Apostles, prophets and manifestations of the Holy Spirit

[Paul from Antioch]

Are they then gifted to do signs and wonders, and to write revelations to us, and pronounce additional ones?

I would not say that "Modern-Day Apostles" are any more gifted than our original Apostles were in the sense that they alter God's Word to mean something completely different than that of the original Apostles intended. IMHO, "Modern-Day Apostles" are merely those who would make terms that currently are used in today's more modern terminology (EX: Using "Iran" instead of "Persia.")

 

[SavedByGrace]

There can be NO modern day "Prophets or Apostles" in the Biblical sense. It is very clear from Ephesians 2:20-21, that they are the FOUNDATION, of the Church, and NOT the BUILDING, which is the Church of believers.

"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord"

When the Old Testament Prophets spoke, they did so in the Name of the Lord, "Thus says the Lord", etc. And had to be correct 100% of the time, as Deuteronomy 18: 20-22 is clear:

"But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him"

In Matthew 11:13, Jesus says that John the Baptish was the FINAL Prophet, in the Bible: "For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied UNTIL John". In Acts 21 we read of the Prophet Agabus, who was most probably born before Jesus died, which is the OT Time.

 

[Baptist Believer]

When the Old Testament Prophets spoke, they did so in the Name of the Lord, "Thus says the Lord", etc.

So do modern prophets. They speak from the message of scripture applied to the current situation. They were/are primarily "forth-tellers," not foretellers.

And had to be correct 100% of the time, as Deuteronomy 18: 20-22 is clear:

"But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him"

True. In covenant Israel, false prophets were not to be tolerated. In the US, we put them on television.

In Matthew 11:13, Jesus says that John the Baptish was the FINAL Prophet, in the Bible: "For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied UNTIL John".

You misinterpret this verse to claim that John the Baptist was the FINAL prophet, and then you write this:

In Acts 21 we read of the Prophet Agabus, who was most probably born before Jesus died, which is the OT Time.

The only way both of these statements could logically be true would be if Agabus was older than John the Baptist AND the title of FINAL prophet was a matter of one's date of birth, not the end of the prophetic ministry, since John the Baptist was beheaded during the ministry of Jesus.

Of course, if you claim it is birth order, then you have a much bigger problem. You've forgotten about Jesus, fulfilling the role of a prophet, even though you quoted the verses just after this passage:

Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19
“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen; to him you shall listen... I will raise up for them a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them everything that I command him. And it shall come about that whoever does not listen to My words which he speaks in My name, I Myself will require it of him.​

So how do we know that Jesus was this prophet? Because Peter declared Him to be that Prophet in his sermon on Pentecost:

Acts 3:19-26
Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things, about which God spoke by the mouths of His holy prophets from ancient times. Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your countrymen; to Him you shall listen regarding everything He says to you. And it shall be that every soul that does not listen to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken from Samuel and his successors onward, have also announced these days. It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God ordained with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ God raised up His Servant for you first, and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.”​

Therefore we know that John the Baptist was NOT the final prophet.

Paul indeed teaches that prophecy will one day be done away with (1 Corinthians 13:8), but that will be when the fullness of the Kingdom is complete ("when the perfect comes" 1 Corinthians 13:10), which is characterized by full knowledge of God (1 Corinthians 13:12).

We are not yet at that point.

 

[Lodic]

You need to remember, (a) “this book” is the Book of Revelation, not the Bible; (b) the New Testament writings were not collected for many years after Revelation was written, so it was not written to “close” the Bible; (c) and the Gospel of John and the three Johannine epistles (1 John, 2 John, and 3 John) were not written until after Revelation.

Your arguments make an excellent case. I've never believed that the manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit, nor those "offices" ceased, but never could argue my case very well. On a slightly different topic, could you elaborate on the dating of John's Gospel and his epistles? All the commentaries I'd ever read regarding Revelation claims it was the last book written. I do not doubt you, but I'd like to learn more about this.

 

[John of Japan]

You need to remember, (a) “this book” is the Book of Revelation, not the Bible; (b) the New Testament writings were not collected for many years after Revelation was written, so it was not written to “close” the Bible; (c) and the Gospel of John and the three Johannine epistles (1 John, 2 John, and 3 John) were not written until after Revelation. If you make the claim that the last chapter of Revelation closes out the New Testament when it was written, then you must reject four beloved books of the New Testament, two of which you have already cited in defense of your views.

I'm wondering about this. Where do you get that John's other writings were from before the book of Revelation? That's pretty non-standard. Merrill Tenney puts John's Gospel at 45-50 (The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 9, 9), and Glenn Barker (vol. 12, 301) puts the epistles at around 90.

Revelation before AD 96 is a position usually taken by preterists, originally put forth by a liberal.

I see you have answered this somewhat to someone else. I'll just say that the temple in Revelation is certainly not Herod's Temple.

 

[Alcott]

You are confusing "forthtelling" with "foretelling."

You are correct; I was getting the terms confused, though you've got to admit that's just some kind of fine distinction somebody thought up. But remember the biblical test of a true prophet [Deuteronomy 18:21-22], and what is characterized as "fothtelling" is not subject to that test; therefore such prophecy cannot be proved.

In my understanding of the manifestation gifts (aka "sign gifts"), they are acts of God working through whoever is available for whoever has a need -- based on the will of God for that situation. Therefore, all Christians potentially can be a vessel to heal others, but no one has "the gift of healing." A person cannot choose to make healing happen outside of the will of God for the moment.

It is clearly mentioned that some (...to another gifts of...") have the gifts of healing [I Corinthians 12:9]. My own position is that we do not receive particular gifts as enumerated in these chapters. If we do, then we should have "two or three prophets speak, two or three speak in tongues, with at least one to interpret..."

Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with. For we know in part and prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away with"[I Corinthians 13:8-10].

What is "when the perfect comes?" Some say completion of scripture. Some say the rapture. Some say the millenium. Some say the very end of it all. My best understanding is the completion of scripture. Those who get a kick out of tongues and miracles IMO like to play with certain biblical concepts. Besides, if the perfect to come is not completed scripture, then we don't have anything perfect in scripture.

Do you think Jesus did this? I am unaware of this kind of healing taking place in the Gospels. Are you demanding evidence beyond what Jesus gave?

Frankly, yes. [This refers back to my saying it would take a person with a missing arm or leg growing a new one to convince me it is a miraculous healing.] Not that case specifically, but one in which there is no question whatsoever that the 'healing' was an absolute physical impossibility. This getting healed of stomach or back pain is nonsense in that way. And this isn't just an assumption on my part. ? years ago, when I was having back pain, I knew about those guys on tv who claimed the "word of knowledge" and named certain conditions about people watching them and saying they are healed now. I decided to turn such a show on, knowing the psychogenic effect of hearing something like this, just to see if he would mention a guy with back pain. He did, and it felt much better. And I already knew exactly why; I just took advantage to get a little relief. I did not pay him for this "miracle," because I would be supporting fraud if I did.

Again, no one has "the gift of miracles," but miracles may occur through any Christian. But even so, why are you demanding such foolish displays of God's power? Jesus did nothing like that. He explicitly rejected Satan's temptation to turn stones to bread and cast himself from the pinnacle of the Temple, acts significantly less foolish and selfish than your mountain-moving exercise.

I said the mountain-moving thing because that comes directly from Jesus. If anyone wants to take this miracle stuff literally, then really take it literally. If no dice, it's not literal. But yes, I agree about the foolish test, and that's why snake handlers are nuts. But a miracle is not just an unlikely happening. And today, to carry it beyond an illusion is very difficult.

So, how do you define a miracle?
How do you explain that certain gifts are given to some, but to another... a different gift, as the scripture says?
Do you think I'm justified in calling these preachers of miracles money-grubbing frauds?

 

[Yeshua1]

Demonstrate your assertion using the scriptures or stop making the claim.


What do you mean by "revelation?" Furthermore, demonstrate your assertion using the scriptures.

Oaukl Himself claimed to be one born out of season, as he was the last person in the Bible Jesus commissioned as an Apostle. Do you claim some extra biblical revelation regarding additional apostles God sent forth since John passed? And that the canon and revelation is now closed is asserted and agreed upon save for those in cults such as Morminism, and Sda!

 

[Yeshua1]

No I don't. Just because you think I'm an idiot doesn't make me one.

I pointed out how my viewpoint works to undermine Mormonism here.

It's becoming quite clear to me that you don't actually read my responses, you just make accusations. That runs contrary to the spirit of a discussion board.

I have read all of your postings, but you seem to have some strange theology in certain areas!

 

[Yeshua1]

Have you actually thought of the implications of your statement?

You have made the claim that since I don't add to biblical claims my own beliefs, the scripture is not powerful enough to deal with cultists. You are saying that the scripture is inadequate to the task of reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness without adding your own viewpoints to it.

No, I am saying that whenever one leaves open Concept of additional revelations and books coming from God, can lead into heresies such as wof and modern day Apostles and prophets!

 

[Yeshua1]

Clearly, you don't know the Bible, nor could be bothered to look up my citations in previous posts:

Acts 1:15-17, 21-26
At this time Peter stood up among the brothers and sisters (a group of about 120 people was there together), and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry... Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all people, show which one of these two You have chosen to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.​

Paul was explicitly NOT a replacement for Judas Iscariot, nor was he among The Twelve.

Matthias was not the replacement for Judas, as Jesus called and commissioned Paul for that, as he was the replacement 12 Apostles!

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm wondering about this. Where do you get that John's other writings were from before the book of Revelation? That's pretty non-standard. Merrill Tenney puts John's Gospel at 45-50 (The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 9, 9), and Glenn Barker (vol. 12, 301) puts the epistles at around 90.

Revelation before AD 96 is a position usually taken by preterists, originally put forth by a liberal.

I see you have answered this somewhat to someone else. I'll just say that the temple in Revelation is certainly not Herod's Temple.

Book of Revelation last inspired book from the Lord to us, as just as Genesis shows the beginning, Revelation shows to us how it all ends!

 

[Yeshua1]

You are correct; I was getting the terms confused, though you've got to admit that's just some kind of fine distinction somebody thought up. But remember the biblical test of a true prophet [Deuteronomy 18:21-22], and what is characterized as "fothtelling" is not subject to that test; therefore such prophecy cannot be proved.




It is clearly mentioned that some (...to another gifts of...") have the gifts of healing [I Corinthians 12:9]. My own position is that we do not receive particular gifts as enumerated in these chapters. If we do, then we should have "two or three prophets speak, two or three speak in tongues, with at least one to interpret..."

Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with. For we know in part and prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away with"[I Corinthians 13:8-10].

What is "when the perfect comes?" Some say completion of scripture. Some say the rapture. Some say the millenium. Some say the very end of it all. My best understanding is the completion of scripture. Those who get a kick out of tongues and miracles IMO like to play with certain biblical concepts. Besides, if the perfect to come is not completed scripture, then we don't have anything perfect in scripture.



Frankly, yes. [This refers back to my saying it would take a person with a missing arm or leg growing a new one to convince me it is a miraculous healing.] Not that case specifically, but one in which there is no question whatsoever that the 'healing' was an absolute physical impossibility. This getting healed of stomach or back pain is nonsense in that way. And this isn't just an assumption on my part. ? years ago, when I was having back pain, I knew about those guys on tv who claimed the "word of knowledge" and named certain conditions about people watching them and saying they are healed now. I decided to turn such a show on, knowing the psychogenic effect of hearing something like this, just to see if he would mention a guy with back pain. He did, and it felt much better. And I already knew exactly why; I just took advantage to get a little relief. I did not pay him for this "miracle," because I would be supporting fraud if I did.




I said the mountain-moving thing because that comes directly from Jesus. If anyone wants to take this miracle stuff literally, then really take it literally. If no dice, it's not literal. But yes, I agree about the foolish test, and that's why snake handlers are nuts. But a miracle is not just an unlikely happening. And today, to carry it beyond an illusion is very difficult.

So, how do you define a miracle?
How do you explain that certain gifts are given to some, but to another... a different gift, as the scripture says?
Do you think I'm justified in calling these preachers of miracles money-grubbing frauds?

Jesus made blind see, deaf to hear, lame to walk, and raised very dead, things that I see no evidence any so called faith healer or modern day Apostle and prophet can do!

 

[Paul from Antioch]

I would not say that "Modern-Day Apostles" are NOT any more gifted than our original Apostles were in the sense that they alter God's Word to mean something completely different than that of the original Apostles intended. IMHO, "Modern-Day Apostles" are merely those who would make terms that currently are used in today's more modern terminology (EX: Using "Iran" instead of "Persia.")

 

[Yeshua1]

So do modern prophets. They speak from the message of scripture applied to the current situation. They were/are primarily "forth-tellers," not foretellers.


True. In covenant Israel, false prophets were not to be tolerated. In the US, we put them on television.


You misinterpret this verse to claim that John the Baptist was the FINAL prophet, and then you write this:


The only way both of these statements could logically be true would be if Agabus was older than John the Baptist AND the title of FINAL prophet was a matter of one's date of birth, not the end of the prophetic ministry, since John the Baptist was beheaded during the ministry of Jesus.

Of course, if you claim it is birth order, then you have a much bigger problem. You've forgotten about Jesus, fulfilling the role of a prophet, even though you quoted the verses just after this passage:

Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19
“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen; to him you shall listen... I will raise up for them a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them everything that I command him. And it shall come about that whoever does not listen to My words which he speaks in My name, I Myself will require it of him.​

So how do we know that Jesus was this prophet? Because Peter declared Him to be that Prophet in his sermon on Pentecost:

Acts 3:19-26
Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things, about which God spoke by the mouths of His holy prophets from ancient times. Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your countrymen; to Him you shall listen regarding everything He says to you. And it shall be that every soul that does not listen to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken from Samuel and his successors onward, have also announced these days. It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God ordained with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ God raised up His Servant for you first, and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.”​

Therefore we know that John the Baptist was NOT the final prophet.

Paul indeed teaches that prophecy will one day be done away with (1 Corinthians 13:8), but that will be when the fullness of the Kingdom is complete ("when the perfect comes" 1 Corinthians 13:10), which is characterized by full knowledge of God (1 Corinthians 13:12).

We are not yet at that point.

John was the last OT Prophet, and we have the canon of scripture, the faith once and for all delivered to the saints, as none save someone inspired by the risen Christ can give forth revelation to us!

 

[Baptist Believer]

Oaukl Himself claimed to be one born out of season, as he was the last person in the Bible Jesus commissioned as an Apostle.

Who is Oaukl?

Do you claim some extra biblical revelation regarding additional apostles God sent forth since John passed?

No, I gave scripture to demonstrate it. If you have read my postings completely and looked up the verses, you would know why.

And that the canon and revelation is now closed is asserted and agreed upon save for those in cults such as Morminism, and Sda!

I specifically asked you to cite scripture to demonstrate that the canon of scripture is closed. You haven't done so. If the Bible is our authority, then a consensus viewpoint is irrelevant. Moreover, you have previously gone on the record demanding that I make an extrabiblical claim because you seem to think the Bible is insufficient for dealing with false teaching. In practice, I think you have a very low view of the Bible.

I have read all of your postings, but you seem to have some strange theology in certain areas!

I am not bound by fundamentalist traditions. I came to my beliefs from agnosticism, not from children's Sunday School lessons cited out of context and the opinions of popular preachers.

No, I am saying that whenever one leaves open Concept of additional revelations and books coming from God, can lead into heresies such as wof and modern day Apostles and prophets!

Plenty of people who believe in a closed canon also deal in heresies. You want me to make an unbiblical claim -- without you being able to cite scripture for it -- because you think the Bible is insufficient. I've already explained how things worked when I was dealing with Mormonism. I would have gotten nowhere with Mormons -- except to affirm their view that Christians hold to extrabiblical beliefs -- if I took a stand on a closed canon. Instead, I had to make them think about the issue of authority and how they know what is true. When they start doing that, they open themselves up to God's work. So, if we are simply going to be pragmatists, my position is much more effective. Of course, that's no surprise, because the Bible doesn't need my help.

Matthias was not the replacement for Judas, as Jesus called and commissioned Paul for that, as he was the replacement 12 Apostles!

You don't believe the Bible, even when I quoted Acts 1 to you. See, you have a very low view of scripture.

Book of Revelation last inspired book from the Lord to us, as just as Genesis shows the beginning, Revelation shows to us how it all ends!

The books of the New Testament are not presented in chronological order according to date of authorship.

Jesus made blind see, deaf to hear, lame to walk, and raised very dead, things that I see no evidence any so called faith healer or modern day Apostle and prophet can do!

I think it is quite uncommon, especially here in a culture saturated in a distorted form of Christianity. If you paid attention to what I wrote about the manifestations of the Spirit (sign gifts), you would see that they are not controlled by the person through whom they are exercised. They are simply extraordinary works of God through His people, according to His will. That is a completely different thing from faith healers and the nuts on TV.

John was the last OT Prophet...

I agree, depending upon your definition.

and we have the canon of scripture...

Yes. But lots of people, like you, hold it in low regard.

...the faith once and for all delivered to the saints...

Some do.

...as none save someone inspired by the risen Christ can give forth revelation to us!

I agree.

 

[Paul from Antioch]

So do modern prophets. They speak from the message of scripture applied to the current situation. They were/are primarily "forth-tellers," not foretellers.


True. In covenant Israel, false prophets were not to be tolerated. In the US, we put them on television.


You misinterpret this verse to claim that John the Baptist was the FINAL prophet, and then you write this:


The only way both of these statements could logically be true would be if Agabus was older than John the Baptist AND the title of FINAL prophet was a matter of one's date of birth, not the end of the prophetic ministry, since John the Baptist was beheaded during the ministry of Jesus.

Of course, if you claim it is birth order, then you have a much bigger problem. You've forgotten about Jesus, fulfilling the role of a prophet, even though you quoted the verses just after this passage:

Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19
“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen; to him you shall listen... I will raise up for them a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them everything that I command him. And it shall come about that whoever does not listen to My words which he speaks in My name, I Myself will require it of him.​

So how do we know that Jesus was this prophet? Because Peter declared Him to be that Prophet in his sermon on Pentecost:

Acts 3:19-26
Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things, about which God spoke by the mouths of His holy prophets from ancient times. Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your countrymen; to Him you shall listen regarding everything He says to you. And it shall be that every soul that does not listen to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken from Samuel and his successors onward, have also announced these days. It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God ordained with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ God raised up His Servant for you first, and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.”​

Therefore we know that John the Baptist was NOT the final prophet.

Paul indeed teaches that prophecy will one day be done away with (1 Corinthians 13:8), but that will be when the fullness of the Kingdom is complete ("when the perfect comes" 1 Corinthians 13:10), which is characterized by full knowledge of God (1 Corinthians 13:12).

We are not yet at that point.

The point that I was trying to make was not one of "Adding To" God's Final Revelations as it was to merely rename some nations in their more modern names, EX: "Iran" instead of "Persia." Period. If I gave you the impression that I was attempting to somehow "Add To" what the "NT 'Prophets'" wrote, then I'll humbly ask for your forgiveness in that matter. In NO WAY was I trying to do such a thing. Rather, as I've just pointed out, it was merely update some nations' names and nothing else.

 

[Yeshua1]

Who is Oaukl?


No, I gave scripture to demonstrate it. If you have read my postings completely and looked up the verses, you would know why.


I specifically asked you to cite scripture to demonstrate that the canon of scripture is closed. You haven't done so. If the Bible is our authority, then a consensus viewpoint is irrelevant. Moreover, you have previously gone on the record demanding that I make an extrabiblical claim because you seem to think the Bible is insufficient for dealing with false teaching. In practice, I think you have a very low view of the Bible.


I am not bound by fundamentalist traditions. I came to my beliefs from agnosticism, not from children's Sunday School lessons cited out of context and the opinions of popular preachers.


Plenty of people who believe in a closed canon also deal in heresies. You want me to make an unbiblical claim -- without you being able to cite scripture for it -- because you think the Bible is insufficient. I've already explained how things worked when I was dealing with Mormonism. I would have gotten nowhere with Mormons -- except to affirm their view that Christians hold to extrabiblical beliefs -- if I took a stand on a closed canon. Instead, I had to make them think about the issue of authority and how they know what is true. When they start doing that, they open themselves up to God's work. So, if we are simply going to be pragmatists, my position is much more effective. Of course, that's no surprise, because the Bible doesn't need my help.


You don't believe the Bible, even when I quoted Acts 1 to you. See, you have a very low view of scripture.


The books of the New Testament are not presented in chronological order according to date of authorship.


I think it is quite uncommon, especially here in a culture saturated in a distorted form of Christianity. If you paid attention to what I wrote about the manifestations of the Spirit (sign gifts), you would see that they are not controlled by the person through whom they are exercised. They are simply extraordinary works of God through His people, according to His will. That is a completely different thing from faith healers and the nuts on TV.


I agree, depending upon your definition.


Yes. But lots of people, like you, hold it in low regard.


Some do.


I agree.

The Holy Spirit ceased inspiration when John passed, and I hold to very high view of the scriptures, as they ONLY are the authority in all things spiritual, and cannot be added to or contradicted, as much so call revelations today do!

 

[Baptist Believer]

The Holy Spirit ceased inspiration when John passed...

Scripture for this please. Why do I keep having to ask? You simply make the assertion over and over somehow expecting that to be a substitute for scripture.

and I hold to very high view of the scriptures...

I realize that is your stated theological position (your "view"), but in practice, you do not. You reject both Acts 1 that Matthias was elected to replace Judas Iscariot, and Paul, when he referred to "the twelve" (not including himself in that group) in 1 Corinthians 15:5. Of course, I have already posted this at least twice, but you apparently don't read my posts or retain any knowledge of what I post.

...as they ONLY are the authority in all things spiritual, and cannot be added to or contradicted, as much so call revelations today do!

So why do you think your opinions about the canon or scripture and inspiration have a higher authority than scripture. I have been asking you to show me scripture for your opinions and you almost never do. I trust scripture but I don't trust your unsupported assertions.

You criticize me for not speaking where the Bible doesn't speak, yet you are happy to overrule the authority of scripture wherever it pleases you.

 

[Yeshua1]

Scripture for this please. Why do I keep having to ask? You simply make the assertion over and over somehow expecting that to be a substitute for scripture.


I realize that is your stated theological position (your "view"), but in practice, you do not. You reject both Acts 1 that Matthias was elected to replace Judas Iscariot, and Paul, when he referred to "the twelve" (not including himself in that group) in 1 Corinthians 15:5. Of course, I have already posted this at least twice, but you apparently don't read my posts or retain any knowledge of what I post.


So why do you think your opinions about the canon or scripture and inspiration have a higher authority than scripture. I have been asking you to show me scripture for your opinions and you almost never do. I trust scripture but I don't trust your unsupported assertions.

You criticize me for not speaking where the Bible doesn't speak, yet you are happy to overrule the authority of scripture wherever it pleases you.

Paul wrote Romans, and that should be enough to show that God choose Him to be the true replacement to Judas!
And book of revelation was last book penned down, as all other Apostles had died for sake of Christ before John!

 

[Baptist Believer]

Paul wrote Romans, and that should be enough to show that God choose Him to be the true replacement to Judas!

Your opinion is meaningless since it contradicts the scripture. This is exactly what I have been talking about when I say you have low regard for scripture. I have no doubt you have heard that "Paul replaced Judas" from the pulpit and Sunday School all your church life (so have I), but that's not what the Bible PLAINLY says. Frankly, your unwillingness to admit you are in error here make me not want to dialogue with you anymore. Your liberalism is maddening, since you don't really believe the Bible is reliable.

And book of revelation was last book penned down, as all other Apostles had died for sake of Christ before John!

Well, there's no scripture to demand a date of authorship either way, so that is a matter of opinion. But the warnings of Revelation 22 do not "close the canon" of scripture. The warnings apply only to itself.