If you don’t mind, I’d like to begin with some questions, but before that, how about a plan? I figure we can do this in two parts. I’d like to begin by working through our differences as to the nature of this phenomenon as it was actually occurring in the apostolic…excuse me...what shall we say? in Bible times? before the close of the canon? Well, perhaps I’ll just pick an arbitrary dividing line: how about before Jesus’ generation passed away? Anyway, what I’m trying to say is, how about we treat this in terms of what the nature of this baptism was then (whenever then was) and then later discuss the nature of the baptism as it may or may not occur now. I realize that your position will largely rest upon there being no difference between the two.
Ah, here we go…how about we begin by discussing the nature of this phenomenon solely as it is presented in the pages of scripture and then, only after dong so, consider how his phenomenon may or may not have changed since those scriptures were written? How does that sound?
38 comments:
I'm honored that you mention my name in a post (blushing), I'm humbled ;^)
Your plan sounds good, I'm all ears. I would, however, recommend to anyone who is serious about this topic to check out this Book
I offer up this hypothesis for your critique:
In the New Testament, baptism in the Holy Spirit required the presence of an apostolic agent, that is, someone who had been personally sent for that purpose by the risen Christ.
Let's see, here: comfy seat, popcorn, fresh pitcher of tea...
Ahhhh! I love the sidelines!
First, I would offer up Ananias who prayed for the born again Paul to 'receive the Holy Spirit'. He is called only a disciple.
Secondly, no where does that say it's required that an apostolic agent be present for someone to be baptized with in the Holy Spirit. (Jesus is the baptizer - not a man anyway - Acts 1:8; 2:1-4) To say that an apostolic presence is required would require some MAJOR reading between the lines. With that logic, that's sort of like saying that no one is allowed to preach the gospel, pray for the sick, etc., unless they are a New Testament figure.
Jesus said we're supposed to do the works that He did and greater still. How can we do the works Jesus did and greater - but not be able to do the works the apostles did - or greater? They're not greater than Jesus by any stretch.
Even if an apostolic presence was required per your hypothesis - I believe in the continuation of those giftings - so I believe we still have apostles and prophets today, and no, not usually the ones who have it on their business cards!
So even though I believe an apostolic agent is not required, I could then argue (hypothetically) that since apostles are around today, one could still receive IF that were a requirement (which it's not).
Along these lines, there were clearly other Apostles active in the NT church beside the original 12 (Apollos, etc.) so my thought here is - obviously the number of apostles were increasing with the growing church, and would have no reason to stop as long as the church was/is in existence - particularly since Jesus said these giftings were given to help the church. If apostles and prophets are gone - then so are teachers and pastors.
First, I would offer up Ananias who prayed for the born again Paul to 'receive the Holy Spirit'. He is called only a disciple.
Nevertheless, Ananias still mets the definition of apostolic agent that I'm stipulating: he was directly and personally empowered and instructed for the occasion by the risen Christ.
Secondly, no where does that say it's required that an apostolic agent be present for someone to be baptized with in the Holy Spirit. (Jesus is the baptizer - not a man anyway - Acts 1:8; 2:1-4) To say that an apostolic presence is required would require some MAJOR reading between the lines.
You really think such a conclusion requires reading between the lines? You have said that baptism in the Holy Spirit is not genuine unless it is accompanied by speaking in tongues. I can only assume a great part of your basis for this conclusion is that in scripture, the two always (or usually) go hand in hand. Why is this not sufficient to establish a similar pattern with regard to the presence of an apostolic agent?
With that logic, that's sort of like saying that no one is allowed to preach the gospel, pray for the sick, etc., unless they are a New Testament figure.
I disagree; we have plenty of instances in Acts of non-apostles preaching and praying, but as the example of the Samaritans suggests, these non-apostolic preachers were not empowered to lay hands upon believers. It was only when the apostles came to follow up that the new believers were able to receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8).
Jesus said we're supposed to do the works that He did and greater still. How can we do the works Jesus did and greater - but not be able to do the works the apostles did - or greater? They're not greater than Jesus by any stretch.
I don't believe that Jesus meant that you and I would, in the miraculous sense, do greater works than the apostles.
Even if an apostolic presence was required per your hypothesis - I believe in the continuation of those giftings - so I believe we still have apostles and prophets today, and no, not usually the ones who have it on their business cards!
Ha Ha! I aways thought that having the title on your business card automatically qualified you.
Along these lines, there were clearly other Apostles active in the NT church beside the original 12, so my thought here is - obviously the number of apostles were increasing with the growing church, and would have no reason to stop as long as the church was/is in existence - particularly since Jesus said these giftings were given to help the church. If apostles and prophets are gone - then so are teachers and pastors.
A great deal of our disagreement on this issue is probably rooted in our different conception of the apostolic office. My understanding of apostles is that their ministry was foundational to the church, a foundation that was established once and for all and needed not be continually repeated. This makes it very different from the offices of pastor and teacher.
Furthermore, I believe, even if there were proper apostles beyond the twelve (which I'm not sure there were)that the calling nevertheless required a direct personal encounter with and commissioning by the risen Christ. Anyone who claimed an apostolic office without this express authority was merely sending himself, and his authority was in no way to be heeded.
To summarize: First, I don't see that you've quite refuted my original hypothesis yet. The scriptures do not record a single instance of anyone being baptized in the Holy Spirit without someone specifically, directly and personally empowered and sent by Christ being present.
Can you point to any examples I've missed?
On the contrary, we have at least one clear instance of Christ specifically withholding this gift, despite the presence of an otherwise fully qualified preacher, until his apostles were able to arrive on the scene.
Can you explain why he might have done so if not to establish that the baptism was an exclusively apostolic phenomenon?
Finally, you say that even given my hypothesis, there are still apostles today, and so baptism in the Holy Spirit could still be taking place. I'll try to answer this when we move into phase two.
Thanks for your willingness to engage! I hope we can both profit from this interaction.
BTW, I ordered the book you recommended and am anxiously awaiting its arrival.
You said:
"Nevertheless, Ananias still mets the definition of apostolic agent that I'm stipulating: he was directly and personally empowered and instructed for the occasion by the risen Christ."
And we're not????
You said:
"You really think such a conclusion requires reading between the lines? You have said that baptism in the Holy Spirit is not genuine unless it is accompanied by speaking in tongues. I can only assume a great part of your basis for this conclusion is that in scripture, the two always (or usually) go hand in hand. Why is this not sufficient to establish a similar pattern with regard to the presence of an apostolic agent?"
I guess the easiest answer is when I received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit - I didn't have an "apostolic agent" laying hands on me. Again, Ananias was not an apostle - if you define apostle as someone "empowered for a mission for Christ" you've just described the entire church.
You said:
"My understanding of apostles is that their ministry was foundational to the church, a foundation that was established once and for all and needed not be continually repeated. This makes it very different from the offices of pastor and teacher."
Where does it say in the Bible that apostles are not needed today? Are we not establishing churches today????
You said:
"Furthermore, I believe, even if there were proper apostles beyond the twelve (which I'm not sure there were)that the calling nevertheless required a direct personal encounter with and commissioning by the risen Christ."
This simply is not true. Who said that an apostle being called requires "direct contact with Christ"? Where's that in the Bible? Why would an apostle being called require direct contact - and the four other Eph. 4:11 giftings not? A calling of a pastor or teacher is no less from Christ than that of an apostle. There are plenty of called pastors who haven't had "direct physical contact" with Christ.
Btw, let me give you the names of NT apostles outside of the 12: Jesus Christ (Hebrews 3:1 - by your reasoning He isn't doing anything today); Barnabas (Acts 14:14); Matthias (Acts 1:15)Apollos; James the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:19); Silvanus & Timothy (1 Thess. 1:1; 2:9); Andronicus and Junia Rom. 16:7 - Many of these were NOT first hand witnesses of Christ.
You said:
"Anyone who claimed an apostolic office without this express authority was merely sending himself, and his authority was in no way to be heeded."
Wow. Absolutely baseless. Many of the above named apostles were commissioned by other apostles and church leaders. You say there authority should not be heeded??? Paul must not have been aware of your mandate there when he sent Barnabas or Apollos. Btw, many credible Bible scholars believe Apollos wrote the book of Hebrews - this is one of the most powerful NT books - you say we shouldn't heed their authority??? Jude is not named as an apostle - what are we to do with his book?
You said:
"The scriptures do not record a single instance of anyone being baptized in the Holy Spirit without someone specifically, directly and personally empowered and sent by Christ being present."
This is a ridiculous straw man to be quite honest. And it is quite wrong. The 120 in the upper room had no one 'sent' to them. They were merely seeking God on their own - much like I was when I received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. I would also cite the scripture "how shall they hear without a preacher?" That the apostles were teaching and sharing their experiences with everyone they came in contact with - all we can conclude from that is that they were being obedient to Christ's Great Commission. Is it any different for us?
It would be hard for anyone to even get saved with your criteria! So does that make salvation illegitimate today because we see only Apostalic agents in the Bible leading people to Christ?
You said:
"On the contrary, we have at least one clear instance of Christ specifically withholding this gift, despite the presence of an otherwise fully qualified preacher, until his apostles were able to arrive on the scene."
Have no idea what you are referring to here. Would love to answer it - don't know where in the Bible you are talking about? If you are referring to Acts 8 - that's a very week argument because Phillip did lots of miracles there, the Bible says, including casting out demons! You perhaps are unable or unwilling to see the vast illogical leap you are taking here. He was able to heal the sick and cast out demons, but, oh by the way, you can't pray with anyone to receive the Holy Spirit??? Phillip's ministry was that of an evangelist. I see this today all the time - some ministers/evangelists specialize in different things - some have healing ministries, others emphasize Holy Spirit Baptism, some are salvation oriented. Ministers have various callings and specialties. Plus no where does it say that the Holy Spirit was "withheld until apostles got on the scene"...
You said:
"Can you explain why he might have done so if not to establish that the baptism was an exclusively apostolic phenomenon?"
First - He didn't - second - Peter gives the answer to this:
"Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, AND TO ALL WHO ARE AFAR OFF, AS MANY AS THE LORD OUR GOD WILL CALL." (emphasis mine).
Acts 2:38-39
You said:
"Finally, you say that even given my hypothesis, there are still apostles today, and so baptism in the Holy Spirit could still be taking place. I'll try to answer this when we move into phase two."
I'd save your breath on that one for now bro - I don't feel you've proved anything on this first issue other than your predisposed bias against this experience. You've come to phantom conclusions such as apostles being required (when and by whom I know not) to be present at peoples Holy Spirit baptism - which is as strange as a football bat to me - they weren't required to be there for people's salvation, healing miracles, demons cast out - but for some reason you say they were required to 'officiate' people being baptized in the Holy Spirit??
Then you define an apostle as "anyone sent to do a job for God" basically - that's a very broad definition - don't you think? By your definition, every Christian on the planet is an apostle then.
Blessings!
So, maybe it's time to revise the plan a bit. It would seem that a great number of our different perspectives rest pretty heavily upon our varying definitions of "apostle". Perhaps we should shift gears a bit and follow this rabbit trail for a while. You down with that?
BTW, this isn't a private party. Everyone's invited and welcome to pitch in!
Sure - perhaps we can zero in the Eph. 4:11 ministries altogether?
Very well. I'll plan on posting a definition of the apostolic office for you to hack up. Might take me a little time, though; so meanwhile, if you get too antsy, the floor is all yours.
Along these lines mi amigo - and before we delve into your "phase two" I feel compelled to share a little Pentecostal giftings in church history - please do not allow your eyes to 'glaze over' at the words "church history", but you may be surprised to learn that these supernatural Holy Spirit giftings have quite a continued line of history since the 1st century:
Justin Martyr (died 165) said: "For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to this present time."
Irenaeus (died 202) said: "In like manner we hear many brethren in the church who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit of the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God."
Tertullian (died 220) said calling out a Gnostic named Marcion: "Let Marcion then exhibit, as gifts of his god, some prophets, such as have not spoken by human sense, but with the Spirit of God, such as have both predicted things to come, and have made manifest the secrets of the heart; let him produce a psalm, a vision, a prayer - only let it be by the Spirit, in an ecstasy; that is, in a rapture, whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred to him...Now all these signs are forthcoming from my side without any difficulty, an they agree, too, with the rules, and the dispensations, and the instructions of the Creator..."
Novatian (died 257) said: "This is He who places prophets in the Church, instructs teachers, directs tongues, gives powers and healings, does wonderful works, offers discrimination of spirits, affords powers of government, suggest counsels, and orders and arranges whatever other gifts there are of charismata; and thus makes the Lord's Church everywhere, and in all, perfected and completed."
I have many more examples in between, but let's jump a thousand years here:
John Wesley: his journal, btw, records over 200 instances of Divine healing. There was one instance of 22 people receiving the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in one of his meetings: "What so impressed and encouraged John Wesley and his followers, what so shocked, startled and bewildered his contemporaries, is no mystery to the modern psychologist, to whom it is know as glossolalia, or "speaking in tongues"...After Paul laid his hands upon them "they spoke with tongues and prophesied," and such displays...had accompanied all the revivals of the faith..."
Charles Spurgeon : A British preacher told how Spurgeon once asked his audience to forgive him that when he got especially happy in the Lord, Spurgeon said, "I break forth into a kind of gibberish which I do not myself understand."
D.L. Moody: "On the following Sunday night, when I go to the rooms of the YMCA I found the meetings on fire. The young men were speaking in tongues and prophesying. What on earth did it all mean? Only that Moody had been addressing them that afternoon. At a meeting in Los Angeles, Dr. R.A. Torrey told of a service in London where Moody took the pulpit to preach and instead broke into another language. He tried again, with similar results. The third time, after prayer and praise, he was able to preach his message."
I'm tired of typing now ;^)
Any examples of new apostles in church history? And, no, you can't use the Papacy. :)
Apostles - yes - see my above post...a fine fellow named Andronicus - of course I can show you some modern day ones as well! You will see by the correct definition of apostle that they are indeed still around.
Sorry, I meant post-canonical examples.
And by the way, all my Bible says is that Andronicus and Junias were "well known to the apostles." Is my ESV leading me astray?
Romans 16:7: Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. NKJV
NRSV: Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
I feel it necessary to point out our duty as Christians to show love to the brethren.
Comments such as these do not exhibit this love:
"Wow. Absolutely baseless."
"This is a ridiculous straw man to be quite honest. And it is quite wrong."
"I'd save your breath on that one for now bro - I don't feel you've proved anything on this first issue other than your predisposed bias against this experience."
Is this good Christian debating or an unleashed tongue? I appreciate the debate that is going on here and am learning from it, but our debating ought to be set apart from the rest of the World. Yes, we will disagree on certain things, but Jesus never said show love unless you disagree with the person.
I hope that this discussion can be full of love, and not tearing down.
First let me list some misconceptions of what an apostle is (via Anton Bosch):
-Apostles run denominations
-Apostles receive supernatural extra Biblical revelation like Paul did.
-Apostles have authority that supersedes scripture.
-Apostles succeed on another - as in a continuous line since Peter)
-Apostles are the highest authority in the church
-Apostles are inward (churchward)while Evangelists are outward.
Anywho - a good working definition of Apostle:
Quoting from Thayer's the word apostle literally means: "a delegate, messenger, on sent forth with orders."
Apostles are literally those who have been sent out on a mission - from this concept we get the word "missionary".
Noel - first of all - If I didn't love Brad as my brother in Christ - I wouldn't be spending my valuable time doing this.
Secondly - there were no mean spiritedness behind those words you quoted above - I've had friends tell me I was setting up "straw men" in debates, tell me things were "baseless", say, "wow". I said the straw man was "ridiculous" not Brad. I've nothing but respect for Brad.
When I said "save your breath", that was just my way of saying "let's wait on that".
I've met Brad and know him a little bit - I think he understands what I mean and knows that I wouldn't disrespect him in any way.
A good thing to remember Noel, is that electronic communication does not convey tone. This is good to remember before you attempt to dress down someone you've never met. And I mean that as kindly as these pixels can convey it.
Brad - to be fair, Bible scholars are divided on Rom. 16:7 - some interpreting it as "they had a good reputation with the apostles", while others say, "of all the apostles these two were important". I believe the face value interpretation validates the second interp. there - that these two were noted prominent apostles in their church.
Oh yeah - you asked for a modern day apostle - let me give you his
Website.
He just spoke at our church. Has seen the miraculous - is planting 100 new churches in the Congo within the next couple years - lives (no offense to the Congalese) in place where most people wouldn't dare live, much less visit. He clearly has the calling and evidence of the apostolic gifting from God. He's been commissioned by the church and by God for this work. I give you an example of a modern day apostle.
Pastor E,
Thanks for your response. I am glad to hear of your respect for Brad and desire to debate with love.
"A good thing to remember Noel, is that electronic communication does not convey tone. This is good to remember before you attempt to dress down someone you've never met."
I understand your statement, but here is the danger in that. You are right I do not know you well. However, would I have known that you care for Brad as you do if you had not told me? How many people read a public blog? There are many and we do not know who they all are. If I have mistaken you for someone who was not respectful of the fellow debater then who else may have thought that, but was too afraid to comment about it?
I stand corrected in my judgment, but I would caution you that we ought to be even more cautious on electronic communication when we cannot hear tone for the sake of all readers.
I don't mean to cause divide, I guess I have noticed lately of so many lose tongues on the blogasphere. Many "Christians" who think they are being helpful, but are tearing people down with their electronic words. I apologize if I mis-spoke.
On another note, I would have to say that yes the term apostle does still apply to today in the sense that people are still sent for the Lord's work, but that we do not have apostles like the 12 in the beginning. They were the foundation builders of the church. The foundation is now established and does not require foundation builders, but we have those who are sent to further the kingdom of God. They could be considered apostles only by definition of being sent on a mission, but by definition in the NT Bible times, apostles had to have seen Christ. This has not happened today with people who claim to be modern day apostles.
Thats my humble two cents.
Noel -
I agree that there will never be another "original 12" but the gift of apostle continues as well as the other Eph. 4:11 gifts. There is simply no scripture that supports the view of "no more apostles".
In dealing with the Eph. 4:11 giftings - verse 8 says:
"When he ascended on high , He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men."
Note the time of the 'giving of gifts' listed in verse 11 - AFTER the ascension of Jesus.
The apostles given or appointed in verse 11 are clearly given after Jesus' ascension. This indicates a difference between the 12 disciples - and other apostles who were given after the ascension. They were apostles nonetheless - and gifted so by the ascended Christ to be such.
While the 12 could be considered 'foundational apostles' the gift of apostle did not end when they died - in fact this passage indicates that the gift was just getting into full swing - along with the other 4.
Brad - sorry for the few 'deleted' comments of mine...I REALLY hate type-O's ;^(
Noel - you are absolutely right about 'loose tongues' on the blogosphere. I have the same concerns and appreciate your words.
Eric, just got the Holdcroft book. Looks quite interesting.
it's a great read.
Let me add a little bit to this - I know a few pastor 'types' may read this so let me ask pastors a question - it can be rhetorical or feel free to respond:
What makes you a pastor? Your title? Your position? The fact you have a degree from a Seminary or Bible College? I believe most pastors will answer 'none of the above' - what makes you a pastor is the Divine call on your life that you felt at some point in your history and continues burning brightly today. An apostle is the same way.
The problem we face today is this "mystical" view of what an apostle is. We've gotten into our minds that if you're an apostle, then your shadow must be healing people. This is simply not the case.
Apostles today are some of the people you might know - church planters, missionaries, movers and shakers that are called of God to be such. Some might also pastor a church like Paul did for a time.
Biblically, apostles are those:
-Who are sent out to preach the gospel.
-They establish churches.
-They confirm and establish the churches they start through follow-up visits.
-They appoint elders and pastors to oversee the local churches.
I don't know how other movements work, but this describes several missionaries that I know personally in the A/G. That's not to say every missionary is an apostle - because that wouldn't be accurate. By the same token I also believe every man behind a pulpit isn't necessarily gifted to be a pastor even though he (or she) may carry that title.
These apostles I know do things that I couldn't do - go places I can't, establish things I couldn't, endure things that make me cringe. They are undoubtedly gifted as Biblical apostles.
We have not lost apostles today, we simply cease to identify them for what they are.
And as I attempted to state humorously above - usually the guys that have it on their business cards - ARE NOT IT! God didn't call us to be legends in our own minds - but humble, broken servants of Christ that would gladly die for the cause of Christ. THESE are the type men that I know and call apostles.
Well, I've certainly missed a lot. I am looking forward to catching up.
Where've you been bro? Missed you ;^)
I'll be hit or miss for a while. Very late night last night, another one in store tonight. Just strugglin' to keep afloat. Don't worry, I'm chompin' to get back at it. Maybe by tomorrow evening.
Oh..I was asking David that - I figured you were working on school or something!
Ah. The importance of reading in context.
Brad's answer is my answer - in context. :)
Post a Comment