| Poster | Thread | ZekeO
Member
Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
| | Re: | | Quote:
philologos wrote:
My apologies if this comes over strongly. I did tell you that this topic was one of my passions! :-?
I respect your eye for scriptural integrity, and we are both after all looking for Jesus in Truth. So your apology is not accepted, because there was no offence taken.;-)
Blessings,
_________________
Zeke Oosthuis
|
|  2004/11/10 15:17 | Profile | ZekeO
Member
Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
| | Re: | | Quote:
philologos wrote:
Barnabas and Paul had already been called, now it was time for the church to release them.
Paul makes sense enough but when was Barnabas called?
]Now there were [b]in Antioch[/b], in the assembly which was there [b],[/b] prophets and teachers[b]:[/b] Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius the Cyrenian, and Manaen, foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. [b]And as they were ministering[/b] to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me now Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them. [/b] (Act 13:1-2 Darby)
Quote:
It does not say that God spoke through one of these. The word of God came into the assembly, we are not told the channel. Leaders often presume that it must have been another leader but there is not evidence to support that view.
Seriously Ron, my English may be mixture of allot of other tongues but the context of the [b]they[/b] has to be the gentelmen mentioned proceeding it.:-?
Quote:
The were not 'sent' by church or by the other three. They obeyed the word of God and released them.
Exactly, but it more has to do with the fact the church leadership were in agreement that these men were indeed called/sent by God and not there own ideas.
Quote:
They were not commissioned by the other three or by the church; they were commissioned by God.
I agree, but they were sent from that local church with that local churches blessing, not as lose canons.
Quote:
They were called, commissioned and despatched by the Holy Spirit.
I agree, but I sense the differences in our understanding is that God works with his church in fulfilling his purpose. The leadership in that church it seems had pretty good grip on the Holy Spirit and hearing his voice, so they just endorsed what was already happening. The church universal hasn't always been so disconnected from the head as much as it appears to day. She did at one stage listen to what the head was saying.
Quote:
other than that I agree with everyword you wrote. :-D
Great, I enjoy your juice :-D
_________________
Zeke Oosthuis
|
| | 2004/11/10 15:43 | Profile | ZekeO
Member
Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
| | Re: | | philologos wrote:
This is not biblical revelation; it is a 21st century view of the 1st century church described by project managers.
In a business sense you are right, the church is a family.
Quote:
Paul had no strategy, nor a plan.
Acts 16:7 When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus [b]would not allow them to.[/b]
Indicates that they had some plan, which was not on Gods plan. I think I have just progressed to splitting an Atom. :-)
Quote:
These are 21st century project management templates imposed onto a historical record of spontaneous expansion in the power of the Spirit.
So you are saying that the concept of team is only a 21st Century idea in business? The devil cannot create anything, he can only counterfeit the reality that comes from God. In Genesis 1:26 'Let [b]us[/b] make man...' we see the first instance of more that one being involved in a project. The Godhead is the most perfect team/family that is.
Team originated with God, not dead men.
_________________
Zeke Oosthuis
|
| | 2004/11/10 16:03 | Profile | dohzman
Member
Joined: 2004/10/13
Posts: 2132
| | Re: | | From the heart,here goes----I've seen all the fades come and go and come and go since the Jesus movement.Now its labels.I cringe everytime I'm introduced. I've come to the conclusion the the finial words spoken are always the best -----to hear Jesus say well done thou good and faithful SERVANT,enter into the joy of the Lord.What's wrong with just being a servant.I 've come to the point where I don't want a title, I don't want people looking at the giftings that seem to operate through my life and based on these label me this or that. My only desire is to be a servant obedient to my Lord Jesus Christ. Titles I think are an Americanism, And the church in America is in deep trouble.If there were men who were true prophets and apostles going around in America right now with the same authority as the NT apostles did I 'm afraid many American Ministers would drop over dead right where they stand as the judgement of God came to vindicate His Holy Word.
_________________
D.Miller
|
| | 2004/11/10 16:06 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Hi ZekeO
Glad you're taking it like this. I thought I might have been a little too strident. :-o
Quote:
Paul makes sense enough but when was Barnabas called?
I don't know. I only know it says 'whom I have called' and that it is in the perfect tense, hence not 'I am calling' or 'I will call' but 'I have called' at some time in the past.
Quote:
Seriously Ron, my English may be mixture of allot of other tongues but the context of the they has to be the gentelmen mentioned proceeding it.
Sometimes you can't tie the pronoun in to the nearest noun in bible language. Here is the classic demonstration of this; [b]Then the angel of the LORD went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses. [/b] (Isa 37:36 KJV):-D Although I've certainly had a few mornings that seemed pretty much like that.
Quote:
Exactly, but it more has to do with the fact the church leadership were in agreement that these men were indeed called/sent by God and not there own ideas.
Why do you refer to these 5 men as the church leadership? You are projecting 21st century contemporary church patterns into these verses. The amazing thing is that God so respects the local church that He would not take Barnabas and Paul without the church's permission. He is certainly determined that we be part of His will.
Quote:
I agree, but they were sent from that local church with that local churches blessing, not as lose canons.
No they weren't 'sent' by that local church at all. They were released by the local church and sent by God. This is my main point. Your pattern-church is not what your exposition claims it to be. It is a much looser thing all together.
Quote:
I agree, but I sense the differences in our understanding is that God works with his church in fulfilling his purpose. [u]The leadership in that church[/u] it seems had pretty good grip on the Holy Spirit and hearing his voice, so they just endorsed what was already happening. The church universal hasn't always been so disconnected from the head as much as it appears to day. She did at one stage listen to what the head was saying.
No. ;-) they didn't endorse anything. They just did what they were told. They just cut the umbilical cord and let them go. And we know nothing at all about the leadership of that church.
If your group are saying this is the way God is leading us, I have no complaints. If they are saying this is what the Bible teaches, then I have to oppose it. These conclusions have not been reached by exegesis and exposition but by conjecture. What they have produced is a hypothesis on the topic of first century church pattern. I believe that hypothesis is flawed at every point.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2004/11/10 18:01 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
Acts 16:7 When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to.
Indicates that they had some plan, which was not on Gods plan. I think I have just progressed to splitting an Atom.
An intention is not a plan. A plan is a premeditated policy with a strategy to implement it. Paul is just testing whether this is the right thing to do. The word translated 'tried' is nearly always translated 'test' or 'tempt' in the New Testament. I have no doubt that Paul wanted to go. When he put it to the test, God said no. This just the next step and as Paul tried to take it God said 'no'.
Quote:
So you are saying that the concept of team is only a 21st Century idea in business? The devil cannot create anything, he can only counterfeit the reality that comes from God. In Genesis 1:26 'Let us make man...' we see the first instance of more that one being involved in a project. The Godhead is the most perfect team/family that is.
Team originated with God, not dead men.
The jargon of the project manager betrays itself again here. Teams have leaders; is there a bible word for 'leader'. Is there a bible word for 'leadership'? What's wrong with co-labourers? The placing and interplay of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, within the framework you defined has behind it the skeleton of a gentile power structure. The Lord expressly declared that His kingdom would not be run in this way. The Godhead is not a team; the Godhead is fellowship.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2004/11/10 18:20 | Profile | ZekeO
Member
Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
| | Re: | | Quote:
philologos wrote:
Glad you're taking it like this. I thought I might have been a little too strident.
Like I've said, I have notes. They are not my opinions or ideas and I would like to think that its truth from the word. One of our values is that the church is an organism, so if there is error in understanding or application, the faith that I have in the 'leadership' of the 'team' is that they would have left behind those things which are unhelpful.:-)
It actually comes from our leadership manuals, maybe things have changed in understanding in fifteen years, because the information that I have posted was written in 1989. Thats why it is in this forum. Is the application of the word in keeping of the spirit of scripture. I think I may start a thread on leadership as that seems to be the next line of thinking, and it is suject so vast on its own.
Enjoy your day. :-D
_________________
Zeke Oosthuis
|
| | 2004/11/10 22:53 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
I think I may start a thread on leadership as that seems to be the next line of thinking, and it is suject so vast on its own.
We did touch on the subject a little earlier, but it might be good to start again.Early Church Leadership
Quote:
They are not my opinions or ideas and I would like to think that its truth from the word.
Is the application of the word in keeping of the spirit of scripture.
The reason I came on so strong is that the whole summary of spiritual authority, as expressed in your manual, is presumptious and has no basis in the biblical revelation.
The best that we could aim for in this sense is a hypothesis which is 'consistent with the spirit of the word'. Every group has justified its 'church pattern' by reference to the scripture. The real challenge would be to identify patterns of church life from the scripture itself rather than ask 'is what my church does consistent with the scripture'. When we attempt that we shall have to challenge every received concept. Notions of hierarchy are built into everything human and church history and even our bibles versions have been infected with that concept.
The real question is what is the scriptural concept of authority (rather than leadership)?
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2004/11/11 2:50 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | I came across this extract from Vine's Expository Dictionary this morning.
[u]apoluo[/u] "to set free, to let go," is translated "to send away" in Matt_14:15,22,23; Mark_6:36,45; Mark_8:3,9; Luke_8:38; Acts_13:3, where the "sending" is not that of commissioning, but of letting go, intimating that they would gladly have retained them (contrast [u]ekpempo[/u], the act of commissioning by the Holy Spirit in Acts_13:4).
This is the word which the KJV, with its hierarchical power philosophy, translates as 'sent'; [b]And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they [u]sent[/u] them away. So they, [u]being sent[/u] forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. [/b] (Act 13:3-4 KJV)
1. the first 'sent' is apoluO
2. the second 'being sent' is ekpempO - to despatch.
The Lord said, 'Cut them loose'
The church 'released' them.
The Holy Spirit 'despatched' them.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2004/11/11 3:50 | Profile | ZekeO
Member
Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
| | Re: | | Quote:
philologos wrote:
The real question is what is the scriptural concept of authority (rather than leadership)?
Vines has some interesting things to say about authority, and I am looking forward to disecting the word. If anything you are making me look for myself, which can only be good. Truth embraced, leads to a conviction that moves. So thanks! :-D
_________________
Zeke Oosthuis
|
| | 2004/11/11 15:01 | Profile |
|
