To be clear........I believe that Roman Catholic theology and polity is derived mostly from the Pauline Epistles along with I & II Peter and the Epistles of John and James.
From I & II Peter and the Epistles of John and James (as well as from how Judaism in general may have been structured when the Temple was operating) I would agree with. However, I question how much (if much of any) is really derived from the Pauline Epistles. At this point in my thinking, I've actually starting to look more carefully (and honestly) at the possibility that there is far, far less structure implied (or intended) in Paul's writings than I've ever thought (or been taught) before. In fact, not only have I've surmised that "the Way Tree" is not based on Pauline doctrine, I see it more prone to be in opposition to it. How does one equate the structure of a tree, deriving its life from the roots, to that of the human body, wherein each member in particular derives its vitality from the head? It doesn't make sense, honestly speaking. Consequently, I started wondering how or where this whole concept of "centralized control" really stemmed from, and how far back in time in could be traced. The priesthood of Aaron? Yeah, I think so. How familiar or knowledgeable was Paul of how the priesthood worked? Well, VERY, to say the least. A Pharisee of the Pharisees. So, to think that what's written in the Pauline epistles might have moved very far away from this, is probably far too radicle a proposition for most to even consider. (But yeah, that's primarily how I've been pondering it lately.)
Whether or not Hebrews was written by Paul or not, has been a longstanding debate. My personal opinion based on content and character, is that it is a Pauline epistle, but that's based simply on my personal study along with reading Bullinger's Great Cloud of Witnesses as well as Welch's treatises on Romans and Hebrews, along with numerous articles and position papers on the topic. It is also helpful to read the Jewish understanding of the Aaronic and Melchesedechian Priesthoods. The symbolism and types which are rife in the construction, liturgy and ritual of the Aaronic Priesthood both in The Tabernacle in the Wilderness and Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem also comes in quite handy when it comes to understanding both Hebrews and the other Pauline Epistles.
Perhaps not for the same reasons, but my opinion that Paul wrote it agrees with you. (I'm not aware of anything else Paul might have written to the Jewish community, which Peter makes reference to in 2Pet.3:15.)
Now i realize that most Christian theologians might think my beliefs to be heresy.
Perhaps some of mine as well. What else is new?
And........we still have to get to Apostles. Should be fun.
As i said before, I do not agree that all Pauline scripture is godbreathed. I also believe that it was the Roman Catholic Church which institutionalized the Pauline writings into the nomenclature, liturgy, and polity of their version of the christian church, and carried over the into the numbers of churches founded during and after the Protestant Reformation.
Now i realize that most Christian theologians might think my beliefs to be heresy. That may well be. But, one man's ceiling is another man's floor as Paul Simon wrote. I am happy to share my opinions with you all, and look forward to hearing yours. And........we still have to get to Apostles. Should be fun.
I think you're probably right about the RC church (and its predecessors) having institutionalised and brought in a lot of our culture of who does what in the church. I am baffled by most church nomenclature and tradition, and think a lot is still about a "power-grab" and desire to exercise control by hierarchial institutions - despite big advances to "devolve power" and much more open church leadership. Thank God we aren't still in the medieval intensive control or the separation of church and laity by rood screens and other devices (look it up if you don't understand).
[by "predecessors," I mean whatever preceded the east/west split in the RC church (council of Nicaea?) (sorry, I don't know much about early church history!) - and whatever had been incorporated from much earlier versions of worship (both pagan and Christian).]
Probably, additionally, an understanding of Greek and Roman cultural backgrounds at the post-Acts time would also help - what, specifically, would Paul or Peter or anybody else have been addressing?
1 Peter calls "the exiles" to whom he's writing a "royal priesthood" - I don't know if that can be applied to Gentile believers, who weren't part of "God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia" (1 Pet 1:1).
Paul as you know describes "ambassadors" with the "ministry of reconciliation." But who exactly are these ambassadors? We've been taught that it's all Christians - the letter (2 Cor) is written to "the church of God in Corinth, together with all his holy people throughout Achaia" (and extrapolated to all of the Christian churches then and now)
2 Cor 5 gives us the familiar verses:
16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them.
And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
He's writing a letter saying we have the ministry of reconciliation - we, as in Paul and those who are with him? (it's clearly aimed at you, the Corinthians) or we, as in all Christians? (the latter, as usually taught - but is that correct??)
Could it be, then, that there is merely the one ministry - ambassadorial, exercised by the ministers who are the "royal priesthood," and everything else is to support that one ministry? (Which maybe we all have, or maybe it is restricted to some individuals or some historical group(s).)
"When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men... 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 for the perfecting of the saints (KJV comma omitted) for the work of the ministry (of reconciliation), for the edifying of the body of Christ."
Which still begs the question, these gifts to the church, of prophets, etc, (whose job description is "the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry of reconciliation") - do they have more specific "job descriptions" or is it just the function that they are fulfilling at any given time (of teaching or pastoring etc). Are they all encompassed in the role of "prophet" in the OT (and perhaps "rabbi" by Gospel times).
Is an OT prophet the same as a NT rabbi? For surely, both have wise words to say, to help and guide those who seek advice of them; to give leadership. I can see both prophets and rabbis being "prophets, pastors and teachers" - also evangelists if a narrower interpretation of that is given (speaking well, giving a good message - not including what we'd call "outreach"). Apostles, I'm not so sure about.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Apologies if this sounds a bit rambling, I know what I'm trying to say, not like me to be so inarticulate. I'm trying to (re)read things in a way that sets aside preconceived ideas and ancient wrong teaching; trying to find my own fresh take on things.
The answer is simple...because the things of God are simple. Even if deep.
Twinky......interesting thoughts. The example you gave regarding to whom Corinthians (both I and II ) is addressed brings up an example of what I mean re: not accepting all of Paul's writings as "revelation" to the entire Church of The Body of Christ for all time. It is obvious that the letters are addressed to specific groups of "believers", and certain elders and leaders in the Church at Corinth. Even if one accepts that all Paul is godbreathed, the content of most of what is in Corinthians still cannot honestly nor objectively be extrapolated and applied to the entire Body of Christ or generalized from the specifics addressed directly to the Church at Corinth. Paul had established the church there himself and would have been well aware of to whom he was writing regarding events, teachings, and "practical error". IMO, it is NOT proper or necessary to take specific "revelation" to specific churches and/or specific individuals and then generalize and expand it to apply to every church or individual Christian. Also, a matter so far overlooked here is, the Canon of the Scripture. Who decided which books were canonic and which ones were not? What about the Apocrypha? How was it determined which epistles, letters, etc. were to be canonized and accepted as "godbreathed" and which ones were not? What were the roles of the so-called "Church Fathers"? There were quite a few by 325 AD when Constantine converted his empire to Christianity. Here i found it necessary to read as much as i could about early church history, and read the works of Origen, the Gnostics, The Essenes, etc., in order to see for myself how the canonized Greek New Testament became so. This reading of discovery very much opened up my understanding of what SCRIPTURE actually is or might be. And, it disrupted the mind numbing info overload of Bullinger, Welch and dictor paul regarding ultradispensationalism and the inordinate emphasis on the Pauline Epistles. After reading a lot of the stuff i mentioned, i understood more fully why there are so many problems within seminary walls and textual research that a good number of seminary grads have a hard time believing any of the canonized NT beyond the 4 Gospels. Wierwille's theories of "biblical research" and research "principles" are so completely superficial, uninformed, and misguided as to be completely mocked by any authentic biblical scholars and trained textual critics. Even more so for the garbage the offshoots palm off as biblical "research, teaching, and fellowship", particularly schoenheit and jallyroll lynn. Plagiarists and fiction writers is what they all are. Carrying on the lies of twi, as well as making up a whole lot of momentus psycho-babble ...., christian spiritualism via their flagrant abuse of the "manifestation" of prophecy along with their own "hookypook" practice of "The Prophetic" relying totally on the visions, dreams, and acid-flasbacks of Ordained Prophets and Prophetesses of three self-defined tiers along with their Prophetic Councils for ALL major "leadership decisions'. Their misunderstanding of the "gift ministries" is as blatant and self-aggrandizing as anything dictor or any of the other "big denominations" espouse. And, remember, all that misunderstanding is based on private misinterpretation of the Pauline Epistles.
Is an OT prophet the same as a NT rabbi? For surely, both have wise words to say, to help and guide those who seek advice of them; to give leadership. I can see both prophets and rabbis being "prophets, pastors and teachers" - also evangelists if a narrower interpretation of that is given (speaking well, giving a good message - not including what we'd call "outreach"). Apostles, I'm not so sure about.
@ DWBH: what do you think about the above comment?
A further thought this morning: the OT prophets, such as they were, appear to have stood outside the formal synagogue or temple system. Not always - or even often - priests and Levites, just men getting on with life. Ordinary men to whom God spoke. One man who was in a priestly position (Zechariah) was struck dumb when God (via an angel) actually spoke to him. Jeremiah was the son of a priest, but is not noted as a priest himself; Isaiah makes no claims; Ezekiel was a priest; Amos was a shepherd; Daniel was an administrator... and so on.
What were the rabbis? Teachers... but with what credentials? Some clearly were of the "priestly" caste (Gamaliel, Paul) but Jesus, with no such creds, is also called Rabbi. Jesus's cousin John, was he called a rabbi? His father Z as noted was a priest, but John was noted as a "wild man" not for his priestly standing.
After reading a lot of the stuff i mentioned, i understood more fully why there are so many problems within seminary walls and textual research that a good number of seminary grads have a hard time believing any of the canonized NT beyond the 4 Gospels.
lol... that appears to make perfect sense, except I don't see the result as positively as you seem to.
And, remember, all that misunderstanding is based on private misinterpretation of the Pauline Epistles.
This too, makes sense. What "private misinterpretation" of any scripture ever results in anything but misunderstanding?
However, this doesn't expose any problem with what's written in the Pauline Epistles - only problems in the interpretation, application and/or understanding of them.
@ DWBH: what do you think about the above comment?
A further thought this morning: the OT prophets, such as they were, appear to have stood outside the formal synagogue or temple system. Not always - or even often - priests and Levites, just men getting on with life. Ordinary men to whom God spoke. One man who was in a priestly position (Zechariah) was struck dumb when God (via an angel) actually spoke to him. Jeremiah was the son of a priest, but is not noted as a priest himself; Isaiah makes no claims; Ezekiel was a priest; Amos was a shepherd; Daniel was an administrator... and so on.
What were the rabbis? Teachers... but with what credentials? Some clearly were of the "priestly" caste (Gamaliel, Paul) but Jesus, with no such creds, is also called Rabbi. Jesus's cousin John, was he called a rabbi? His father Z as noted was a priest, but John was noted as a "wild man" not for his priestly standing.
Seems that having the right or proper title, authority, intellect or stature never guaranteed or entitled anyone participation in God's program (whatever it's been), not even Moses. (Tending sheep was one of lowliest occupations for a proper Egyptian, and evidently it took Moses about 40 years of doing just that after he thought he was ready to lead God's people out of Egypt before he was humble enough for God to work with him.) So yeah, there's plenty to be learned from scripture about how God has worked with man in times past. Perhaps certain things don't change much. But, God is sovereign, and other things (not without good reason) do.
Seeing there's no takers on my previous question, can't be there's much interest there. (But not much surprises me at this point.)
Nothing ventured nothing gained, I suppose.
Speaking of which, I may as well toss another casual thought or two into the ring.
From what is surmised at this point in time (being the kind of dispensationalist that I am), I'm somewhat inclined to think that apostleship is associated with the introduction of a specific gospel to a particular people of that day and time, and moreover (in a sense), perhaps their life is set forth as a compendium of the message they're to deliver. In other words, I don't necessarily see every apostle mentioned in scripture as being the same or equal to one another, especially if they are representative of different administrations and "good news" messages. (Not sure if these words communicate exactly what I think, but I'm not sure how else to say it any better or clearer. As mentioned, these are rather "casual" thoughts on the matter...)
Seeing there's no takers on my previous question, can't be there's much interest there. (But not much surprises me at this point.)
Nothing ventured nothing gained, I suppose.
Speaking of which, I may as well toss another casual thought or two into the ring.
[snip]
I don't believe that's a fair statement (that there's not much interest). I myself can add nothing since I have no definition other than what we have from twi and/or a dictionary. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in what other posters may have to say OR the subject itself in general.
I don't believe that's a fair statement (that there's not much interest). I myself can add nothing since I have no definition other than what we have from twi and/or a dictionary. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in what other posters may have to say OR the subject itself in general.
Well, it's a discussion. So it's not just "answers" that are sought or add value. There's plenty of room for any related or pertinent questions, comments, or thoughts (should they get stirred up), as they're often what lead to a better (even if less than complete) understanding. Jump in whenever and where ever you want, the water's fine. (But if it's too hot in the kitchen for you, well... no need to get cooked.)
The gift of apostle is the special ability to introduce the message of Christ to a particular group, perhaps a different culture, and then to disciple those who have believed. An apostle is a church planter or missionary, though his ministry does not have to be in a foreign country.
The office of apostle was foundational to the church:
Having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner
The gift was given for the instruction and nurturing of believers. It is not the same gift as a pastor. A pastor performs his duties to only one congregation, while the apostle establishes and equips local assemblies of believers. However, an apostle can exercise the gift of pastor. He may start a church and remain there as pastor.
Cannot Be Earned
Like other spiritual gifts, the gift of an apostle cannot be earned by merit. It is a God-given gift to perform the duties of a church planter, introducing the message of Christ to the unevangelized.
KJV Translation Count — Total: 81x The KJV translates Strongs G652 in the following manner:apostle (78x), messenger (2x), he that is sent (1x). Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders
specifically applied to the twelve apostles of Christ
in a broader sense applied to other eminent Christian teachers
of Barnabas
of Timothy and Silvanus
Strong’s Definitions(Strong’s Definitions Legend) ἀπόστολος apóstolos, ap-os'-tol-os; from G649; a delegate; specially, an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ ("apostle") (with miraculous powers):—apostle, messenger, he that is sent.
I like what you've written, Twinky. It seems that it is an all encompassing definition.
I wonder if an apostle aso has other gifts as well. If he starts and establishes a new church, wouldn't he also need to be a gifted teacher? Pastor, and healer?
I wonder if an apostle aso has other gifts as well. If he starts and establishes a new church, wouldn't he also need to be a gifted teacher? Pastor, and healer?
So, the predominate thought and focus is whether a particular individual does or doesn't receive a certain gift?
So, the predominate thought and focus is whether a particular individual does or doesn't receive a certain gift?
When do you suppose it is (or would be) received?
God is never late...but he doesn't have to be early either. Maybe it's given the split second it's needed...just as the individual wants to use it. (I have no advanced training or particular books anymore. But I have been thinking about this These are only my thoughts)
God is never late...but he doesn't have to be early either. Maybe it's given the split second it's needed...just as the individual wants to use it. (I have no advanced training or particular books anymore. But I have been thinking about this These are only my thoughts)
It seems that one of the biggest shortcomings or failures in how most of us have tried to think about these gifts is in seeing them primarily as gifts to the individual rather than as gifts to the church. If or when thought of as something given to an individual, along with other issues, it begs the question of "when or how" does one get such a thing. However, if and when thought of as something given to the church, then your answer of when "it's needed" is reasonably simple and would seem to make the most sense - unless there's more involved than "need." As for the individual, well... at this point I'm inclined to think they are the gift, so it actually doesn't make much sense to me that something else is added or needs to be given to them - unless we're talking about the gift of righteousness (there is only one kind), which is given to all who are Christ's. (I suppose there's more behind why I think this way, but I don't have the time to go further into it right now. And yeah, I'm aware that Paul writes to Timothy about stirring up the gift. It's just not clear to me yet exactly what "gift" he might be referring to, and I can't say that I'm convinced that it specifically refers to a gift ministry... probably because I don't believe there's something else that "gets added" to the Christ within once he's living on the inside.)
I absolutely believe these are gifts to the church. However...the individual uses or operates them for the benefit of the church.
Okay, but I don't get why that was difficult to write. If it's true that the individual uses or operates "it" (i.e., a gift), then do you see or think of it as something that is probably added to (or given in addition to) the spirit that is received when we first believed that God raised Christ from the dead? (I'm presuming that you see this as the event whereby we were adjoined to him.) Or, if you do not think of it as being anything "extra" that is added or given at some (or any) later point in time to the individual, then how do you account for it being something so different or special from what any other believer receives? How do (or might) you see or think of it being given or received?
Sorry.....it's been awhile since I've looked at this thread.
Briefly reviewing, Twinky's posts on the mission of being an ambassador for Christ containing the potential inclusion of the 5 ministries was interesting to me. Certainly a possibility. Also, her references to The Blue Letter Bible well represent the traditional thinking regarding the literal meaning of apostolos in the Greek New Testament.
However, all of the discussion must of necessity, be confined to the Pauline Epistles since they are the only sections of the Bible that contain references to these "gifts" to and for the Saints, as Krys pointed out and TLC expanded upon. That's the main reason I have not had much to say. I have already stated that I do not regard all Pauline writings as either godbreathed nor as being the "apex of all revelation" to the Church of The Body of Christ. And, there have been volumes and volumes written about Paul's gift ministry paradigm, which, IMO, have co-opted and "set in stone" the basic understandings of these ministries (ways of serving) among the large majority of the established and mainstream denominational churches, as well as the smaller Pentecostal, Full Gospel, or independent mega ministries like Robertson, Baker, Roberts, and Graham had. It has become necessary to define and pidgeon-hole these ministries so these churches and associations etc., have something from the Bible to justify their very existence. They have to have their own brand, but they all need to establish why Christians should be paying THEM for their buildings, priests, ministers, elders, deacons, presbyters, overseers, pastors, seminaries, and all the incredible expenses that come along with all their properties, structures, and doctrines, and polities. So, the best legitimization tool they have are the Epistles attributed to Saul of Tarsus. So, necessity being the mother of invention, the Pauline letters to specific, individual churches or people must be broadened to apply to all Christians and Christian churches. I believe THAT to be a major fallacy among the entire Church. I believe that specific revelation at specific times to specific churches and/or individuals cannot and must not be broadened to apply to all Christians, nor the Church as a whole. Why would letters written to such specific places and people by anyone be given the status of godbreathed or revelation? Because necessity is the mother of invention.
All the early church knew about structure and polity and governance was the worship and service of the Aaronic priests and the other Levites in the Tabernacle and then The Temple in Jerusalem. So, properties, buildings, "employees" and "ministers" were not new to the Hebrews who were the very first converts to this new covenant. Christianity is an offshoot of of The religion of the Hebrews, Judaism. It's spiritual and doctrinal roots lie completely within Judaism. Jesus was a Jew! So were the Twelve, Paul, Barnabas. The new Jesus movement was Hebraic in culture, thought, and religion. That's the true underpinning of every Christian church building, service, and theology, IMO. It is also historical fact.
So.....what's my opinion? The gifts are to and for the Church, not the individual. I do not feel that is something additional to the new birth, indwelling of the incorruptible seed, Holy Spirit. I believe they are effected by and "sent by" the Ascended Jesus Christ at His discretion. Holy Spirit provides the vehicle for Christ to do so and be wherever He wants, Whenever He wants to be the Head of His Church. He is not limited nor is Holy Spirit. I believe He can provide whatever is necessary to shepherd and feed His flock for they hear His voice. He is the source of "revelation" to and in the Church, not the Father. He alone is The Boss, Il capo di capi tutti, The King, The Lord, the Head of His Church. He is the mediator between God and man, and the Intercessor for all the saints from the right hand of God's throne, not the Pope's Chair, or Canterbury's Archbishop, etc. There's only one Boss of all bosses to the Church and that's the man Christ Jesus. He IS The Word made flesh. He IS the full reflection of the nature, glory, and perfection of God for all time. HE can do anything and everything necessary to take care of His Body regardless of who's believing or not believing.
I trust The Boss to take care of His family and the family business. He is NOT at the mercy of my belief or unbelief. He is NOT absent, stuck at the right hand of God until we're all done amassing all the rewards we can trying to do His job. If he wants to talk to a squirrel (Ham) or a dolphin or a chimp he can. If He wants to talk to you, He can. If he wants to energize miracles and healings, He can. If He needs an Apostle, he'll send one. If he needs prophets He'll send some. You won't need "definitions" to recognize these folks because you shall know them by the fruit of the Spirit they produce in their service. A bad tree cannot yield good fruit and a good tree cannot yield bad fruit. He is the vine and we are the branches. He don't need no stinkin' Way tree or clergy badges (name tags and titles). He does not need help "moving" His Word. He IS the Word. He has his own hands and feet and does not need our's to do His work for Him or take His place. That's blasphemous. We need Him. We can trust Him. And, best of all we have Him and He has us. We don't need no stinkin' clergy unless He says we do. And if we do, The Boss will send them. That's my 2 cents of preaching for this Easter Sunday. Thanks for reading! I look forward to your insights and opinions...........peace.
I'm so sorry this is so late. I've had internet and connectivity issues.
The best way for me to answer this will not follow your lead exactly in order. I don't think of it as static but rather energetic. Let me give an example:
It's like a body of water with one pipe leading in and at least 1,probably more than that leads out. All the in-flowing pipes carry the same volume of water. The owner of the reservoir can decide where the water goes and how much to put there. There could be several outflowing pipes but the circulation depends on the owner of the reservoir. He could add pipes for a time, or slow or stop the flow in some others I'm not particularly concerned whether God or JesusChrist does the filling because for the purpose of this discussion itdoesn't matter.
I think the individual believer is recognized by the trail he leaves...well taught individuals, healed individuals, and so on recognized by the greener grass (by their fruits...)
...there have been volumes and volumes written about Paul's gift ministry paradigm, which, IMO, have co-opted and "set in stone" the basic understandings of these ministries (ways of serving) among the large majority of the established and mainstream denominational churches, as well as the smaller Pentecostal, Full Gospel, or independent mega ministries like Robertson, Baker, Roberts, and Graham had. It has become necessary to define and pidgeon-hole these ministries so these churches and associations etc., have something from the Bible to justify their very existence. They have to have their own brand, but they all need to establish why Christians should be paying THEM for their buildings, priests, ministers, elders, deacons, presbyters, overseers, pastors, seminaries, and all the incredible expenses that come along with all their properties, structures, and doctrines, and polities.
While I certainly don't agree with your take on the Pauline epistles (as I regard them as scripture), I am inclined to mostly agree with all of the above statements. However, it appears that we also significantly differ on how they use the Bible to endorse (or as you say below, legitimize) these things.
So, the best legitimization tool they have are the Epistles attributed to Saul of Tarsus. So, necessity being the mother of invention, the Pauline letters to specific, individual churches or people must be broadened to apply to all Christians and Christian churches. I believe THAT to be a major fallacy among the entire Church.
Personally, I think the major issue was the failure to recognize Paul's calling as the start of a new dispensation (and not the day of Pentecost - as taught by vpw, twi, and its the offshoots - nor after Acts 28, as taught by hyperdispensationists such as Bullinger.) Consequently, much of the political and authoritarian structure in (modern) Christian denominations and churches appears to initially stem from Judaism and from times long before these new revelations to Paul (which were received directly from the ascended Christ.) The diligent and concerted efforts to meld and blend together the gospel of the kingdom (which primarily concerned Israel) with the gospel of grace (which Paul introduced) resulted in the need to also blend together the message (and ministries) that Paul spoke of with the message (and practice) of the 12 apostles in Acts 2 and following. (And THAT is what I believe to be a major fallacy among what was and is still taught most places.)
I believe that specific revelation at specific times to specific churches and/or individuals cannot and must not be broadened to apply to all Christians, nor the Church as a whole.
And yet, you're against dispensationalism. Seems nearly ironic.
All the early church knew about structure and polity and governance was the worship and service of the Aaronic priests and the other Levites in the Tabernacle and then The Temple in Jerusalem. So, properties, buildings, "employees" and "ministers" were not new to the Hebrews who were the very first converts to this new covenant. Christianity is an offshoot of of The religion of the Hebrews, Judaism. It's spiritual and doctrinal roots lie completely within Judaism. Jesus was a Jew! So were the Twelve, Paul, Barnabas. The new Jesus movement was Hebraic in culture, thought, and religion. That's the true underpinning of every Christian church building, service, and theology, IMO. It is also historical fact.
I should have read further in your post (and seen the above.) That was my basic point. (Though we seem to differ on any beneficial effects of it) Thank you.
(And I mostly agree with the rest of your post - though not all. When time allows, perhaps I'll say more.)
I'm so sorry this is so late. I've had internet and connectivity issues.
The best way for me to answer this will not follow your lead exactly in order. I don't think of it as static but rather energetic. Let me give an example:
It's like a body of water with one pipe leading in and at least 1,probably more than that leads out. All the in-flowing pipes carry the same volume of water. The owner of the reservoir can decide where the water goes and how much to put there. There could be several outflowing pipes but the circulation depends on the owner of the reservoir. He could add pipes for a time, or slow or stop the flow in some others I'm not particularly concerned whether God or Jesus Christ does the filling because for the purpose of this discussion itdoesn't matter.
I think the individual believer is recognized by the trail he leaves...well taught individuals, healed individuals, and so on recognized by the greener grass (by their fruits...)
I've tried to consider this several different times or ways, but I still can't seem to make much sense out of it. When you say "it's like a body of water"... does "it" refer to a gift ministry, or to spirit? And if to spirit, which spirit? The Christ? (which is what I would presume.)
Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining... and possibly adding some other way to express what you mean.
I've tried to consider this several different times or ways, but I still can't seem to make much sense out of it. When you say "it's like a body of water"... does "it" refer to a gift ministry, or to spirit? And if to spirit, which spirit? The Christ? (which is what I would presume.)
Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining... and possibly adding some other way to express what you mean.
(And thanks for your effort to "flesh it out.")
Oh dear. My writing skills have gone to hell in a hand basket for lack of use.[sorry />]I wasn't sure about any of this until after I followed your line of questions and DWBH's essay. It was necessary for me to read them and think about what both of you wrote several times, and I don't know if I was beginning to see things the way they seemed to be laid out, or if I became convinced, but now I think I have a better handle on it.
The "It" is the spirit from Christ. I envision it as having energy. That is why I think of it as moving water. We all have the same sized reservoir and the input is the same because God is not a respecter of persons. The "pipe" carrying it in is the same size and the flow rate is the same.We as individuals can decide where we would like to use this spirit and how much we'd like to put into each of these areas. We are all different people so we have different strengths and desires.
Maybe someone is adept at organization. Perhaps he decides to use his spirit to help people in this way. Maybe he wants to assist the church in this area. Maybe God lays it on his heart to do so. Either way, he becomes adept enough that people notice his skill (it is his fruit) and follow him around asking for his assistance. I don't know for a fact that this is how it works, but I'm suggesting it as a possibility.
I do believe that if the spirit isn't being used, it becomes stagnant and then is of no use at all. (I remember the parable of the talents and the man who hid his away and had nothing to give back to his master and how angry the master was that his talent (the gift) wasn't used.) Someone may have a desire to heal. He may pray for guidance in how to do it, maybe he studies other examples or asks others he knows for help. Sooner or later he becomes quite skilled and he becomes known for his fruit.
I hope this makes better sense. However.....
God has given the gifts and it appears the way I've written this, that the individual may make himself into a gift the way I've described it. That is kind of presumtive....don't you think? Maybe both ways work.
Oh dear. My writing skills have gone to hell in a hand basket for lack of use.
no worries. (shoot, I've read things that I wrote years ago and... well, I won't bother to tell you how bad it was! I'm still working on it...)
The "It" is the spirit from Christ.
Okay, let's stop right there and consider that.
If the "it" is from Christ, then I take it that you don't exactly see or think of "it" as being Christ in you. Or do you? What does that phrase of "Christ in you" mean, exactly? Is Christ present within you? ...Or only something (i.e., whatever "it" is) that comes from or is sent by him? How did or do you think about it?
(I'll back up to think about and consider the rest of your analogy afterwards...)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
13
8
33
Popular Days
Mar 24
10
Mar 23
8
Feb 29
7
Apr 7
7
Top Posters In This Topic
krys 8 posts
Twinky 13 posts
teachmevp 8 posts
TLC 33 posts
Popular Days
Mar 24 2016
10 posts
Mar 23 2016
8 posts
Feb 29 2016
7 posts
Apr 7 2016
7 posts
Popular Posts
krys
Now this is going to be difficult to write: I absolutely believe these are gifts to the church. However...the individual uses or operates them for the benefit of the church.
TLC
From I & II Peter and the Epistles of John and James (as well as from how Judaism in general may have been structured when the Temple was operating) I would agree with. However, I question how much (if much of any) is really derived from the Pauline Epistles. At this point in my thinking, I've actually starting to look more carefully (and honestly) at the possibility that there is far, far less structure implied (or intended) in Paul's writings than I've ever thought (or been taught) before. In fact, not only have I've surmised that "the Way Tree" is not based on Pauline doctrine, I see it more prone to be in opposition to it. How does one equate the structure of a tree, deriving its life from the roots, to that of the human body, wherein each member in particular derives its vitality from the head? It doesn't make sense, honestly speaking. Consequently, I started wondering how or where this whole concept of "centralized control" really stemmed from, and how far back in time in could be traced. The priesthood of Aaron? Yeah, I think so. How familiar or knowledgeable was Paul of how the priesthood worked? Well, VERY, to say the least. A Pharisee of the Pharisees. So, to think that what's written in the Pauline epistles might have moved very far away from this, is probably far too radicle a proposition for most to even consider. (But yeah, that's primarily how I've been pondering it lately.)
Perhaps not for the same reasons, but my opinion that Paul wrote it agrees with you. (I'm not aware of anything else Paul might have written to the Jewish community, which Peter makes reference to in 2Pet.3:15.)
Perhaps some of mine as well. What else is new?
Especially from a dispensational point of view.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I think you're probably right about the RC church (and its predecessors) having institutionalised and brought in a lot of our culture of who does what in the church. I am baffled by most church nomenclature and tradition, and think a lot is still about a "power-grab" and desire to exercise control by hierarchial institutions - despite big advances to "devolve power" and much more open church leadership. Thank God we aren't still in the medieval intensive control or the separation of church and laity by rood screens and other devices (look it up if you don't understand).
[by "predecessors," I mean whatever preceded the east/west split in the RC church (council of Nicaea?) (sorry, I don't know much about early church history!) - and whatever had been incorporated from much earlier versions of worship (both pagan and Christian).]
Probably, additionally, an understanding of Greek and Roman cultural backgrounds at the post-Acts time would also help - what, specifically, would Paul or Peter or anybody else have been addressing?
1 Peter calls "the exiles" to whom he's writing a "royal priesthood" - I don't know if that can be applied to Gentile believers, who weren't part of "God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia" (1 Pet 1:1).
Paul as you know describes "ambassadors" with the "ministry of reconciliation." But who exactly are these ambassadors? We've been taught that it's all Christians - the letter (2 Cor) is written to "the church of God in Corinth, together with all his holy people throughout Achaia" (and extrapolated to all of the Christian churches then and now)
2 Cor 5 gives us the familiar verses:
16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them.
And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
He's writing a letter saying we have the ministry of reconciliation - we, as in Paul and those who are with him? (it's clearly aimed at you, the Corinthians) or we, as in all Christians? (the latter, as usually taught - but is that correct??)
Could it be, then, that there is merely the one ministry - ambassadorial, exercised by the ministers who are the "royal priesthood," and everything else is to support that one ministry? (Which maybe we all have, or maybe it is restricted to some individuals or some historical group(s).)
"When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men... 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 for the perfecting of the saints (KJV comma omitted) for the work of the ministry (of reconciliation), for the edifying of the body of Christ."
Which still begs the question, these gifts to the church, of prophets, etc, (whose job description is "the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry of reconciliation") - do they have more specific "job descriptions" or is it just the function that they are fulfilling at any given time (of teaching or pastoring etc). Are they all encompassed in the role of "prophet" in the OT (and perhaps "rabbi" by Gospel times).
Is an OT prophet the same as a NT rabbi? For surely, both have wise words to say, to help and guide those who seek advice of them; to give leadership. I can see both prophets and rabbis being "prophets, pastors and teachers" - also evangelists if a narrower interpretation of that is given (speaking well, giving a good message - not including what we'd call "outreach"). Apostles, I'm not so sure about.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Apologies if this sounds a bit rambling, I know what I'm trying to say, not like me to be so inarticulate. I'm trying to (re)read things in a way that sets aside preconceived ideas and ancient wrong teaching; trying to find my own fresh take on things.
The answer is simple...because the things of God are simple. Even if deep.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Twinky......interesting thoughts. The example you gave regarding to whom Corinthians (both I and II ) is addressed brings up an example of what I mean re: not accepting all of Paul's writings as "revelation" to the entire Church of The Body of Christ for all time. It is obvious that the letters are addressed to specific groups of "believers", and certain elders and leaders in the Church at Corinth. Even if one accepts that all Paul is godbreathed, the content of most of what is in Corinthians still cannot honestly nor objectively be extrapolated and applied to the entire Body of Christ or generalized from the specifics addressed directly to the Church at Corinth. Paul had established the church there himself and would have been well aware of to whom he was writing regarding events, teachings, and "practical error". IMO, it is NOT proper or necessary to take specific "revelation" to specific churches and/or specific individuals and then generalize and expand it to apply to every church or individual Christian. Also, a matter so far overlooked here is, the Canon of the Scripture. Who decided which books were canonic and which ones were not? What about the Apocrypha? How was it determined which epistles, letters, etc. were to be canonized and accepted as "godbreathed" and which ones were not? What were the roles of the so-called "Church Fathers"? There were quite a few by 325 AD when Constantine converted his empire to Christianity. Here i found it necessary to read as much as i could about early church history, and read the works of Origen, the Gnostics, The Essenes, etc., in order to see for myself how the canonized Greek New Testament became so. This reading of discovery very much opened up my understanding of what SCRIPTURE actually is or might be. And, it disrupted the mind numbing info overload of Bullinger, Welch and dictor paul regarding ultradispensationalism and the inordinate emphasis on the Pauline Epistles. After reading a lot of the stuff i mentioned, i understood more fully why there are so many problems within seminary walls and textual research that a good number of seminary grads have a hard time believing any of the canonized NT beyond the 4 Gospels. Wierwille's theories of "biblical research" and research "principles" are so completely superficial, uninformed, and misguided as to be completely mocked by any authentic biblical scholars and trained textual critics. Even more so for the garbage the offshoots palm off as biblical "research, teaching, and fellowship", particularly schoenheit and jallyroll lynn. Plagiarists and fiction writers is what they all are. Carrying on the lies of twi, as well as making up a whole lot of momentus psycho-babble ...., christian spiritualism via their flagrant abuse of the "manifestation" of prophecy along with their own "hookypook" practice of "The Prophetic" relying totally on the visions, dreams, and acid-flasbacks of Ordained Prophets and Prophetesses of three self-defined tiers along with their Prophetic Councils for ALL major "leadership decisions'. Their misunderstanding of the "gift ministries" is as blatant and self-aggrandizing as anything dictor or any of the other "big denominations" espouse. And, remember, all that misunderstanding is based on private misinterpretation of the Pauline Epistles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
@ DWBH: what do you think about the above comment?
A further thought this morning: the OT prophets, such as they were, appear to have stood outside the formal synagogue or temple system. Not always - or even often - priests and Levites, just men getting on with life. Ordinary men to whom God spoke. One man who was in a priestly position (Zechariah) was struck dumb when God (via an angel) actually spoke to him. Jeremiah was the son of a priest, but is not noted as a priest himself; Isaiah makes no claims; Ezekiel was a priest; Amos was a shepherd; Daniel was an administrator... and so on.
What were the rabbis? Teachers... but with what credentials? Some clearly were of the "priestly" caste (Gamaliel, Paul) but Jesus, with no such creds, is also called Rabbi. Jesus's cousin John, was he called a rabbi? His father Z as noted was a priest, but John was noted as a "wild man" not for his priestly standing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
lol... that appears to make perfect sense, except I don't see the result as positively as you seem to.
This too, makes sense. What "private misinterpretation" of any scripture ever results in anything but misunderstanding?
However, this doesn't expose any problem with what's written in the Pauline Epistles - only problems in the interpretation, application and/or understanding of them.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Seems that having the right or proper title, authority, intellect or stature never guaranteed or entitled anyone participation in God's program (whatever it's been), not even Moses. (Tending sheep was one of lowliest occupations for a proper Egyptian, and evidently it took Moses about 40 years of doing just that after he thought he was ready to lead God's people out of Egypt before he was humble enough for God to work with him.) So yeah, there's plenty to be learned from scripture about how God has worked with man in times past. Perhaps certain things don't change much. But, God is sovereign, and other things (not without good reason) do.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Seeing there's no takers on my previous question, can't be there's much interest there. (But not much surprises me at this point.)
Nothing ventured nothing gained, I suppose.
Speaking of which, I may as well toss another casual thought or two into the ring.
From what is surmised at this point in time (being the kind of dispensationalist that I am), I'm somewhat inclined to think that apostleship is associated with the introduction of a specific gospel to a particular people of that day and time, and moreover (in a sense), perhaps their life is set forth as a compendium of the message they're to deliver. In other words, I don't necessarily see every apostle mentioned in scripture as being the same or equal to one another, especially if they are representative of different administrations and "good news" messages. (Not sure if these words communicate exactly what I think, but I'm not sure how else to say it any better or clearer. As mentioned, these are rather "casual" thoughts on the matter...)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
krys
I don't believe that's a fair statement (that there's not much interest). I myself can add nothing since I have no definition other than what we have from twi and/or a dictionary. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in what other posters may have to say OR the subject itself in general.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, it's a discussion. So it's not just "answers" that are sought or add value. There's plenty of room for any related or pertinent questions, comments, or thoughts (should they get stirred up), as they're often what lead to a better (even if less than complete) understanding. Jump in whenever and where ever you want, the water's fine. (But if it's too hot in the kitchen for you, well... no need to get cooked.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
From Blue Letter Bible:
Comments, anybody?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Again from Blue Letter Bible:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
I like what you've written, Twinky. It seems that it is an all encompassing definition.
I wonder if an apostle aso has other gifts as well. If he starts and establishes a new church, wouldn't he also need to be a gifted teacher? Pastor, and healer?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
So, the predominate thought and focus is whether a particular individual does or doesn't receive a certain gift?
When do you suppose it is (or would be) received?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
God is never late...but he doesn't have to be early either. Maybe it's given the split second it's needed...just as the individual wants to use it. (I have no advanced training or particular books anymore. But I have been thinking about this These are only my thoughts)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
It seems that one of the biggest shortcomings or failures in how most of us have tried to think about these gifts is in seeing them primarily as gifts to the individual rather than as gifts to the church. If or when thought of as something given to an individual, along with other issues, it begs the question of "when or how" does one get such a thing. However, if and when thought of as something given to the church, then your answer of when "it's needed" is reasonably simple and would seem to make the most sense - unless there's more involved than "need." As for the individual, well... at this point I'm inclined to think they are the gift, so it actually doesn't make much sense to me that something else is added or needs to be given to them - unless we're talking about the gift of righteousness (there is only one kind), which is given to all who are Christ's. (I suppose there's more behind why I think this way, but I don't have the time to go further into it right now. And yeah, I'm aware that Paul writes to Timothy about stirring up the gift. It's just not clear to me yet exactly what "gift" he might be referring to, and I can't say that I'm convinced that it specifically refers to a gift ministry... probably because I don't believe there's something else that "gets added" to the Christ within once he's living on the inside.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Now this is going to be difficult to write:
I absolutely believe these are gifts to the church. However...the individual uses or operates them for the benefit of the church.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Okay, but I don't get why that was difficult to write. If it's true that the individual uses or operates "it" (i.e., a gift), then do you see or think of it as something that is probably added to (or given in addition to) the spirit that is received when we first believed that God raised Christ from the dead? (I'm presuming that you see this as the event whereby we were adjoined to him.) Or, if you do not think of it as being anything "extra" that is added or given at some (or any) later point in time to the individual, then how do you account for it being something so different or special from what any other believer receives? How do (or might) you see or think of it being given or received?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
krys
I'm thinking.......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Sorry.....it's been awhile since I've looked at this thread.
Briefly reviewing, Twinky's posts on the mission of being an ambassador for Christ containing the potential inclusion of the 5 ministries was interesting to me. Certainly a possibility. Also, her references to The Blue Letter Bible well represent the traditional thinking regarding the literal meaning of apostolos in the Greek New Testament.
However, all of the discussion must of necessity, be confined to the Pauline Epistles since they are the only sections of the Bible that contain references to these "gifts" to and for the Saints, as Krys pointed out and TLC expanded upon. That's the main reason I have not had much to say. I have already stated that I do not regard all Pauline writings as either godbreathed nor as being the "apex of all revelation" to the Church of The Body of Christ. And, there have been volumes and volumes written about Paul's gift ministry paradigm, which, IMO, have co-opted and "set in stone" the basic understandings of these ministries (ways of serving) among the large majority of the established and mainstream denominational churches, as well as the smaller Pentecostal, Full Gospel, or independent mega ministries like Robertson, Baker, Roberts, and Graham had. It has become necessary to define and pidgeon-hole these ministries so these churches and associations etc., have something from the Bible to justify their very existence. They have to have their own brand, but they all need to establish why Christians should be paying THEM for their buildings, priests, ministers, elders, deacons, presbyters, overseers, pastors, seminaries, and all the incredible expenses that come along with all their properties, structures, and doctrines, and polities. So, the best legitimization tool they have are the Epistles attributed to Saul of Tarsus. So, necessity being the mother of invention, the Pauline letters to specific, individual churches or people must be broadened to apply to all Christians and Christian churches. I believe THAT to be a major fallacy among the entire Church. I believe that specific revelation at specific times to specific churches and/or individuals cannot and must not be broadened to apply to all Christians, nor the Church as a whole. Why would letters written to such specific places and people by anyone be given the status of godbreathed or revelation? Because necessity is the mother of invention.
All the early church knew about structure and polity and governance was the worship and service of the Aaronic priests and the other Levites in the Tabernacle and then The Temple in Jerusalem. So, properties, buildings, "employees" and "ministers" were not new to the Hebrews who were the very first converts to this new covenant. Christianity is an offshoot of of The religion of the Hebrews, Judaism. It's spiritual and doctrinal roots lie completely within Judaism. Jesus was a Jew! So were the Twelve, Paul, Barnabas. The new Jesus movement was Hebraic in culture, thought, and religion. That's the true underpinning of every Christian church building, service, and theology, IMO. It is also historical fact.
So.....what's my opinion? The gifts are to and for the Church, not the individual. I do not feel that is something additional to the new birth, indwelling of the incorruptible seed, Holy Spirit. I believe they are effected by and "sent by" the Ascended Jesus Christ at His discretion. Holy Spirit provides the vehicle for Christ to do so and be wherever He wants, Whenever He wants to be the Head of His Church. He is not limited nor is Holy Spirit. I believe He can provide whatever is necessary to shepherd and feed His flock for they hear His voice. He is the source of "revelation" to and in the Church, not the Father. He alone is The Boss, Il capo di capi tutti, The King, The Lord, the Head of His Church. He is the mediator between God and man, and the Intercessor for all the saints from the right hand of God's throne, not the Pope's Chair, or Canterbury's Archbishop, etc. There's only one Boss of all bosses to the Church and that's the man Christ Jesus. He IS The Word made flesh. He IS the full reflection of the nature, glory, and perfection of God for all time. HE can do anything and everything necessary to take care of His Body regardless of who's believing or not believing.
I trust The Boss to take care of His family and the family business. He is NOT at the mercy of my belief or unbelief. He is NOT absent, stuck at the right hand of God until we're all done amassing all the rewards we can trying to do His job. If he wants to talk to a squirrel (Ham) or a dolphin or a chimp he can. If He wants to talk to you, He can. If he wants to energize miracles and healings, He can. If He needs an Apostle, he'll send one. If he needs prophets He'll send some. You won't need "definitions" to recognize these folks because you shall know them by the fruit of the Spirit they produce in their service. A bad tree cannot yield good fruit and a good tree cannot yield bad fruit. He is the vine and we are the branches. He don't need no stinkin' Way tree or clergy badges (name tags and titles). He does not need help "moving" His Word. He IS the Word. He has his own hands and feet and does not need our's to do His work for Him or take His place. That's blasphemous. We need Him. We can trust Him. And, best of all we have Him and He has us. We don't need no stinkin' clergy unless He says we do. And if we do, The Boss will send them. That's my 2 cents of preaching for this Easter Sunday. Thanks for reading! I look forward to your insights and opinions...........peace.
Edited by DontWorryBeHappyLink to comment
Share on other sites
krys
I'm so sorry this is so late. I've had internet and connectivity issues.
The best way for me to answer this will not follow your lead exactly in order. I don't think of it as static but rather energetic. Let me give an example:
It's like a body of water with one pipe leading in and at least 1,probably more than that leads out. All the in-flowing pipes carry the same volume of water. The owner of the reservoir can decide where the water goes and how much to put there. There could be several outflowing pipes but the circulation depends on the owner of the reservoir. He could add pipes for a time, or slow or stop the flow in some others I'm not particularly concerned whether God or JesusChrist does the filling because for the purpose of this discussion itdoesn't matter.
I think the individual believer is recognized by the trail he leaves...well taught individuals, healed individuals, and so on recognized by the greener grass (by their fruits...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
While I certainly don't agree with your take on the Pauline epistles (as I regard them as scripture), I am inclined to mostly agree with all of the above statements. However, it appears that we also significantly differ on how they use the Bible to endorse (or as you say below, legitimize) these things.
Personally, I think the major issue was the failure to recognize Paul's calling as the start of a new dispensation (and not the day of Pentecost - as taught by vpw, twi, and its the offshoots - nor after Acts 28, as taught by hyperdispensationists such as Bullinger.) Consequently, much of the political and authoritarian structure in (modern) Christian denominations and churches appears to initially stem from Judaism and from times long before these new revelations to Paul (which were received directly from the ascended Christ.) The diligent and concerted efforts to meld and blend together the gospel of the kingdom (which primarily concerned Israel) with the gospel of grace (which Paul introduced) resulted in the need to also blend together the message (and ministries) that Paul spoke of with the message (and practice) of the 12 apostles in Acts 2 and following. (And THAT is what I believe to be a major fallacy among what was and is still taught most places.)
And yet, you're against dispensationalism. Seems nearly ironic.
I should have read further in your post (and seen the above.) That was my basic point. (Though we seem to differ on any beneficial effects of it) Thank you.
(And I mostly agree with the rest of your post - though not all. When time allows, perhaps I'll say more.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I've tried to consider this several different times or ways, but I still can't seem to make much sense out of it. When you say "it's like a body of water"... does "it" refer to a gift ministry, or to spirit? And if to spirit, which spirit? The Christ? (which is what I would presume.)
Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining... and possibly adding some other way to express what you mean.
(And thanks for your effort to "flesh it out.")
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Oh dear. My writing skills have gone to hell in a hand basket for lack of use.[sorry
/>]I wasn't sure about any of this until after I followed your line of questions and DWBH's essay. It was necessary for me to read them and think about what both of you wrote several times, and I don't know if I was beginning to see things the way they seemed to be laid out, or if I became convinced, but now I think I have a better handle on it.
The "It" is the spirit from Christ. I envision it as having energy. That is why I think of it as moving water. We all have the same sized reservoir and the input is the same because God is not a respecter of persons. The "pipe" carrying it in is the same size and the flow rate is the same.We as individuals can decide where we would like to use this spirit and how much we'd like to put into each of these areas. We are all different people so we have different strengths and desires.
Maybe someone is adept at organization. Perhaps he decides to use his spirit to help people in this way. Maybe he wants to assist the church in this area. Maybe God lays it on his heart to do so. Either way, he becomes adept enough that people notice his skill (it is his fruit) and follow him around asking for his assistance. I don't know for a fact that this is how it works, but I'm suggesting it as a possibility.
I do believe that if the spirit isn't being used, it becomes stagnant and then is of no use at all. (I remember the parable of the talents and the man who hid his away and had nothing to give back to his master and how angry the master was that his talent (the gift) wasn't used.) Someone may have a desire to heal. He may pray for guidance in how to do it, maybe he studies other examples or asks others he knows for help. Sooner or later he becomes quite skilled and he becomes known for his fruit.
I hope this makes better sense. However.....
God has given the gifts and it appears the way I've written this, that the individual may make himself into a gift the way I've described it. That is kind of presumtive....don't you think? Maybe both ways work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
no worries. (shoot, I've read things that I wrote years ago and... well, I won't bother to tell you how bad it was! I'm still working on it...)
Okay, let's stop right there and consider that.
If the "it" is from Christ, then I take it that you don't exactly see or think of "it" as being Christ in you. Or do you? What does that phrase of "Christ in you" mean, exactly? Is Christ present within you? ...Or only something (i.e., whatever "it" is) that comes from or is sent by him? How did or do you think about it?
(I'll back up to think about and consider the rest of your analogy afterwards...)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.