There Are NO Apostles Today

[Rodger]

You are fine brother , I am getting there myself . We can hold each other up in prayer .

No sir.....I am not fine. "Fine" passed me by a long time ago.

I had to give up my church and do part time work a few years ago because I was unable to get out and visit my members and the hospital and Jail any more. I then had to give it up completely when my vision began to fail.

Apparently, the way it is going, I will not be able to do any work on forums anymore as I have eye surgery in June.

 

[Rodger]

There is only one Holy Spirit and the Gifts are shared at the discretion of the Holy Spirit , all abilities come from the Holy Spirit not man .

1 Corinthians 6:17 Context​

14And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. 15Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 18Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Yes I agree. ALl gifts come from God. That was not my intent to suggest otherwise.

I would agree with you in that claim, but would say that this is only the most reasonable
conclusion based on the evidence. There are no direct examples recorded
in the New Testament of a believer receiving the miraculous gifts of the
Holy Spirit except by laying on of hands of an apostle.

The events of Acts chapter two and Acts chapter ten might appear to be an exception, but
these events were one-time occurrences, and there is no evidence that
those on whom the Holy Spirit was poured in Acts chapter ten received the
long-term ability to perform these gifts.

Acts 8:9-17 seems to imply that apostles were required for the miraculous gifts to be given. Having said that, there is no positive statement anywhere in the New Testament which
teaches absolutely that the miraculous gifts could only be passed by the
apostles. Therefore a safe statement is to say that the most likely
interpretation is that the gifts were only given by apostolic laying on of
hands, but that this is not proven conclusively. I am trying to be very careful here, and be
humble and avoid making really strong statements based on indirect
evidence.

 

[Vinny37]

You said.......
" But I see no biblical grounds for denying that apostles of Christ, and priestly charismata, were limited to the C1.".

For those reading this and have never heard of the term...."priestly charismata,
it is a Greek term that is employed in the New Testament for spiritual gifts, signifying concrete manifestations of God's grace, often used as a technical term, though it may refer to the gift of God generally.

Without a doubt, God graciously gives spiritual gifts to believers. Some of those are in Romans 12:6-8

• Teaching-- The gift of speaking forth God's messages, often focused on edification.
• Serving: The capacity to serve others selflessly and meet practical needs within the church.
• Preaching: The ability to communicate and explain God's truth effectively to others.
• Encouragement: The gift of encouraging and motivating others with spiritual growth & maturity.
• Giving: The ability to give generously and cheerfully
• Leadership: The gift of providing leadership, organization, and guidance within the church.
• Mercy: The gift of showing compassion, empathy, and kindness.
• Helps: The gift that comes from reaching out to those in distress.

I don't see preaching in Paul's list, but what the heck.

 

[Rodger]

I don't see preaching in Paul's list, but what the heck.

My apologies my friend. I did that post from memory and I have always used "Preaching/Teaching" instead of the Prophesying that is in the text.

You see, the Greek in the original word translated “prophesying” or “prophecy” in both passages properly means to “speak forth” or declare the divine will, to interpret the purposes of God, or to make known in any way the truth of God which is designed to influence people or in plain English Preah/Teach.

Unfortunately, my friends in the Pentecostal denomination purposefully misunderstand the gift of prophecy to be the ability to predict the future so that they can claim "A Word From God" or as is commonly said...."God spoke to me and said"!

While knowing something about the future may sometimes have been an aspect of the gift of prophecy, it was primarily a gift of proclamation (“forth-telling”), not prediction (“fore-telling”).

 

[Free]

No laying of hands on the 3000 at the Pentecost either.

There is also no evidence that the 3,000 spoke in tongues; it was only the 120.

 

[hawkman]

Therefore a safe statement is to say that the most likely
interpretation is that the gifts were only given by apostolic laying on of
hands, but that this is not proven conclusively.

Thank you for that .

The events of Acts chapter two and Acts chapter ten might appear to be an exception, but
these events were one-time occurrences, and there is no evidence that
those on whom the Holy Spirit was poured in Acts chapter ten received the
long-term ability to perform these gifts.

Of course it is and was long-term . Just because our bible ends at Revelation does not mean Christianity all of a sudden grinded to a halt . All of Christianity's history is NOT recorded in the Bible ! It is out here in our world happening NOW !
About 4 decades I have been blessed with the gift of tongues , but wait there is more ! I have dreams of my future and some of the people around me that later HAPPEN . Visions , those too . None of it by my power it is all by the power of the Holy Spirit .

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

There is also no evidence that the 3,000 spoke in tongues; it was only the 120.

I never said all 3,000 spoke in tongues, I only pointed out that the 3,000 were SAVED without explicit mention of hand laying. Plz don't bear false witness against your neighbor.

 

[Free]

I never said all 3,000 spoke in tongues, I only pointed out that the 3,000 were SAVED without explicit mention of hand laying.

No, you didn’t.

hawkman said:

“The Holy Spirit fell on them after words were spoken , no laying on of hands .

Two of my Baptist friends received the gift of tongues while they were each alone in prayer because they asked fpr more from God . No laying on of hands .”

You replied: “No laying of hands on the 3000 at the Pentecost either.”

The only inference that can be made is that you were saying the 3,000 spoke in tongues. The context is tongues, not salvation, and you clearly didn’t mention salvation, contrary to what you claim. There is no example in the entire NT of anyone receiving salvation through the laying on of hands, so your comment would be meaningless if you were referring to salvation.

Plz don't bear false witness against your neighbor.

I didn’t, don’t worry.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The only inference that can be made is that you were saying the 3,000 spoke in tongues. The context is tongues, not salvation, and you clearly didn’t mention salvation, contrary to what you claim. There is no example in the entire NT of anyone receiving salvation through the laying on of hands, so your comment would be meaningless if you were referring to salvation.

That's your own "inference", I but stated a biblical fact, of which the context was salvation, not speaking in tongues. You were bearing false witness both against me and against the word of God.

And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. (Acts 2:41)

So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:46-47)

 

[Vinny37]

My apologies my friend. I did that post from memory and I have always used "Preaching/Teaching" instead of the Prophesying that is in the text.

You see, the Greek in the original word translated “prophesying” or “prophecy” in both passages properly means to “speak forth” or declare the divine will, to interpret the purposes of God, or to make known in any way the truth of God which is designed to influence people or in plain English Preah/Teach.

Unfortunately, my friends in the Pentecostal denomination purposefully misunderstand the gift of prophecy to be the ability to predict the future so that they can claim "A Word From God" or as is commonly said...."God spoke to me and said"!

While knowing something about the future may sometimes have been an aspect of the gift of prophecy, it was primarily a gift of proclamation (“forth-telling”), not prediction (“fore-telling”).

I note your copy/paste x2 from https://www.gotquestions.org/gift-of-prophecy.html. A habit of mine: I used to check whether my students were grabbing the web. I find gotoquestions a mixed bag, but useful if used with discernment.

When they punched Jesus, they asking him to prophesy who hit him, not to preach: there is clear semantic distance, my friend. In my past experience, it was extremely rare for anyone in a pentee church to assert foretelling (some was valid), although a spontaneous forthtelling (often encouragement from the floor) was reasonably common. After all, Paul’s “All may prophesy”, hardly meant multiple preaches per church service. Opposite and equal dangers. We can so downgrade the Bible that inputs of specific wisdom by the spirit, become merely someone’s sage advice, qualifying away the supernatural.

If, as I hold, charismatic prophecy is still valid, then so is Paul’s plea that we assess claimed prophecies, and hold only to the good. In my past experience, it was extremely rare for anyone in a pentee church to publicly criticise a purported prophecy, and I never heard the platform ask if anybody had a critique. Like songs, it’s assumed that if from any respectable stable, they must be OK. Current prophesying is, IMO, on par with the C1 Corinthian church (neither being canonical). Checks and balances, OR nothing to check on, that is the question.

BTW, I really do hate any “I, the lord thy god”, preface to prophecy. I used to hear plenty. Still plenty of songwriters who get us singing that we are deity. Not my cuppa.

 

[Rodger]

Thank you for that .

Of course it is and was long-term . Just because our bible ends at Revelation does not mean Christianity all of a sudden grinded to a halt . All of Christianity's history is NOT recorded in the Bible ! It is out here in our world happening NOW !
About 4 decades I have been blessed with the gift of tongues , but wait there is more ! I have dreams of my future and some of the people around me that later HAPPEN . Visions , those too . None of it by my power it is all by the power of the Holy Spirit .

There is nothing I can say that would be of a benefit to you. You have made the choice to follow what you want to believ so all I can say is ....God bless you.

 

[Free]

That's your own "inference", I but stated a biblical fact, of which the context was salvation, not speaking in tongues.

The context of your response, which is what is in question, said nothing of salvation and was quoting someone speaking about tongues.

You stated: “I only pointed out that the 3,000 were SAVED without explicit mention of hand laying.” But that isn’t true—you didn’t mention anything about salvation, leaving the context as speaking in tongues. The Bible never mentions salvation through the laying on of hands, so making such a statement is rather pointless, is it not?

You were bearing false witness both against me and against the word of God.

In future, instead of falsely accusing others of bearing false witness, simply admit your lack of clarity, clarify what you meant to say, and move on. No need to get so riled up and make a mountain out of a mole hill.

And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. (Acts 2:41)

So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:46-47)

Yes, that is the biblical context, but that is not the context of your reply.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The context of your response, which is what is in question, said nothing of salvation and was quoting someone speaking about tongues.

You stated: “I only pointed out that the 3,000 were SAVED without explicit mention of hand laying.” But that isn’t true—you didn’t mention anything about salvation, leaving the context as speaking in tongues. The Bible never mentions salvation through the laying on of hands, so making such a statement is rather pointless, is it not?

What is this, an interrogation? What are you, a prosecutor? A lawyer? The question is about the laying of hands, which is not mentioned in the context of Acts 2:40-46, neither is speaking of tongue mentioned in that and you're twisting it, that's what's really pointless other than your own animosity.

In future, instead of falsely accusing others of bearing false witness, simply admit your lack of clarity, clarify what you meant to say, and move on. No need to get so riled up and make a mountain out of a mole hill.

You're the one who made up the "inference", not me. The 3000 were saved without any mention of speaking in tongues or laying hands, they were saved through baptism, that's all, nothing unclear.

Yes, that is the biblical context, but that is not the context of your reply.

The context of the conversation was about hand laying, not speaking in tongues.

 

[hawkman]

There is nothing I can say that would be of a benefit to you.

My hope was to benefit you and our readers of this thread .

You have made the choice to follow what you want to believ so all I can say is ....God bless you.

It is way beyond believing now , I have experiential knowledge now , I have experience with the Gifts of the Holy Spirit ! Believing left when the knowing came to reside in me .

God Bless you too , and I will be praying for your vision my friend .

 

[Rodger]

My hope was to benefit you and our readers of this thread .

It is way beyond believing now , I have experiential knowledge now , I have experience with the Gifts of the Holy Spirit ! Believing left when the knowing came to reside in me .

God Bless you too , and I will be praying for your vision my friend .

I do not see any way we will agree on the sign gifts so Thank you and may God bless you.

 

[Rodger]

What is this, an interrogation? What are you, a prosecutor? A lawyer? The question is about the laying of hands, which is not mentioned in the context of Acts 2:40-46, neither is speaking of tongue mentioned in that and you're twisting it, that's what's really pointless other than your own animosity.

You're the one who made up the "inference", not me. The 3000 were saved without any mention of speaking in tongues or laying hands, they were saved through baptism, that's all, nothing unclear.

The context of the conversation was about hand laying, not speaking in tongues.

Nope....."the three thousand were not saved through baptism".

They were saved by faith in the hearing of the Word. Then, after that they were baptized.

Baptism is not required for salvation. I absolutly agree that It should be performed as soon after conversion as reasonable. It is an act of obedience and results in having been saved, NOT in
being saved through it.

 

[Rodger]

I note your copy/paste x2 from https://www.gotquestions.org/gift-of-prophecy.html. A habit of mine: I used to check whether my students were grabbing the web. I find gotoquestions a mixed bag, but useful if used with discernment.

When they punched Jesus, they asking him to prophesy who hit him, not to preach: there is clear semantic distance, my friend. In my past experience, it was extremely rare for anyone in a pentee church to assert foretelling (some was valid), although a spontaneous forthtelling (often encouragement from the floor) was reasonably common. After all, Paul’s “All may prophesy”, hardly meant multiple preaches per church service. Opposite and equal dangers. We can so downgrade the Bible that inputs of specific wisdom by the spirit, become merely someone’s sage advice, qualifying away the supernatural.

If, as I hold, charismatic prophecy is still valid, then so is Paul’s plea that we assess claimed prophecies, and hold only to the good. In my past experience, it was extremely rare for anyone in a pentee church to publicly criticise a purported prophecy, and I never heard the platform ask if anybody had a critique. Like songs, it’s assumed that if from any respectable stable, they must be OK. Current prophesying is, IMO, on par with the C1 Corinthian church (neither being canonical). Checks and balances, OR nothing to check on, that is the question.

BTW, I really do hate any “I, the lord thy god”, preface to prophecy. I used to hear plenty. Still plenty of songwriters who get us singing that we are deity. Not my cuppa.

I appreciate your words and thoughts.

May I add to your comment of What I hate are the words..........."God spoke to me and said"!

As with many other words and phrases from the Bible, many people misunderstand the gift of prophecy and because of what they have learned from the Old Test. about "Prophets", they equate that understanding to be the ability to predict the future as the prophets did.

It is my understanding that while knowing something about the future may sometimes have been an aspect of the gift of prophecy, as given from prophets, it was primarily a gift of proclamation which is “fore-telling”.

All of those Old Test. men did exactly that as God moved them to write and record. Once that was recored it was the Word of God about what was coming.

I have been taught my whole life that when the New Testament finished, "prophesying" changed from declaring new revelation to declaring the completed revelation God has already given.

Jude 3 speaks of “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints"..

In other words, the faith to which we hold has been settled forever, and it does not need the addition or refinement that comes from extra-biblical revelations from a man who claims to be a prophet or that he received a new word of knowledge from God.

The problem with that is the Bible itself. In Deuteronomy 4:2 are clear directions.........
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."

What does that mean? It means that when a man says....."God told me, or God spoke to me" or "I have a vision of what is coming next year"...........What he says next must be what God has already said in HIs written word!

 

[Free]

What is this, an interrogation?

It's a discussion about what you said and why it means something other than what you say.

What are you, a prosecutor? A lawyer?

I'll take that as a compliment.

The question is about the laying of hands, which is not mentioned in the context of Acts 2:40-46, neither is speaking of tongue mentioned in that and you're twisting it, that's what's really pointless other than your own animosity.

No, I haven't twisted anything nor do I have animosity; I don't even know why you think those have anything to do with what I am saying. I know full well what Acts 2 is about and since I have not at all made any comment on what it says, it's impossible for me to have twisted anything.

The question is, is there something you're not understanding about the context of discussions, how it is the same as context in Scripture or a book or a news article, etc.? I'm genuinely asking because you are arguing to the context of Acts 2 while ignoring the context of what you quoted, which is the relevant context for your answer.

You quoted: "The Holy Spirit fell on them after words were spoken , no laying on of hands .

Two of my Baptist friends received the gift of tongues while they were each alone in prayer because they asked for more from God . No laying on of hands ."

It's worth pointing out that that in itself was a response to passages from Acts 10, 11, and 15. So, there is the context for your reply--receiving the gift of tongues with "no laying on of hands." Both a biblical example and a personal one. What you quote is the context for your reply. There is nothing to do with Acts 2 directly, but the passages listed are consistent with verses 1-8.

You replied: "No laying of hands on the 3000 at the Pentecost either."

That strongly implies that you're saying the 3,000 "received the gift of tongues" with "no laying on of hands." First, because of the context of what you quoted. Second, because nowhere in the Bible is the laying on of hands involved in salvation.

What we're left with is really no idea then as to either why you chose that particular quote or why you gave the response you did, since your response has nothing to do with the context of the quote.

You're the one who made up the "inference", not me. The 3000 were saved without any mention of speaking in tongues or laying hands, they were saved through baptism, that's all, nothing unclear.

First, you made zero mention of salvation and the context of the quote you quoted had nothing to do with salvation. Second, now you're adding baptism to salvation, which is problematic, but for another discussion.

The context of the conversation was about hand laying, not speaking in tongues.

The context very much included speaking in tongues. What it clearly didn't include was salvation. As I have stated a couple of times, laying on of hands never has anything to do with salvation, so your response makes no sense.

I'm not at all trying to be mean, not in the slightest. I'm just trying to help you better understand what you said and why it implies that you're saying the 3,000 spoke in tongues. I honestly don't know why you can't see that.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

It's a discussion about what you said and why it means something other than what you say.

I didn't mean anything other than a simple biblical fact that 3,000 were saved on the Pentecost without hand laying. Anything other than that is your own inference.

I'll take that as a compliment.

You have no sense of sarcasm.

That strongly implies that you're saying the 3,000 "received the gift of tongues" with "no laying on of hands." First, because of the context of what you quoted. Second, because nowhere in the Bible is the laying on of hands involved in salvation.

What we're left with is really no idea then as to either why you chose that particular quote or why you gave the response you did, since your response has nothing to do with the context of the quote.

You're making all that up, I had no such intention. I NEVER stated or implied that the 3,000 "received the gift of tongues", I simply concurred that hand laying is not required for salvation, exactly as you said. You're on a witch hunt going after me for no reason. You should ask yourself for why you started this spat in the first place, I wasn't even replying to anything you said. You accuse me of not understanding, yet it is you who have had a MISunderstanding.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

First, you made zero mention of salvation and the context of the quote you quoted had nothing to do with salvation. Second, now you're adding baptism to salvation, which is problematic, but for another discussion.

First, Salvation was most definitely in the context of what I quoted - does salvation require the baptism of the holy spirit? Yes or no? If yes, then there was salvation, as "the Holy Spirit fell on them", that's referring to salvation. Whether the saved person speaks of tongues is up to debate, some do, some don't.

Second, it is a biblical fact that the 3,000 received the word, baptism and salvation - in that particular order in Acts 2:41, I never added anything on top of that. I read it as a historical event, not an ecclesiastical doctrine. Tell, me, were the 3,000 saved through baptism? Yes or no? Not anybody else, but just the 3,000 at the Pentecost? If it's for another discussion, plz limit the discussion to the CONTEXT of Acts 2. If you intend to make it about whether baptism is required for salvation in general, don't lecture me on "context".

The context very much included speaking in tongues. What it clearly didn't include was salvation. As I have stated a couple of times, laying on of hands never has anything to do with salvation, so your response makes no sense.

I'm not at all trying to be mean, not in the slightest. I'm just trying to help you better understand what you said and why it implies that you're saying the 3,000 spoke in tongues. I honestly don't know why you can't see that.

No the context doesn't, neither the context of my conversation with another fellow which was none of your damn business, nor the context of Acts 2:40-46. I honestly don't know why you're so obsessed with "speaking in tongues".