this matter, asking themselves whether or not they received the Spirit. One thing I learn from these two stories (esp. Samaria): When we have been baptized in the name of Jesus based on our faith, we don’t need to be rebaptized – but our conversion process might be in need of being completed.
When you are sure you have God’s Spirit, because of His testimony in you, because of His fruit – fine! I believe also that God is not tied to us doing everything correctly – but let’s be humble and not take everything for granted! Let’s follow the pattern, since we are so accurate about our 1st day of the week (based on one ore two verses) – let’s be(come) consistent!
Ray Fri 12/23/2011 3:19 PM
Alexander may be right, which would make me wrong. But I’m confident that the Samaritans were fully saved and in Christ when they were baptized. No “signs” said so. Just reading and understanding Acts 2:38 lets me know of the fact. When the apostles laid their hands on SOME of those who had been baptized, then signs were apparent. Shall we suppose they laid hands on ALL who had been baptized? That is what Alexander may believe. It’s not at all what Luke reports.
As for the disciples of John, they had simply not received baptism into Christ. The baptism they had received was Baptist baptism for remission of sins, but NOT to receive the gift of the Spirit. When the apostle Paul laid hands on them then they showed signs. But they were baptized into Christ and had already received the Spirit with no external signs showing the receipt.
These two examples are of course exceptions to the normal. When we look at the normal, there’s no signs following the baptisms. Nor are there today any signs. And in both these examples the signs followed the laying on of hands BY AN APOSTLE. Where are all the apostles today? If we had apostles, surely we could duplicate what the true apostles did. And that would be fine. But what does it have to do with us unless we are connected to an apostle of Christ? I don’t believe we can accept from these two exceptional cases that laying on of hands has anything to do with normal conversions. I think that’s also the way our Restoration pioneers saw the matter. I think they were right.
Price Fri 12/23/2011 3:35 PM
Ray & Alexander.. it’s probably just me but it appears that both of you are trying to put a “normal” tag on a “process” that seems to be quite variant… Could it be that God chooses to act in various way in various circumstances and that the “rules” aren’t as important as the result… It seems that the presence of the Holy Spirit indwelling a person was the key ingredient.. Paul says in Romans 8 if you don’t have Him, you aren’t a part of Jesus… How the Holy Spirit decides to use you is sort of up to Him, right ? Who can say whether or not that a person who the Holy Spirit needs to speak in some unknown language, or give a special word of knowledge or teach with exceptional skill would be empowered to do so today? I’m quite convinced it’s not about a set of rules, precepts and patterns but about Jesus and my bet is He can still do whatever He chooses to accomplish with a willing person with nothing but a mustard seed faith.
aBasnar Fri 12/23/2011 3:42 PM
I believe that we are “fully saved” when we die in the course of our conversion process. Many martyr’s dies prior to their baptism (being baptized in their blood). And if we insist that Christ’s church never ceased to exist that prior to the Anabaptist movement (when true baptism was completely lost) or even prior to the Restoration Movement who brought back to us the true meaning and significance of baptism there were “fully saved” Christians that were not baptized properly or even at all.
Understanding conversion as a process that encompasses many different elements that we all should experience, but that even may come in a different order or stretched out over a longer period of time helped me to deal with the difficult question: How to view Christians that know nothing about baptism. (But this has been discussed in this Blog over and over again).
Tto add some other thought: Salvation is a process, too. We are saved when we become one with Christ in baptism – that’s for sure. But we strive and hope for our future salvation, the salvation our soul (1Pe 1:9). Salvation is not a “one-time-event”, but a pilgrimage. The only way I want to be “progressive” is by making progress on my pilgrimage (see Bunyan). In this sense I consider myself saved, but not fully saved.
Price Fri 12/23/2011 3:58 PM
Alexander….at what point will you “know” that Christ’s work on the cross saved you ?
Ray Fri 12/23/2011 4:07 PM
Perhaps it needs to be said that most likely we all do believe Jesus can do whatever He wants to in any way at any time. That’s not being debated. But that He wants us to “lay hands upon” someone for some unknown purpose in hopes this will somehow empower the person to perform spiritually-caused “signs” is very much in debate. What we are called to do–I base this on the commission Jesus gave only to the apostles, but that was obviously considered by the early church as being for us all–is to everywhere we go tell others about Jesus, then to baptize them if they believe in the risen Lord. His marching orders did not include any word about laying hands on some of them. Later apostolic instructions call for laying on of hands when some are selected by the church for special tasks. But no one is told by an apostle to lay hands on someone and expect that person then to be able to show special spiritual signs, so far as I know.
Ray Fri 12/23/2011 4:14 PM
If the Bible was given to us for our instruction, surely we do well to seek to learn from it and find answers to our questions there. Does the Bible speak of anyone being baptized in their own blood? If so, we can make converts by killing them, perhaps. If not, we would do well to do as Jesus commissions by telling everyone about HIM. And by ourselves doing as Peter urges in his second general letter, adding to our faith. By Bible study. By seeking counsel from other Christians. By living daily for HIM. As we do so, we will grow spiritually, seeking to attain to maturity in the Lord whom we love.
Ray Fri 12/23/2011 4:25 PM
Good thinking by Price. The way we should know we have been saved is by doing what is called for by the apostle Peter in Acts 2:38. We have no reason whatever to doubt that then, as Peter was inspired to promise, we HAVE: BEEN SAVED and have been brought into the kingdom of the Christ. Repent and be baptized. Simple. Why do some seek for a different way? Are they not satisfied with what is revealed through the Spirit? But it’s a serious misunderstanding to suppose we’re saved in another way, as some now are claiming. When we HAVE repented and been baptized as Jesus commands (in water), we are assured that we are now “in Christ.”
Doug Fri 12/23/2011 4:52 PM
I’m just wondering how many of you discussing the laying on of hands have actually had someone lay hands on you? If you have had hands laid on you what was the purpose of doing that?
Ray, I was not suggesting that the Apostle’s laying on of hands was for the purpose of continuing a line of Apostles but rather for continuing the work of the Apostles by marking bishops or elders of the Church. Clearly Timothy had hands placed on him to mark him for his work and he continued to lay hands on people to mark them as Church leaders. To me, if this “marking” is tracable to the Apostles, it has clearer authority than if suddenly Joe Shmoe, who has never been so marked, decides to start his own hands laying on project. After all, what is Joe Shmoe’s authority? The temple curtain has been torn and maybe this isn’t important but then maybe it is.
aBasnar Sat 12/24/2011 1:59 AM
Alexander .at what point will you know that Christ s work on the cross saved you ?
Excellent question, Price!
Let me explain it in different terms: When we go to America it usually takes us 24 hours to get from our home to my wife’s family’s home. The plane is getting me there. At what point will I know that the plane got me there? When it landed in MSP and my parents pick us up.
Right now I am sitting on the plane, Price, and we haven’t landed yet. But I know the plane will get me there – unless something terrible happens.
To speak of salvation in past tense only is not the best way to describe salvation. We embarked on a journey, which is described as a “pilgrimage” on a narrow path. We have to finish the race in order to be able to say we are now “fully saved”.
What I can say today: Christ died for my sins and rose for my justification. By His blood I am redeemed from the power and the consequences of sin, I’ve been washed and regenerated in baptism, His Spirit is in me and guides me along the way. Yes, I am saved, but not fully saved yet. Why? Because the Spirit is “just” a “downpayment” – He is the guarantee that when I’ve finished my race in the end my body will be raised and glorified (Rom 8:11) and my soul be saved (1Pe 1:9). These are future aspects of salvation, and they are conditional: We have to keep the faith and to walk accordingly, bringing good fruit.
In a plane ride the plane might crash, and I will never reach America. Jesus cannot crash, that’s very comforting. But He says that we must bear fruit in order to stay on the vine. Therefore my “full” salvation is conditional. I have to maintain this obedient love-faith-relationship to the end.
Again:
Alexander .at what point will you know that Christ s work on the cross saved you ?
Now, for instance. I can speak of the past 24 years of following Christ as well. But cannot speak of tomorrow other than that CHrist has the power to keep me and see me throught, but I also have the abilty to turn back to the world (as Demas, the co-worker of Paul in 2Ti 4:10). Therefore we should not speak too proudly of our future salvation as if we are already there. We are not fully saved, we “only” received a “downpayment”.
Just ibn case you wonder: Where in the scriptures is the word “downpayment”? It’s usually translated away …
(ESV) Eph 1:14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
(GNB)Eph 1:14 The Spirit is the guarantee that we shall receive what God has promised his people, and this assures us that God will give complete freedom to those who are his. Let us praise his glory!
(KJV) Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Strong defines the Greek term “earnest” as follows:
a?????a ? ?
arrhabo n
ar-hrab-ohn’
Of Hebrew origin [H6162]; a pledge, that is, part of the purchase money or property given in advance as security for the rest: – earnest.
If you let a company build a house, you normally have to pay a downpayment. The rest will be paid when the house is finished. the downpayment is a guarantee that you will take the house – but it is also a condition: If the builder does not finish the work, he won’t get the rest of the money – you will get the downpayment back. The same is true if the builder built not according to your order and plan.
Not all who started to walk with Christ finished their life with Christ.
aBasnar Sat 12/24/2011 2:12 AM
But that He wants us to lay hands upon someone for some unknown purpose …
Ray, if you want to understand it, you probably would have to dig a little deeper. The ECF (2nd century) who just continued what they learned from the Apostles had no difficulty understanding it. We in the 21st century, after laying on of hands has been discontinued among Protestants for 500 years, have admittedly more trouble understanding it. But those who call themselves “Restoration Movement” should show more eagerness to learn from the past …
Of course we can be content with what we already know, we can keep it that simple (or simplistic), conserve our status quo … but as I look at the RM-history I see that a lot got lost of what the founding fathers understood, taught and practiced. Trying to just keep what you have (not willing to learn more about the way) normally leads to the loss of what you have. That’s where traditionalism takes the rule over the Word of God.
aBasnar Sat 12/24/2011 3:09 AM
I m just wondering how many of you discussing the laying on of hands have actually had someone lay hands on you? If you have had hands laid on you what was the purpose of doing that?
I came to Christ in a conservative Evangelical church that did not lay hands on either. But when confronted with some charismatics, I became troubled. In this time I asked God about assurace, and I went through a major crisis – no, still no one laid hands on me. But God confirmed the Spirit in me in a renewing way. As I said above: God is not bound to us doing everything correctly – otherwise there would be no church of Christ left on this planet.
But, you see, once we start leaving out things/actions/doctrines of scripture simply because we got by without them for centuries, sooner or later we become insecure and vulnerable. That’s why I in one of my first posts here (way up the list) said laying on of hands is necessary for assurance. I see no basis to take anything for granted where the scripture shows a procedure/action/attitude in order to obtain a special blessing/promise. You see by the way I worded this, that this principle applies to other issues as well.
So, we started laying hands on people who ask for prayer when they are sick. We are seriously thinking about anointing them with oil also (not even knowing which kind of oil and how … maybe we should consult a Catholic priest 😉 ); and we started discussing laying on of hands after baptism – we don’t rush these issues, we don’t want to overrule sentiments, we strive for unanimity in these matters.
Ala John Sat 12/24/2011 7:17 AM
Have ya’ll never seen a person sick or dying and the gathering around that bed to lay hands on?
In many cases, you can only get one arm in there for so many reaching in to touch (lay hands) on the sick one.
This is pretty common here.
Price Sat 12/24/2011 7:20 AM
Alexander…. let me see if I understand you correctly… Your explanation caused me to believe that you have zero doubt in the saving ability of Jesus…Left up to Him entirely you have no doubt that you will be saved…It is the doubt which you have in yourself that causes you to believe that you might loose your salvation and because of the possibility that you might turn away from the faith you hesitate from claiming that you are fully saved…Is that a correct understanding ??
If it is…to what extent can your mistakes not be covered by Grace and your salvation still maintained in full ?? I would think some people reading this would be horrified that an imperfect life, a failure to ask forgiveness at the exact time, a misunderstanding of some theological point…etc, etc., might forfeit their life’s faith in Jesus… How would you respond to that concern ?
My feeble attempt has always been to try and separate the concepts of salvation and sanctification.. We are “saved by Grace through Faith, not of works, lest any man could boast.” That’s Salvation… To loose that one would have to completely abandon any faith, belief and/or trust in Jesus as Savior and King. Whereas Sanctification, the growth and maturity in understanding of the Christian…the process of going from milk to meat… is where we are allowed to learn and make mistakes in complete comfort and security that we are protected by this same Grace… Jesus said in John 17:17 that we would be Sanctified by the Truth…that His Word was truth.. But, perhaps you have a more comforting (or less comforting) approach to explaining it.. Merry Christmas
Ala John Sat 12/24/2011 7:22 AM
When a person comes out of the water and all those gather around, hug and take hold of the person thanking God, isn’t that laying on hands?
This is very common here too.
Why must it be a serious event instead of a joyous celebration?
Ray Sat 12/24/2011 11:05 AM
Alabama John, the answer is no, congratulating a new Christian is not the same as a ceremonial laying on of hands by church leaders to set a person apart for particular work in the kingdom of the Christ.
Ray Sat 12/24/2011 11:13 AM
Are all Christians fully saved if they are “in Christ”? Yes, indeed. And how do we get into the kingdom? It’s by a new birth of water and spirit. The apostle Paul suggests that we are “baptized into Christ” (Galatians 3:27). If a previous sinner has been baptized as a result of believing in Jesus and repenting of sin, then that person is surely completely saved. He or she is now “in Christ.” Because of the new birth. Later it is possible to turn away from Christ and lose salvation. Renegades can repent again and regain salvation by choosing again to follow Jesus as Lord. We are free moral agents all our lives. Baptist doctrine is wrong which claims that we can choose to walk in sin and still be saved if we once believed in Jesus. But we who are repentant and seeking to do right in our walk with Jesus need not worry about our salvation. Jesus saves–to the uttermost. Fully. Securely. If we trust Him rather than our own merit.
Ala John Sat 12/24/2011 11:29 AM
Ray,
I believe every new christian is set apart for the work of setting an example to others and that laying on of hands of other Christians is the encouragement to do so.
Lets look at the other side of prayer and laying on of hands results.
I have asked many doctors and everyone has told me they have diagnosed an illness, some that would cause certain death and when prayed over the patient at the next examination they were found to be clear of it. it just disappeared.
Now, the normal COC explanation I have heard many times is “well, they missed the diagnoses”. How I resent hearing that, talk about disrespectful. I believe Jesus in James 14:12 and that the prayer did it.
If we don’t believe prayer can have a result, why pray? Is prayer actually just for our own mental help or can it have results? Yes or No. Also the prayers that are worded to let God off the hook whichever way it goes. My opinion is say what you want clearly, don’t beat around the bush, God doesn’t need our help or an excuse!
Does it always go our way? No, but, that is for God to know, not me.
Ray Sat 12/24/2011 11:29 AM
A “laying on of hands” is a religious ceremony, not just any touching of one by another. And nothing in apostolic doctrine calls for us to need someone to lay hands on us in order for us to become a full-fledged Christian. What is required is spelled out in exact words and in examples which we can follow. We who love Jesus are to tell others about Him and His life and death and resurrection. New believers are urged to repent of sin and to be baptized, which we are assured brings the sinner into the kingdom of Christ. The Christian is fully saved. There’s no need for any physical touching by anyone in order for the person to experience the new birth of water and spirit. Acts 2:38 tells what the sinner must do. It makes no mention of any “laying on of hands.” Nor is there any command or example given for us to follow in such a practice.
As for touching sick and dying persons, that’s an excellent way of spreading contagion to all the ones who did the touching. And, once again, we have no command to do this or any example we might follow of early Christians choosing to do so. If we can provide assistance to a sick person, there’s every reason we should do so even if it involves a touch. Otherwise, no. Whether in Alabama or Missouri or anywhere, there’s no merit in touching sick persons unless that’s necessary in order to provide something they need but can’t get for themselves or do by themselves. What do proponents of “laying on of hands” suppose Paul meant by warning against hastily doing so? Was he not writing about the selection of church workers and leaders?
Ala John Sat 12/24/2011 12:15 PM
Ray,
I’ve never known a person to get a cold or pneumonia from Baptism. Trust God.
Please explain John 14:12
“Verily, verily,I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do, shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.” What does this means for us today? I in my typing haste incorrectly typed James above instead of John.
Do you pray for God to intercede in or for anything specific to happen and if so why or why not?
I’m not asking to be argumentative, but, really want to know.
Ala John Sat 12/24/2011 12:20 PM
Acts 2:38 is quoted as you just did to emphasize what the christian must DO.
It is not quoted to state what the christian RECEIVES. Why not?
Ray Sat 12/24/2011 1:15 PM
Alabama John has questions and comments, including “I believe every new christian is set apart for the work of setting an example to others and that laying on of hands of other Christians is the encouragement to do so.” A reasonable question is, “WHY do you believe this? What passage in inspired writing speaks to this?”
As for Acts 2:38, it clearly tells what is required (all that is required of the new believer) and of what the results of obeying are. Both requirement and result is clearly seen. So what’s the question?
When I pray, it’s not to tell God what He should or must do. It’s to thank Him for what He has done and to tell Him what I’d like for Him also to do. But I don’t dare try to tell Him what He MUST do. He is God. I’m not God. Nor is Jay. Nor is Al Maxey. Nor is Alabama John or any other mortal. We make requests in prayer, not commands. And we’ll hopefully be thankful for whatever He chooses to give us in response to our petitions.
Ala John Sat 12/24/2011 3:53 PM
Ray,
To ask God for something specific is not a command to God but a clear request. ASK and you shall receive. That also carries with it the flip side DON’T ask and you will not receive.
Encouragement to any new christian by laying on of hands and even giving them the Holy Kiss should be the normal process. They sure can influence others that see the change in them.
To lay on hands, anoint with oil, giving the Holy Kiss sure isn’t forbidden and to do so just might help. When in doubt as to whether it is required or not, why debate and argue, just do it. Would we rather be guilty of doing more good or too little? Would you refuse someone wanting to do so to you if you were in a hospital very sick? I didn’t!
Do we receive the Holy Spirit after we DO the most often quoted first part of Acts 2:38 like it clearly says in the rest of the verse? Isn’t it aggravating that last part is in there. Acts 2:38 was voted the most quoted verse among the COC and the emphasis was always on the first part.
You are not answering my questions. That’s OK as I’m used to it and don’t really expect them to be answered. What I do expect is the usual dodging.
Thank God for Al Maxey. He sure doesn’t dodge.
Ray Sat 12/24/2011 5:11 PM
Alabama John says, “Encouragement to any new christian by laying on of hands and even giving them the Holy Kiss should be the normal process. They sure can influence others that see the change in them.”
He also says that to tell God what to do is only a request, which seems to me to be an unusual way to look at prayer. But I do indeed wonder why he is so sold on “laying on of hands and even giving new Christians ‘the Holy Kiss'” What scripture speaks of early Christians doing either of these things as part of welcoming converts into the Lord’s church (body, assembly, family)? “Normal process” implies something usually done. I find not even one record of either of these things being done in any example Luke gives us of early conversions in the apostolic age.
John says I don’t answer his questions. I thought I was replying to everything he is advocating, and pointing out that what he is promoting is not any part of apostolic Christianity. What questions are unanswered?
Ray Sat 12/24/2011 5:26 PM
Alexander wants to create apostolic doctrine from what he finds in later writings but does NOT find in apostolic writings, as I understand him. He wrote, “Ray, if you want to understand it, you probably would have to dig a little deeper. The ECF (2nd century) who just continued what they learned from the Apostles had no difficulty understanding it.”
I’ve understood that our pioneers sought to restore themselves to apostolic teachings rather than 2nd-century teachings and practices. I know that MY goal is to do as the New Testament shows that those taught by apostles did and taught. I do not study early church fathers in order to know what the apostles actually did teach and practice.
Doug Sat 12/24/2011 5:37 PM
Ray,
We understand what you are saying… take a break and just in case you celebrate it… MERRY CHRISTMAS!!
Ray Sat 12/24/2011 6:12 PM
Thanks, Doug, for the good wishes. I return them, and with them also a hope for a happy new year for us all. Alexander writes, “To speak of salvation in past tense only is not the best way to describe salvation. We embarked on a journey, which is described as a ‘pilgrimage’ on a narrow path. We have to finish the race in order to be able to say we are now ‘fully saved.'”
But in fact we are assured of salvation if we have believed in Jesus as the risen Lord, have turned away from sin and have been baptized. Our salvation is sure. It’s true, as Alexander sees, that a Christian can later return to a lost condition. That doesn’t mean that he/she was never saved. If the person had remained “in Christ” as was the case when the new birth made them a babe IN Christ, they would have been saved upon death. If the sinning person repents, he/she can once again be a fully-saved and assured person, for forgiveness is in God’s nature. We do not do well to doubt that we have been completely saved when we do experience new birth of water and spirit.
Paul describes it in Galatians 3:27. We are baptized (as a repentant believer) INTO Christ, not just near Him or toward Him but as Luke mentions in Acts 2, INTO the body which is His church, His assembly of the now saved sinners.
The same assurance is found in 1 Corinthians 12:13 where Paul is urging unity of all who were baptized in one spirit INTO one body. All IN the body are saved. Fully. Completely. Surely. Not half-saved or partly-saved. We do not need to doubt our salvation. God keeps His promises. One such promise is found in Acts 2:38. Remission of sins and the gift of the Spirit follow our new birth of water and spirit. It’s a sure thing.
Todd Sat 12/24/2011 6:16 PM
Ray, just a thought, if Paul warns us against the over hasty laying on of hands does that not tell us that the laying on of hands is in fact somehow important? In similar fashion to how Peter’s asking”who can keep these people from being baptized” in the house of Cornelius underscores the importance of baptism rather than making it optional.
I find it amazing that we continue to pick and choose which Biblical actions are required and which are optional because one or anoher simply does not fit in with what we think. We absolutely stand on baptism which is commanded while rejecting the Holy Kiss which is also commanded. We damn all who disagree over baptism while expecting our man-made explanation will save us in setting aside the command for the kiss. We bind weekly communion though it is no where commanded, while cutting out the laying on of hands – which has already been shown to be a basic practice of the early Church.
For me most of these are non-issues but those who feel we must reproduce first century Christiany exactly to be saved must see how their picking and choosing while damning others for picking and choosing will in the end lead to their own damnation. If we have to get it right to be saved we better be quite sure we get it all right and accept no excuses for not doing what the Scripture commands.
Price Sat 12/24/2011 8:01 PM
Well, for a few days I’m gonna try and avoid debate and just try and appreciate that a Savior was born. Merry Christmas !!
aBasnar Sun 12/25/2011 2:38 AM
For me most of these are non-issues but those who feel we must reproduce first century Christiany exactly to be saved must see how their picking and choosing while damning others for picking and choosing will in the end lead to their own damnation. If we have to get it right to be saved we better be quite sure we get it all right and accept no excuses for not doing what the Scripture commands.
Just to confirm: This is absolutely not my approach. It’s not about damning or getting saved. It’s about understanding restoration as an ongoing study for the renewal of Christ’s church. The Restoration Movement started out great, but the churches of Christ conserved the (limited) results of the founding fathers into a church-of-Christ-tradition they hold fast to. Well, not even that. A number of things got lost during the past few generations. And now we have the paradox situation that the churches of Christ are less restored than a century ago, but still hold fast vigorously even to their losses. (e.g. the position on war and nonresistance) It’s just that we are simply inconsistent. We should not brag and look down on others therefore, but become (again) serious about our claims.
I am convinced that each apostolic teaching or example (“command and approved precedent”) we neglect is not only a spiritual loss, but it makes unity harder when we take away from scripture. Yes, a church can live without laying on of hands, the holy kiss … and even having the Lord’s Supper only once a year. But doing it with a simple and obedient faith, expecting God to bless us, will be for our benefit. And it draws us closer together as we come closer to scripture.
And I am also convinced that Christ wants us to return to the first works as an expression of our first love (Rev 2:4-5); this of course means much more than what we discussed above. But certainly these “minor isues” (or basic doctrines as in Heb 6) are included in the wish of the Word that we should hold fast to the faith once and for all delivered.
Again, I don’t view it as a matter of heaven or hell, but as in indicator of spiritual growth and love that we more and more respect and understand His word and the apostolic examples. No church is perfect in this sense, and even Laodicea was a church of Christ. If Christ could bear an Isebel in Thytira for some time, he can bear our errors as well – calling us to repentance with a lot of patience. And this should be reflected in the way we treat each other and view other churches. These other churches sometimes got things right (ore held fast to some practices) that got lost among almost all Protestants, including our movement. And things that went wrong elsewhere can happen to us as well. That’s what makes the seven letters in Revelation so important to me.
So unless we cultivate a (self-)critical openmindedness we may very well miss what the Spirit said to the churches (plural – not only to Ephesos or Laodicea). What Christ commends elsewhere, He’d like to see among us – what He condemns elsewhere we must beware of as well.
Charles Sun 12/25/2011 8:21 AM
Ray’s view of the church is so tridecacentric (new word!) that almost every gift, promise, revelation and supernatural work is attributed to only 13 men. So we have a church hierarchy: the head, who is Christ; the neck, which is the Thirteen; and the rest of us assorted parts. Under this system, the closest any of us ever gets to Jesus is to listen to his lieutenants.
Ray, as the apostles were apparently not only the center of the church, but the only part of the church to have any real first-hand connection with God, it would seem to be important to know exactly who the apostles were… or are. Do you accept the apostleship of Timothy and Silas and Barnabas and Andronicus and Junias and James (Jesus’ brother)? Can you provide scripture to suggest that there are no more apostles today? Perhaps there are more like Paul out there, called by Jesus, with or without the actions of his fellow believers. Any biblical reason for us to doubt this?
Oh, and on another subject you raised: I have personally laid hands on the sick and seen them spontaneously recover, and have cast out demons, right here is the US. I personally prophesy and speak in tongues. As to raising the dead, my record is the same as that of the apostle James. If you want to doubt, you’ll have to throw out direct firsthand testimony.
Todd Sun 12/25/2011 8:30 AM
Sorry Alexander, not intended to address you personally. I just notice that when things being left out of our current traditional practice are being discussed those most married to our traditions as “scriptural” are the most common objectors and refuse to budge no matter how much scripture is piled up. They prove that they do not wish to restore what was but merely to perpetuate what they are used to.
Charles Sun 12/25/2011 8:51 AM
Why is it, again, that we decided to try to “restore” the church as we see it in the NT? Is there some reason to believe that the church in its infant state was somehow “pure” and began to depart God soon after the Thirteen died?
Ala John Sun 12/25/2011 9:48 AM
Ray,
I asked you: do you in your prayers ask for anything specific to be done and why or why not?
I’m not trying to pick on you please accept that.
Todd, most of all, understands where I’m going with this.
We in the COC and others too have chosen heaven or hell for some CENI and others even mentioned much more that we ignore or if asked, dismiss. I pointed out a few.
People throughout history have worshiped God in many ways and they too had some that were certainly required and others dismissed.
Constantine had more influence on our Bible and which books went in it than any scholar I know.
We like to say we want to be like the 1st century church. Whoa, better get many more women involved. Read that history.
We in many ways do just the opposite.
Ala John Sun 12/25/2011 10:01 AM
Charles,
How about Mary Magdalene as apostle?
Dead Sea Scrolls said Jesus kissed her on the —- part torn off and lost forever. Historians assume it was lips, but could of been her hand out of respect.
My point is we must do the best we can to follow jesus’s two commandments and not become so one way and have all others wrong.
Chances are stacked way in favor of all of us have a lot wrong too. The same patience we have with others will be extended us. Bad part is the same tight requirements we put on others will be put on us. Seems there is a scripture somewhere that says something like that.
Merry Christmas to all and I pray specifically that you all (those that are on this site) and your families will be safe.
Ray Sun 12/25/2011 8:42 PM
Alabama John asks if I ask for anything specific when I pray. Yes, I do. I do because I know what I want and so I ask for it. I always have in mind that God does hear from me and others what I and they want, and He gives us what is best for us all whether or not that’s exactly what we prayed and for which we asked.
Theophilus Dr Sun 12/25/2011 8:47 PM
Alexander, please rethink your statements about the Samaritan conversions in Acts 8 being “a two-step process” and that their conversion had to be completed by Peter and John’s laying on of hands (Dec 23 @ 3:07pm). I hope you will conclude that this interpretation is not consistent with anything in scripture. There is a better explanation that is much more consistent with all other examples in the book of Acts. Ray touched on it in his comment (Dec 23 @ 3:18).
Ray Sun 12/25/2011 8:52 PM
I want to add a comment about apostles. Luke reports that James was beheaded. He does not report that James was replaced as an apostle. Is it not true that the only reported replacing was for Judas Iscariot? When we read of others being called an apostle, it would seem they were not counted among the 12 apostles. We rightly respect Paul as an apostle. We suppose he was considered to have equal “authority” in the churches with the original 12, so far as I know. It’s certain that when the canon was being decided, the church leaders at that time felt that Paul was no less important and no less inspired than Matthew, Peter and John. And Peter is quoted as considering Paul inspired.
Ray Sun 12/25/2011 8:57 PM
Why a restoration movement? Because Jesus promised the apostles that THEY would be led by the Spirit into all truth and they were given the task of building the assembly that Jesus had said He would build. We want to be a part of the Lord’s church (assembly). So we rightly feel we should do as the early church was taught to do by the apostles. Our aim is noble. It’s right. We should not lose sight of the goal of in this generation being as nearly like the pure (original) church as we can be.
Ray Sun 12/25/2011 9:06 PM
A brother suggests some of us reject particular teachings “regardless of how many scriptures are piled up.” I’ve noticed, and I suppose all have, that some scriptures are sometimes misused in an attempt to prove something those scriptures do not in fact prove. If we feel a scripture actually teaches what a brother wants to infer or glean from it, then surely we all will gladly accept the teaching. But if we see that the cited or quoted text does NOT teach what the person wants it to have taught, we will not be quick to accept a different teaching from what we already had seen in apostolic writings.
Ray Sun 12/25/2011 9:17 PM
Charles McLean wrote: Ray, as the apostles were apparently not only the center of the church, but the only part of the church to have any real first-hand connection with God, it would seem to be important to know exactly who the apostles were? or are. Do you accept the apostleship of Timothy and Silas and Barnabas and Andronicus and Junias and James (Jesus? brother)? Can you provide scripture to suggest that there are no more apostles today? Perhaps there are more like Paul out there, called by Jesus, with or without the actions of his fellow believers. Any biblical reason for us to doubt this?
——————————
RAY WRITES: I feel this is a question it would be best if Jay answered. But I’ll express an opinion. The original 12 were uniquely called and trained by Jesus while He was on earth. The replacement of Judas also had considerable personal contact with the living Jesus of Nazareth. The others, other than Paul, named by Charles are not in the same class with the originals. Fine and faithful Christians, so far as we know. Appointed by Jesus as His apostles? No, not so far as we know. Paul was uniquely called to be an apostle. Luke records it. Were the others? Not part of the record, so far as I know. The word “apostle” merely means one sent on a particular errand for another. Jesus selected HIS apostles, including Paul. I suppose only those 13 (with the replacement of Judas as one of the 12) were properly identified as apostles of JESUS.
Terry Mon 12/26/2011 5:41 AM
Alabama John,
You mentioned a story about Jesus and Mary Magdalene from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Can you provide a citation or a link to the Dead Sea Scrolls mentioning Jesus or Mary Magdalene? I cannot find it. There is a vague reference in the scrolls to a “teacher of righteousness” which some people have theorized to be Jesus, but I cannot find a clear reference to him or to anyone named Mary. I would appreciate your help. Thanks.
Ala John Mon 12/26/2011 9:02 AM
Terry,
It was the book of Philip instead. I wanted to reference that book and also the Dead Sea Scrolls as not being readily available like the bible is, and left part out.
My point being if something came up that we didn’t have access to that required us to do something we never knew to obtain heaven would we be lost for not obeying it?
The answer preached among the COC has always been yes, you didn’t obey so your lost.
I believe God will take that lack of knowledge in consideration when judging.
aBasnar Mon 12/26/2011 9:51 AM
oops, a German word crept in:
To limit laying on of hands to some and to imply that it was only about signs is not reading the text sondern (= but) rewriting the text.
aBasnar Mon 12/26/2011 10:54 AM
Why restoration?
1Co 3:9 For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building.
1Co 3:10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it.
The first step is to acknowledge that the church is not a human work, but God’s work. Christ is building the church (Mat 16:18) – we are only (at best) fellow workers, but the plan according to which we shall build is divine.
Restoration means to repair something that has been broken or destroyed (violently or just over time) according to the original design. What do we see today when we look at the church? Let’s just take a few thigs to make that clear:
a) Biblical theology was put aside for a blend of theology and philosophy – contrary to the warning of Col 2:8. When this happens, what shall we do? Shall we accept the situation and proceed as if nothing has happened? Or shall we restore the original pure doctrine?
b) Baptism was altered dramatically, both in form and in function. Some made it a sacrament that works apart from faith, baptizing even little children to secure their salvation. Others reduced baptism to a mere symbol of faith that would be good to be observed (but is not necessary). Still others abandoned it completely as a mere outward ritual (spiritualists). Considering that “one baptism” in Eph 4:6 is meant to be a pillar of unity, we must confess that this untity has been shattered generations, even many centuries ago! Shall we leave it as it is? Broken, diverse in its meaning, confusing to anyone, disunifying? Or shall we attempt to restore it to its original meaning and mode?
c) Following the disaster of baptism, church has been made into something very different than it originally was. It became so mixed into the world as state church, as cultural church, as a pillar of human society … instead of being not of this world, called out of this world. Every attempt to reform as restore what had been lost, led to a schism – but the origin of this schism is an apostate institution that still uses the name church for itself. My, look at the mess! Shall we leave it at this? Can we learn anything from all the attempts to reform and restore in the past? Shall we give up and say with resignation: “That’s how it is, we can’t help it.”? It’s my theory that all reformers left a good but unfinished work, which their followers conserved in this unfinished state claiming “it’s perfect”. So from once being “radical” (going back to the roots) they turned “conservatives”.
No one who loves the Lord can look at the situation and be content.
The reason? Co-workers of Christ proved to be unfaithful, unwise and easy to mislead. So we suffer from human mistakes and wrong decisions. I say firmly: We are not bound to hold fast to the errors of our ancestors. And since this is so, we are responsible for NOT setting in order what other confused.
The pharisees were heirs of a similar wrong development. It did not oroginate with them, but they preserved the errors of their fathers. Listen to what Christ said to them:
Mat 15:3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
…
Mat 15:6 … So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.
Mat 15:7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
Mat 15:8 “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; Mat 15:9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'”
These words of Christ are not limited to the specific situation and commands in this dialogue. Whenever we add or take away from scripture, the same rebuke applies to us. How shall we respond?
So far restoration has been the most convincing response to me, but I am open to a better suggestion.
Todd Mon 12/26/2011 11:15 AM
Ray- the commands concerning the holy kiss are multiple and direct and are much stronger than any passages we use to base weekly Sunday only Communion or acappella worship and as strong as the requirement for baptism. All the “greet with a holy kiss” passages are in the form of commands- the highest rung of our restoration hermaneutic. The word used for “kiss” is not capable of any other interpretation – just like the singular meaning of baptizo – thus ruling out holy hugs, holy handshakes, holy high-fives and even the holy head nod of acknowledgement. This same command is given by multiple apostles so it wasn’t just Paul’s hobby horse- though we wouldn’t apply such thinking to any other command. The command was given to folks escaping a society where homosexuality was a preferred orientation while the apostles still condemned such behavior – so the argument that it fosters bad behavior is utter poppycock.
If we see a code of law in the NT that must be kept or we stand in danger of hell fire then this act must be a part of our restored church. There is simply no excuse under our dominant hermaneutic to leave it out. One cup or many – the Word lets you go either way. Kitchen in the church house – no Biblical guidance that fits. Five acts of worship – only if you look real hard and leave some things out. But holy kiss is a direct command than only the rebellious can ignore.
Or just perhaps our whole approach to the Word is completely wrong headed to begin with…
Ray Mon 12/26/2011 1:08 PM
Todd is certainly correct! Friendly, comradely, fraternal greeting in the day when Paul was writing was a kiss on the cheek (two kisses, one on each cheek?). But was Paul issuing an apostolic command when he urged upon brethren this form of greeting? That is the question. Who knows the answer? Jay? Charles?
aBasnar Mon 12/26/2011 1:26 PM
This could be the simple answer, yet there could be more to the story as well. Justin Martyr was the first one outside the NT to make mention of the kiss:
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. (from hs 1st apology)
Tertullian, a few decades later calls this kiss the “seal of prayer”.
If you want to get an idea about the significance and application of this “command” in the NT you should dig into the early church history. Obviously it became (or was originally meant to be?) an “act of worship” – how many of such acts are there now?
What we should not do is avoid thinking and just claim that our tradition reflects the original practice and conviction. Just as saying: “IM is not mentioned in the NT, so it is allowed/forbidden (depending on which side you stand)” will never produce a fruitful discussion …
Todd Mon 12/26/2011 1:45 PM
My point is that we take far less and create a hell or heaven choice while ignoring things that were expressly given as commands for the same reasons others reject the commands we see as binding. I believe Jesus called it straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
I am not trying to get anyone to follow this command unless they are trying to bind similar commands on others. Paul clearly stated hat if you are tryong to be saved by Law you better keep the whole thing. If you turn the NT into law you better not leave anyhing out. You can’t bind the laws our traditionalists teach which they have found in the nooks and crannies of scripture and not enforce those things that are plainly spoken.
aBasnar Mon 12/26/2011 2:59 PM
I totally see what you mean, Todd – and I even agree with you. ’twas just for the historically interested ones 😉
Alexander
P.S. I think I wrote it to Jay: One of the problems we suffer from is the “lawyer’s approach” to scripture. Calvin, who sheped the reformation more than any other reformer, studied law not theology; and this is reflected in his work. But he is standing on the shoulders of the Roman theologians who also had this “law-approach” (a prime example would be Tertullian). Why is that a problem? Because we all grew up in this thinking and tend to treat the Bible as a Law-Book, asking for what is allowed and what is forbidden. The result is neither love nor relationship, but standards we have to meet in order to obtain both. To be sure, there are standards and commands in the Bible, but they FOLLOW our redemption, they are not a requirement for getting into this relationship. Yet, they are important for maintaining this relationship, but not in the sense that every shortcoming immediately questions our salvation.
Ray Mon 12/26/2011 3:08 PM
Good for Todd for calling for us to obey every apostolic command. What some might question is whether indeed Paul’s exhortations are what we think of as commands. If “Greet one another” is the command rather than the stated “with a holy kiss” then we are surely exhorted to greet one another just as we are urged to love one another and help one another and pray for one another. Yes, Jesus said in a similar situation, that we should wash one another’s feet. But in that day foot washing was needed because of walking in sandals on surfaces quite different from our cement sidewalks and different from the meticulously clean floors in our homes. Is it necessary to do the exact thing Jesus spoke of or the kind of greeting of which Paul spoke in order to do what these godly teachers sought to encourage us to do?
As for the bread and wine of the shared meal of remembrance, we chose to shift away from wine and from real bread so that now we use substitutes in both cases, and we no longer eat together as they always did in observing the meal of remembrance. We no longer feel the exact forms are necessary in order to do what the Lord and His apostles encourage for us to do. Who will say we MUST greet one another in the same way the greeting was done in the first century in order to obey our Master? Is the form most important, or the love and mutual respect which a fraternal greeting is intended to convey?
Ray Mon 12/26/2011 3:10 PM
Hey, that’s grand. All I had to do was change my name and go through loops and now my picture is there for all to admire!
JMF Mon 12/26/2011 3:41 PM
…Perhaps a better debate would be to argue who has a more impressive beard: Ray or Alexander?? 🙂 I’m just up the road from you, Ray. (Spfld)
Alexander: A quick, silly question: Do you run all of your words through a translator program? Or do you type in English?
Ray Mon 12/26/2011 3:56 PM
I surely agree with Alexander that we urgently need to restore ourselves to apostolic Christianity if we seek to be united in service of Jesus Christ. The Pharisees, as he says, had traditions they followed. Do we not also have traditions we follow? Alexander suggests we need to go back to the original as described in apostolic writings. Who could possibly improve on that suggestion? Isn’t that what Jay is advocating, and several others in our day? Dare I suggest that the apostles had no worship laws so if we’re restoring apostolic Christianity, we will NOT seek to bind worship laws on our brothers! Jesus and His apostles call for us to love one another and for us to work together to win the world for Him. Did I read that rightly?
Ray Mon 12/26/2011 4:15 PM
Every Christian within driving distance of Joplin, Missouri should arrange to visit the chapel service soon at Spring River Christian Village near Northpark Mall in Joplin, so they can compare my puny beard with the much more impressive one of my brothers. We have two Sunday morning gatherings, at 9:45 and at 11:00 a.m. Then I meet there with some who, as I do, love to sing hymns for a hymn sing on Sunday (and Wednesday) afternoon at 5:15 p.m. Springfield is only about 90 miles away from our Paradise in the 4-State area. More realistically, let’s get together at the Tulsa Workshop in Tulsa, Oklahoma March 21-24, 2012 to compare beards and experiences. They’re even letting Jay speak some this year!
Doug Mon 12/26/2011 4:28 PM
The problem I’m having with this discussion is that somehow the Church survived the first 400 years of it’s existence with a scriptural canon that was in transition. That is, if you’d asked a canon scholar what the scripture consisted of in AD 150, AD 250, AD 350… you’d have gotten three different answers. Still, the Church survived and grew. Now, I think the canon was properly decided upon but we restorationists need to remember that the early Church wasn’t going by the exact same scriptures that we are struggling so mightily to slice and dice in order to get everything exactly right in our Church today. Doesn’t this at least suggest something? Are we trying to “restore” something perfectly that wasn’t all that well defined in the beginning?
Ray Mon 12/26/2011 6:02 PM
Todd points out that “laying on of hands” must have some importance in church work since the apostle warns against hastily doing so. I agree. Paul is speaking of selecting and setting apart men for the particular work of serving as elders or evangelists. The comment has nothing whatever to do with conversions of believing and repentant sinners being baptized and added to the body of Christ. Nor is it in reference to praying for the sick if the context tells us what concerns the apostle about too hastily laying on hands.
Ala John Mon 12/26/2011 6:54 PM
Doug,
YES!
aBasnar Tue 12/27/2011 12:12 AM
@ JMF
I’m typing in English (with all my unique typing errors when I’m doing it hastily).
aBasnar Tue 12/27/2011 12:14 AM
@ all brothers who differ from Ray and me outwardly
Growing a beard is restoring man to his original design 🙂
aBasnar Tue 12/27/2011 12:31 AM
As for the bread and wine of the shared meal of remembrance, we chose to shift away from wine and from real bread so that now we use substitutes in both cases, and we no longer eat together as they always did in observing the meal of remembrance. We no longer feel the exact forms are necessary in order to do what the Lord and His apostles encourage for us to do. Who will say we MUST greet one another in the same way the greeting was done in the first century in order to obey our Master? Is the form most important, or the love and mutual respect which a fraternal greeting is intended to convey?
From experience I can say it makes a difference when you start meeting like the 1st century church again. Eating together in a relaxed athmosphere is part of our assemblies at home – all who don’t do it, miss out on something.
Footwashing the way Christ introduced it was an object lesson, going beyond the traditional service of foot-washing itself. The churches, when it became lost as a daily practice of hospitality, took it over into their annual liturgy so this object lesson would not get lost. That’s what we also do in our house church – when doing this, we are doing something with our hands (and let something be done to our feet) instead of merely talking about it. It’s a deeper experience of the lesson. We don’t bind this on others – in fact we are the only house church in our church in Vienna that does that.
The question is when is a form essential to convey the meaning. Form should follow function, it does not stand on its own. But eating together serves a very important purpose – shall we just skip it as something that is not necessary (only because we don’t see the need)? Footwashing is a valuable object lesson (and I could write a book on it). Have we at least substituted it by something similar in function?
We use unleavened Jewish bread in our Lord’s Supper, and in our house church we drink real wine (mixed with water) from one cup. All of this has significance, the forms express spiritual truths I want to be reminded of. Doing it differently would blur the meaning. In these cases the form is part of the message.
“Who says we MUST ….”?
Do we need a law to do what is appropriate? I’m not convinced of the law-approach – understanding the meaning of what has been done in the NT motivates me to imitate the NT church (= restore it). If I don’t understand it it, I’d rather do it anyway instead of simply dismissing it as unnecessary, because by doing it, understanding often follows. See, you can debate endlessly whether or not we should eat together as Christians – once you do it, you’ll experience the value of it. Bon appetit!
Charles Tue 12/27/2011 8:43 AM
Larry wastes a large amount of time and space proving what no one argues… the identities of the Twelve. Quoting Acts 1 speaks only to the person who replaced Judas… Paul did NOT meet all these requirements, which makes that whole segment moot.
So we recognize at least one apostle beyond the reconstituted Twelve. My two-tiered question remains [a] do we recognize as apostles the people the NT refers to as apostles: Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, James (Jesus’ brother), Andronicus, Junias, and perhaps Apollos and Titus? The follow-up question is [b] what biblical basis do we have to suggest that God stopped raising up apostles sometime in the first century?
There is much to suggest that the Twelve held some sort of distinctive identity, apart from other believers. All such indicators come from the gospels and from Revelation– and none from Acts or the Epistles. What these distinctives actually ARE is not clearly set forth in the texts and is subject for discussion. What needs no discussion is whether Paul was one of The Twelve. Anyone who can count to twelve can ascertain this. Paul did not meet the criteria set out by Peter in Acts 1, and was not one of that group. But we seem to continue to ignore the inconsistency in our reasoning when we talk about apostles. We blithely mix passages concerning the Twelve with references to apostles generally, and exclude modern apostles using reasoning that also excludes apostles identified in the NT. Our failure to have a good understanding of this topic is not so troubling as our refusal to study the matter with clear reasoning. So far, the result of our non-reasoning has been to create a class which might be called The Protestant Thirteen, a small cadre of ancient wizards unlike anyone else, with mystical powers given for the exclusive purpose of confirming a set of texts which were still not univerally accepted by the church until long after The P-13 were dead. Reading these texts, it is clear that these personal magic powers were not potent enough to get the Corinthians and Galatians and other believers to keep listening to Paul after he left town. Apparently, these apostolic powers were not completely effective.
Yes, I am being a bit acidic here in my description. But when a position has petrified beyond both reason and a rational approach to scripture, sometimes it takes a little acid to break down the crust.
Larry also suggested: “These next two verses are the only places in scripture that offer any others as Apostles. ” And he references Revelation. Larry, a little more reading would seem to be in order. Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Silas and Timothy (I Thessalonians 1:1, 2:6), and likely James (Galatians 1:19, Acts 15). Contextual clues suggest Apollos and Titus. And as to this stratification of first-class and second-class apostles, Paul was clearly skeptical of the idea, even offended by it. Read 2 Corinthians 11 and 12 and listen for the portions which fairly drip with sarcasm. Please note that is it clear from Paul here that the Corinthians were not thinking of Paul as an first-class apostle, as we now do with the P-13.
Charles Tue 12/27/2011 9:09 AM
Alexander offered: “Biblical theology was put aside for a blend of theology and philosophy contrary to the warning of Col 2:8. When this happens, what shall we do? Shall we accept the situation and proceed as if nothing has happened? Or shall we restore the original pure doctrine?”
Alexander, when has the church been without the influence of human philosophy? When did we leave this “pure doctrine”? You are implying a fleeting historic “golden age” of the church when it’s teaching was “pure”. Just when did that start? After the Judaizers lost influence? After all the heresies washed out of the church’s faith and practice? After Paul’s warning against human philosophy was no longer a risk inside the church walls? After Paul stopped having to beard Peter for breaking fellowship with his Gentile brothers? After all the troubles reported by the angels to the churches in Revelation 2-4?
And when did this purported golden age of pure doctrine end? Shall we blame Constantine? Or some of the ECF? When shall we start ignoring the teachings of the church as having fallen away? To suggest such a golden age, a time only within which may be found the “pure doctrine” of Jesus, seems to me to require at least some closely-approximated beginning and ending dates.
Alexander, I think you have posited a false dilemma, a dilemma which ignores another option: seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit here and now, both individually and as a community of faith. Following Jesus is not a matter which is based upon archeology, but upon living faith.
Ray Tue 12/27/2011 11:40 AM
I applaud Alexander and his description of the church which meets in his house. He is doing well. His sharing of what they do sounds very like the activities which we read about in apostolic writings.
About apostles, we note in Revelation that the twelve original apostles will be honored throughout eternity. Paul made no claim to be one of the twelve. He was called to be an apostle several years after James was no longer present. But Paul had apostolic powers, and yet sometimes did not heal sick helpers who were with him. As for his continuing influence, I see no reason to suppose he ever tried to exercise authority in any church beyond a teaching authority. That is, he taught what was right, but did not demand that everyone accept “authority” and immediately and unquestioningly obey him. He worked to earn his own living and to provide for the living of his helpers. This is not much like the present “popes” and other church officials. Nor is it much like some of our editors have acted.
As for “seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit here and now,” I observe that many who claim to be led by the Spirit give conflicting messages. If all were in fact led by the same Spirit, would their messages agree? I’m thinking we do well to search the Scriptures and believe that the leadings we receive there are from the Spirit of God. Can we trust the Word and yet realize that it is possible for some of us to not understand it correctly? I was blessed to early learn from Seth Wilson, a friend of God and a person who knew well the Word of God.
Each of us will do well to seek to study with another or with others and give thoughtful consideration to what others are learning and have learned from the Word. Yet we must realize that any one or several of us can be wrong in our understandings. But we must do what we see as being God’s will for us as individuals and as groups of believers.
Jack Mann Tue 12/27/2011 12:17 PM
Charles writes: “There is much to suggest that the Twelve held some sort of distinctive identity, apart from other believers. All such indicators come from the gospels and from Revelation and none from Acts or the Epistles.”
The one notable requirment to be “numbered among the twelve” is found in Acts 1:20-23. Surely no one today in the Church feels he fits the mold?
Looks to me like there were only two who made the “short list.”
Justus and Matthias.
Another qualification that disqualifies anyone today is found in John 15:27.
“And you shall bear witness because you have been with me from the beginning.”
No amount of “laying on of hands” will get one today over this hurdle.
Only these men that met with the Lord in the upper room would receive the Holy Spirit that would cause them to remember what the Lord had said to them during His ministry. ( Matthew 14:25-26 ).
Note the qualification that Paul ( “a chosen vessel” ) informs the church at Corinth of his apostleship: “Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen the Lord?”
( 1 Cor. 9:1 ).
Something interesting here to me. Paul never qualifies his apostleship as being baptized with/into the Holy Spirit. Even today men doubt his apostleship.
In Islam they say, “Paul hijacked the Gospels.”
He called himself the “least ot the apostles,” but without his letters we would be left in the dark of the Atonement, Justification, Sanctification, etc.
Luke made it quite clear: “he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.”
I would note, It was a “must” to have seen the Lord to be chosen as an “eye witness” to His ministry. This ministry was confirmed with signs following” (Mk. 16:20 ).
If you find one today claiming apostleship a quick varification is found in John 14:14, “If you shall ask anything in my name I will do it.”
You will be surprised how this little verse separates the wheat from the chaff.
Ray Tue 12/27/2011 12:26 PM
It seems that Charles wants us to recognize apostles now living. He wrote: So we recognize at least one apostle beyond the reconstituted Twelve. My two-tiered question remains [a] do we recognize as apostles the people the NT refers to as apostles: Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, James (Jesus’ brother), Andronicus, Junias, and perhaps Apollos and Titus? The follow-up question is [b] what biblical basis do we have to suggest that God stopped raising up apostles sometime in the first century?
————————————-
An apostle is simply one who is sent to represent another and to act for another. Surely God has not stopped raising up people who represent Him and act for Him. But apostolic authority stopped with the originals, including Paul. But there were no replacements as apostles of Christ other than ones who had seen Him personally. No chance that anyone today, lacking a personal visit from the risen Lord, could qualify.
Ray Tue 12/27/2011 12:38 PM
Charles also says: Following Jesus is not a matter which is based upon archeology, but upon living faith.
And surely we all agree. Except that we cannot know when a leading we have is from our God. For we sometimes get leadings from many sources. Those who founded Mormonism surely did so. The lady who founded “Christian Science” surely did so. And there are others. If the leading we have takes us away from the teaching of the apostles then it is not a leading from God. We do well to search the Scriptures and seek leadings in harmony with apostolic examples and teaching.
Today the people of God are in touch with many who seek to lead us. And some are leading away from apostolic truth. Some are teaching that baptism, which Jesus said was to be done by people who told other people about Him, is performed somehow by the Holy Spirit even before the Spirit is given when the sinner is reborn of water and spirit. And some are teaching many other things which are not found in the written Word.
Yes, there are many teachers who seek to lead Christ’s church. Surely each one credits the Spirit with being source of their teachings. But they do not all agree with one another. So are they all “led by the Spirit”? I think not.
aBasnar Tue 12/27/2011 12:40 PM
Say Charles, how do you understand the following two texts?
Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, Eph 2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb
To me this sounds like a limited number of “founding” apostles –
a) who are they?
b) how do we relate to this foundation?
You might also ponder this one:
2Ti 2:2 and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
He did not say: “Continue from where I started”, nor “make complete what i tried to say”, nor “take what ever is fitting for different contexts and dismiss the rest”, did he?
So how should apostolic teaching sound three generations after Paul (around 200 AD)? How should it sound today? What does this phrase mean: “Once and for all delivered”?
Charles said: Following Jesus is not a matter which is based upon archeology, but upon living faith.
Ray said: And surely we all agree. Except that we cannot know when a leading we have is from our God.
Jesus said, “My sheep know my voice and another they will not follow.”
I love it when He gets the last word…
Alexander, the statement we read is that the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. (Let’s not let the prophets get away from this passage It’s hard to imagine that the handful of NT prophets we know are all to which this alludes.) It seems to me that the analogy used in speaking of the church as a building always assumes living parts. The Cornerstone is certainly a living person. The “lively stones”of which the house is composed are the believers. SO… is the remainder of the house likely composed of something other than living persons? This would seem inconsistent with the metaphor at least. Paul describes his work as that of a layer of foundations. I would suggest that this can be understood by following the metaphorical sense, in which the foundation layer levels and squares the foundation to the Cornerstone, so that further construction might be consistent with and resting upon that Stone. In my experience with apostles in the modern day, this is what they do. Their interest is in truing up the faith and practice –and most of all, the identity– of the church to Jesus himself. The same can be said for prophets, who are given to the church to equip the saints to hear God for themselves, to be directly connected to the Corner. Others who serve the body of Christ build on this work. And just like a carpenter, they either praise the quality of the foundation upon which they build, or they suffer because of it. A community of believers whose identity is set in Christ readily receives revelation and instruction, because they already know the voice of their Master. That group whose identity is set on history or doctrine or tradition or preference is hard for the “carpenter” to deal with. Such a house is constantly unstable due to unlevel or shifting foundation, and all subsequent work is a trial. Shepherds who read this will readily grasp the significance of the metaphor.
I do believe that there is a prophetic gift today as well – as all should strive to prophesy (1Co 14:1-3), including women with covered head (1Co 11:2-16). This is a general gift we can ask for, that is significand for the New Covenant (Acts 2:17-18). This gift has not ceased, since we still only have knowledge “in part” (1Co 13:9); and also our prophecy is “in part”. This will continue until we see face to face (1Co 13:12 explains what the “perfect” in 1Co 13:10 means).
Then I see a different prophetic minbistry that was limited to a certain group of men called prophets. They come right after the apostles, really in a numerical order (first apostles, second prophets, third teachers – 1Co 12:28; in Eph 4:11 Evangelists and Shepherds join the list, but still prophets come right after the apostles). Prophets together with teachers form the first form of church leadership in new congregations, prior to the appointing of elders. So if a church has no elders yet, it should be ld by prophets and teachers /e.g. Acts 13:1. You can check that out yourself: The older the letters/the younger the churches the more you read of prophets and teachers – the older a church/the younger the letter you will read of elders/bishops and deacons). Elders should also serve as prophets as they “replace” them, and they are responsible for teaching in the church.
Now this means, that prophets are a sort of an “intermediate” gift to the church, essential and necessary in the beginning of new churches. Sometimes we see them as “travelling teachers” (as Silas, who later accompanied Paul). What makes prophets different from Apostles (in the sense of the 12)? They were not necessarily eyewitnesses of the resurrection, words and deeds of our Lord. The 12 were singled out especially because of this qualification.
In a broader sense, I do believe there are apostles today, we call them missionaries or church planters, and also prophets in the sense of “intermediate” church leadership. Through this gifts God hepls young churches grow and glow. We should not be afraid of these, but cherish them.
But I don’t believe in further revelation either through general prophecy, prophets or apostles. I am cvonvinced of a “closed canon” based on the original 12 (+ Paul and their immediate co-workers). But to deny the Spirit the possibilty to speak in our assemblies through the gifts He bestows, is an overreaction and an extreme position. And because of this having become a tradition, we have a hard time and a lot of reluctance to ever ask seriously: “How do I strive for prophecy?” We have hardly ever experienced it, we lack positive examples – and we are surrounded by somewhat hysterical charismatic churches who (again) go way into another extreme as a result of an overreaction to our “dryness” … I think it’s time to start investigating.
Alexander
Back to Hebrews 6 from early in this discussion, particularly about the laying on of hands. This text seems to fall into three sets of two teachings: repentance and faith, baptism and laying on of hands, plus resurrection and judgment.
Repentance & faith are often connected in Scripture (and always in that order, by the way). Resurrection and judgment naturally go together as well. Consistency in the passage would suggest that baptism and the laying on of hands go together as well in the “first principles” of Christian teaching.
Now a question: I have not seen any reference in this discussion to the “right hand of fellowship” Paul received (see Galatians 2) at the Jerusalem conference of Acts 15. Would this be the equivalent to the “laying on of hands” in Hebrews 6? If so, it was long removed from Paul’s baptism – but it was an important event, not only in his life, but also in the life of the church. This indicated fellowship in the broader body of the church. If this connection is valid, would the laying on of hands following a baptism indicate acceptance into the fellowship of the congregation? If that is its purpose, then Alabama John’s description of the welcoming circle of joy following a baptism provides that function.
At other times, laying on of hands did seem to impart special gifts, as Ray has pointed out numerous times – but was also done to set individuals aside for special ministries, with or without special gifts being imparted.
In other words, there may have been multiple purposes behind the “laying on of hands” – some having to do with leadership and ministry, some having to do with fellowship, and one being to impart the Holy Spirit.
Do any of these have a place in the church today? Yes, I believe they do. Do all of them have a purpose today? Of that, I’m not so sure.
Me, too.
Why not? And which not? If you say something like this you should at least for yourself be more specific. This means you should think about ways to discern which of them have a purpose today and which ones not. Well, maybe you already did that anyway …
My approach goes like this: Is something is found in the scripture that seems to be a “pattern” to follow, I first look for confirmation: Was this a general practice or a one-time incident? Acts serves as a womderful book to trace back customs, but also the ECF as a secondary witness. Now, If i can confirm a descriptive pasage as a church-tradition/pattern, I conclude that it is of apostolic origin and serves a purpose – even if I am still unaware of this purpose. From this time on I think we should just do as we see it was done. And while we are doing it we can dig further into the meaning of the “rite” and then connect the action with the meaning. This results in a complete and balanced practice of our faith.
Following this “method” I personally restored uncovering my head whikle praying and prophesying, lifting up my hands in prayer, fasting, footwashing (in our house church) … feasting on the spiritual significance of each. Laying on of hands is still on my list, but this is a church matter going beyond my personal decisions.
So, if what we observe about laying on of hands is a “pattern” it surely serves a purpose even today. We just need to dig for that purpose.
Alexander
The beauty here is our freedom to apply such traditions as we find spiritual meaning and purpose in. This applies to modern as well as ancient practices. This is the opposite of “binding” anything but is quite freeing.
Alexander wrote: “But to deny the Spirit the possibilty to speak in our assemblies through the gifts He bestows, is an overreaction and an extreme position. And because of this having become a tradition, we have a hard time and a lot of reluctance to ever ask seriously: “How do I strive for prophecy?” We have hardly ever experienced it, we lack positive examples – and we are surrounded by somewhat hysterical charismatic churches who (again) go way into another extreme as a result of an overreaction to our “dryness” … I think it’s time to start investigating.”
I appreciate Alexander’s point here. It creates a difficulty for us when we try to move into something God has for us, particularly when we are facing the two realities Alexander notes: a tradition that is resistant, and a lack of positive local models which we can find acceptable so as to learn from them.
As I do not know the charismatic believers in Alexander’s community, I cannot personally vouch for them. However, I would notice that God very often calls us to find revelation in people who are, if not flawed, then more than a bit troubling. A guy dressed like a cave man, foraging for grasshoppers and honey in the desert and denouncing the local religious authorities at the top of his lungs? An unemployed carpenter who claims to be the son of God and teaches the exact opposite of common sense? A lapsed religious expert whose last job was as a bounty hunter rounding up Christians? An exiled former member of the Egyptian royalty, late of herding goats in the Sinai? A harp picker whose primary claim to fame was his effectiveness in killing people? A wealthy man with 900 wives and concubines?
Compared to these, our “hysterical” friends might not seem so bad…
It has been my experience with charismatic groups that they– like us — include a spectrum of believers, especially in terms of maturity. Just because a group may be generally over the top or reactionary in terms of embracing the Spirit does not mean there are no people of godly wisdom there. It takes much more than standing in the lobby and watching services if we are to find fellow believers who truly know prophecy and who can really help familiarize us with it. If we are to call on God to send someone to us, it may be that the person He is sending to help us is nearby, only waiting for us to breach our comfort zone long enough to identify him/her. If we judge easily, we will have much difficulty hearing from anyone who knows anything different from what we already know.
In my case, the elders (and other pastors) in one city often referred conservative Christians to me to answer their questions. The idea was that I might understand their questions and relate to them, as I had been along the same road. But they had to be willing to listen to a renegade former CoC preacher who played guitar for Holy Week services at the local Methodist church and who spoke in tongues. I guarantee they had to step out of their comfort zone!
As an additional resource, I would recommend Jack Deere’s “Surprised By The Voice of God”. Deere was a professor in a conservative evangelical seminary before coming into some things of the Spirit which made that position untenable. Deere is a well-reasoned voice, not a hysterical one, and this book might be helpful.
That’s almost a necessity. When I spoke og “hysterical” charismatic churches, I was thinking of people who running from one healing conference to another, desperately yearning for a prophetic utterance that would once and for all settle their marriage problems … Right now I am reading a book on discovering our prophetic gift by a charismatic teacher from England (female). First she started by pointing out the necessity of “eating the word of god, htese were some very encouraging chapters. But then when she turned to prophecy, it began sounding the the “Oracle of Delphi”.
I don’t deny that this is possible. But I thinbk that Agabus was not the norm even in Acts – in other words: Prophecy is being narrowed down to such “oracles” in this book. And this turns off many who otherwise would be more open to the Spirit of God. The same is true with the gift of speaking in different languages. The modern “tongue movement” is very different from how the gift was described in Acts, its purpose and application in the Early Church. I don’t believe in the cessation of the Spiritual Gifts, but what is being presented as such today is often something very different, which – again – turns away people who otherwise would be more open.
All of this is the fruit of our schisms, and they are hard to overcome …
Alexander
Alexander,
I think you will find Jack Deere’s approach to the subject quite refreshing.
Your note about what I tend to call “gift groupies” reflects one problem which comes not from the charismata or doctrines about them, but rather is rooted in immaturity and a lack of community. Over here, it reflects our American consumer mentality and our penchant to elevate celebrity over substance. But none of those things have anything much to do with spiritual gifts or really understanding.
I agree that much of what we see in the modern expression of tongues is not being done as Paul tried to teach the Corinthians. (I have a long essay on the use of tongues which addresses this, but it’s too long for this format. I find three separate applications of tongues in the scriptures.) Unfortunately for a person in your situation, these people are the ones who believe in the gift and most actually have it.
The same problem happens with prophecy. There are admittedly far too many “prophecies” which are nothing more than personal chin music or remixes of biblical concepts in Elizabethan English. Sorry about that. It’s not unlike many “bible sermons” I hear. Lots of passages, but the result is not from the Lord. This does not cause me to question the validity of bible teaching or to eschew all preachers.
You might find my path, in which God was speaking to me long before I really made the connection. I was “prophesying” long before I knew that is what I was doing. (A nice charismatic lady heard me speaking at a CoC long ago and told me, “I can tell when you stop preaching and start prophesying.” I had no idea at the time what she was talking about, but now I do. In my case, God had to crack open my belief in gifts just from the scripture itself, an interpretive logic problem more than an experience issue. I used to tell people, “I didn’t even know any charismatics when I started operating in some spiritual gifts. It was reading my bible that got me here!”
I still believe the most useful thing to you will be cultivating a friendship with a mature believer who knows of these gifts and practices them. He will have flaws, and doctrinal errors. (Just like us, only a set you can recognize.) If you enter into this evaluating those flaws, you may well be correct, but you won’t learn anything you wanted to know, or believe anything you learn. You are going to have to trust your Father not to give you a stone when you are asking for bread.
Here is a thought for your consideration: Prophecy in the church is less Jeremiah and more Barnabus.